Studio: international art (1.1893)

Is the Camera the Friend or Foe of Art f

I hardly think we are yet in a position to pronounce
on the effect of the camera on art for good or evil
on the whole, since its true use in relation to art
has not yet been determined.

In painting, so far as photography has taken the
place of other studies, and has induced the painter
to consciously attempt photographic renderings of
fact and aspect, the effect has been for evil to my
mind, as the scientific registering of certain facts
and accidents of aspect is one thing, and the
selection, treatment, and feeling—the impression,
in short, of the painter's mind—quite another.

So far as photographs are used, like all other
material, as sources of study and suggestion, they
are helpful to both painter and designer alike.
Photography, of course, has its own distinct and
peculiar beauty, just as creative art has; and I
believe, in the long run, the camera will do good
service in defining the essential difference between
imitative and inventive art.—Very faithfully yours,

Walter Crane.

13 Holland Street, W.

From Mr. G. du Maurier.

Sir,—In answer to your letter I regret to say that
I have been unable as yet to form any opinion on
the question of the influence of photography on art.
It seems to me a large question, and one requir-
ing much thought and experience before one can
have and express any opinion about it. Should
one occur to me I will send it.—Faithfully yours,

G. du Maurier.
New Grove House, Hampstead, N.W.

From Mr. Alfred East, R.I.

Sir,—It is doubtful if photography is of much
practical advantage to the painter of landscape. If
it saves him the trouble of going to Nature for the
details of the foreground of his picture, it would
deprive him of the knowledge he would gain of the
character and colour of those details were he to go
to Nature herself. The camera, having no power
of selection, records with the same prominence
vulgar forms as well as the refined ; the aim of the
artist, on the contrary, is to select only what will
illustrate his theme, and the suitability of the selec-
tion is one of the greatest qualities of his art.

It is even doubtful if the instantaneous record
of the movements of animals and birds and the
reflections in moving water are as useful to the
artist as they are interesting to the scientific, for if
the pose of an animal or bird was taken by the
camera at a point where the eye could not follow,
the result would be, not the sense of movement,

but of inanition. It is the suggestion of sus-
tained action that the artist desires to obtain, for
■ that suggests vitality. If the leaves of trees at a
certain distance, were painted rigidly against a sky,
they would appear artificial, but if the artist could
suggest that they were moving, he would at the
same time suggest life and so be more like Nature.
There is a kind of painting, which resembles
photography, called " still life." I do not under-
stand its meaning. It is a contradiction of terms,
for nothing is still that lives. Life is the greatest
and most beautiful fact of Nature. Does the
photographic camera help him here ? I think not ;
but in different fields the camera has brought us
benefits I should be the last to deny.—Yours faith-
fully,

Alfred East.

4 Grove End Road, N.W.

From Mr. J. L. Nettleship.

Dear Sir,—In my experience, photographs of
animals in action are a pure gain in so far as they
enable one to analyse the action—i.e., learn how it
is produced. But they are very seldom of use to
copy from, because they record only a part of a
movement which is perceived by the eye as a whole.
In this branch of the subject convention should be
the result of observation by the quickest and keenest
eyes, and to these the camera can be nothing but a
benefit, as helping and verifying observation ; but
an undiscerning use of (say) Mr. Muybridge's
plates would be worse than any existing convention,
while faulty or careless observation needs no camera
to detect it. As to animals in repose or slight
action, it is needless to mention the service done
by the photographs of Henry Dixon,* Gambier,
Bolton, and Anschutz in discrediting the artistic
wild beasts of the past.—Yours faithfully,

J. T. Nettleship.

58 Wigmore Street, W.

From Mr. James Orrock, R.I.

Sir,—Photography is of great use for reference
in architecture, ornamentation, designs of all kinds
on wood, metals, fabrics, &c. When colour is
wanted it is, of course, of no value.

Photography is also of service for reference to
artistic manuscripts, signs, and signatures. Painters,
especially landscape painters, sometimes use it, by

* By the kindness of Messrs. H. Dixon & Co. we are
permitted to reproduce two of the photos to which Mr.
Nettleship refers, on pp. 95, 9G of this number.—Ed.

IOI