Essay on art and photography

by A. V. Sutton

ESSAY.

When Photography was first introduced, it met with a severe struggle ere gaining the esteem it now happily enjoys. Artists of all grades unanimously condemned it, looking upon it only in the light of a vehicle that would carry destruction to their own especial pursuits, while on those who attempted to practice and advance it fell anathemas and ridicule. So great was professional prejudice, and so blind in its apprehension, that it dexterously and successfully biased and enlisted the opinion of the Press in its favour, which echoed the assertions that, under the most favourable circumstances, “Photography could only be a caricature of the subject it portrayed.” Thus was the combination of Art and Science for a time checked in its progress, and the artists, now exulting in having temporarily attained their purpose, watched jealously the science of chemistry, and depreciated as useless any further inquiry that seemed to encourage or aid Photography.

The great body of the public, as usual in all such cases, remained neutral, but fortunately, for the advancement of the new art, there remained a few who were more sanguine than their cotemporaries, and generously bestowed their sympathy on the “oppressed.” They saw in Photography, a great science, then but in its infancy, but which must ultimately compete with the finer arts; its peculiar adaptation in copying rendering it still more valuable, not only to artists, in furthering their own success, by securing truthfulness and accuracy, but likewise in all the various usages to which it has since been so successfully applied. Too numerous to attempt to specify here.

At the period we speak of, Photography was entirely confined to that class of illiterate men who only pursued it to benefit by its novelty, and like everything new, particularly when added to cheapness, produced a great amount of bad taste and unpardonable vulgarity. It is, no doubt, an art which is peculiarly liable to be perverted to base and immoral uses, but now that better taste prevails, no such fears need be entertained. All classes of society have been benefited by Photography; it has been a generous friend to the poor as well as to the rich, and all must acknowledge its superior advantages and merits. Not only has it been fostered and liberally supported by the munificence of kings, but also in the more humble walks of life has it been welcomed as a benefactor. Its patrons of all grades have not only derived pleasure from the novelty of its fascinations, but inexpressible consolation from the souvenirs it affords of cherished places, and the memory of those loved ones who may be far away, or sleeping the “sleep of death.”

It would indeed be deplorable if an art so consecrated to all that is noble, pure, generous and holy, were again to be jeopardised by the association of bad taste and worse usages. In England we are fortunately protected from such an evil; but in other countries, particularly in France, it still exists to an alarming extent, and until the authorities there adopt the same measure of punishment as with us, no one can walk the streets without being subjected to some gross outrage against propriety and moral feeling. Photography, therefore, has a double claim upon our affections—to preserve it unscathed and unsullied, when we find it diverted into new channels that may endanger its purity and legitimate usefulness. An art which assists the memory and educates the taste is entitled to encouragement, the more particularly, when by its aid we can recall in privacy the happy hours suggested by the contemplation of the sure-reflected lineaments of a doating mother, an affectionate sister, a tender loving wife, or a fond and innocent child.

One great reason why Photography is so frequently applied to unworthy purposes is, owing to its cheapness, for, where there is a supply of anything novel, combined with cheapness, patrons will present themselves. This is a public weakness which is to be regretted, for although competition may be consistent with the “spirit of the age,” it is an unpardonable error when cheapness is resorted to as a means to success, in place of trying to excel by artistic or superior merits alone.

In no stage of Photography have we been further advanced and initiated into the grand applications of its science than by the introduction of the “paper process;” it presented to the mind of the photographer a channel for experimentalising and uniting art proper with his own, for previously the word Art was foreign to the ear of the professional photographer; all that was deemed essential in the pursuit was that you should acquire a knowledge how to produce a photograph free from all the optical and chemical defects. Light was only studied to secure the image with brilliancy on the plate, of the subject or object about to be copied. If it came out clear, clean, and sharp, the operator was delighted with his success—its artistic merits were never consulted; no question asked whether the face came out with the rich, soft, rotundity of nature; whether the light and shade had given tone and gradation, to add harmony to the picture; whether the line of the head had been carried to prevent awkwardness to the figure; whether the eyes did not look askance to the pose of the head; its artistic superiorities, in fact, were never looked for, which explains why, at that period, photographs were taken, as a general rule, simply head-bust, most commonly called vignettes, or as the Americans would term it, ambrotype. Such were the productions of the “Glass Age.” But from the time the “paper process” established itself, Photography at once took its place among the finer arts, and having gained the victory, the artists that had disdainfully resented its popularity, ventured to advance into the new field of enterprise, and not only were they delighted in procuring such an auxiliary, but they laboured in trying to improve the application of its science to Portraiture. Though painting renders the chemical result subordinate, and likewise subservient to the skill of the artist, when removed from the pressure frame to the easel, yet in no way does it depreciate Photography as an art which is necessary to assist in securing with unerring accuracy of outline momentary indications of character, expression of face, and costume, consisting of numberless and minute details; all of which are at once portrayed on a tablet of glass reflected through the Camera; and which, if not satisfactory to the mind of the operator, he may arrange according to his own artistic taste, judgment and skill, with a view of securing pictorial effect and individual character.

It would be utterly impossible to estimate the advantages Photography has conferred upon all mankind, or to anticipate the still greater wonders it is yet destined to achieve.