Essay on art and photography

by A. V. Sutton

Having sketched the early struggles which Photography had to surmount to claim a high place for its followers, we now proceed to examine its distinguishing features. In scrutinizing the works of even the greatest artists of our day, we are sure to find some fault—some error. Why is it that imperfection should exist even in works of the highest rank, grand in conception, beautiful in execution, rich in modulation, truthfulness of outline and form, and harmonious in colouring? For the simple reason, that true excellence can only be found in composition pictures where the creative mind of the artist has been free to labour in accordance with its own poetic fancy, and when such perfection exists in portraiture without the aid of Photography, it will indeed be an exception!

When the practical eye of an artist takes up a Work of Art, he at once recognizes the forte of the genius in some one particularity. Say for instance one artist may excel in the master-stroke of execution, and by a few strokes of the brush give much more artistic and life-like effect than another would by hours of close application and the minutest finish—the difference between these two artists being that the one was a true born artist, and the other a lover of the art—simply one who had acquired its mechanism from untiring study and practice. We will again find others who excel in the amalgamation of colours, others for composition, others for costumes and drapery—others for the delicacy and transparency of the flesh tones; and we might still further attempt to specify their various fortes of particular excellence, by dissecting the human forms and classify them by their technical terms in anatomy. For instance, I have known artists who have excelled in the execution of a face, and yet fail in the representation of the hair—all their heads conveying to the observer an idea that they were wigged! In other productions we are at once made sensible that the artist has one ideal for a nose, and if the picture represents innumerable figures, they are all possessed of the same type of nasal organ! In others again, we find the artist manifest in some peculiarity in the eye or in the mouth; but it is not any of these artistic individualities we ask for when we are desirous of possessing a faithful likeness of some loved one, nor do we care to find as we scan their well-remembered features, the artist’s ideal of a nose, an eye, a mouth, a chin, or some other member, in place of its, perhaps, more homely characteristic. In nature we are daily witnessing how the various types of features, at once the most classic and homely—highest and lowest, come to mingle so congruously in one face, but such as nature has thought fit to endow us, such do we want to be faithfully and accurately delineated, and if such combination of distinctive specialities of art are required for portraiture, which is rarely, if ever, found individually, then how inestimable is the aid of Photography! Many are under the impression that its process exaggerates to such an extent that the object or subject reproduced is figuratively distorted, which constituted the opprobium attached to its productions. This is a mistake. If the operator uses a first-class instrument, and sufficiently large to secure the same perfect definition at the extreme margin of the plates as in the centre, and regulated by the diaphragm with space sufficient for the required length of focus, no aberation or distortion will be visible. But if a questionable lens is used, and the aperture too small for the flatness of “field” required, then the whole model will be more or less distorted; its receding lines obtruding as to become perfectly blurred and indistinct; the shadows black, without detail, and the lights hard and flat. But let it be remembered that this Essay is entirely confined to the aspirants to Art in its higher branches. Photography in the hands of a lover of its art, initiated in the theory and practical knowledge of its science, would not waste valuable time in the production of such enormities. We have, therefore, only to deal with its advantages in its higher order of execution; or if we deviate a while from our theory, it is but to confirm our arguments, and give the reader an opportunity to discriminate for himself between the two. But to return to the fallacy of portraiture being confined to the erroneous pencil of the deceitful imagination of an artist possessing one or more only of those capabilities essential to the production of the truthfulness of individuality. How can it be expected that he can pourtray, from a few short sittings taken from nature, to be afterwards finely finished from memory with that unerring accuracy that the Photograph identifies? I have never yet seen a portrait painted from life that conveyed the idea of life. As the eye rests upon the canvas, the mind at once feels that artificially life has been attempted to be represented, even when the likeness has been so striking as to draw from the observers an exclamation of “how like,” and in its artistic merits “how beautiful.” But the absence of that individuality which casts an air of naturalness in the Photographic production is lost in the creative picture, and the cold statue-like aspect which is conventual in Art, in no way associates the mind with a sentiment of familiarity in the past or present, as the case may be. Then how is it, it may be asked, that an artist who has given to the world works of surpassing excellence—standard models for future ages—is yet incapable of adapting himself to pourtray the simplicity of real life as it is? Why cannot the artist thus enabled to invest the imaginary characters of his works with all the sparkling vivacity of life, identify the same in portraiture? To solve this problem we must glance and circumspectly dwell for a time on the personal characteristics of artists. Not that we would suppose, or would wish to suggest that fac-similar traits are hereditary to the born artist; but as countries are remarkable for their individual nationalities, so are the peculiarities in the temperament of an artist. We might without offence notify it by calling it eccentricity, for it has been said that genius and eccentricity are inseparable. The active and creative mind of an artist is ever busy arranging subjects for his art. If not drawn from Scriptural, historical, or poetical sources, it is from some grand scene of nature memory has conjured up as he treads, the path of life, ruminating with all the fancy of the imaginative poet buried in those early dreams yet to be realised in the various phases of life in some poetic fashion, glowing resplendently, as personified in the mock Tableau Vivants of his conception, at a future day to be developed upon a piece of canvas cloth, and embodied in all the beauty and vigour of life; its characters standing out in bold relief so prominent in their varied and natural imitation, that you might fancy they were in reality breathing the very breath of life!

Thus left to conceive and portray by the inspired hand of genius without the fastidious or exacting interference of his patrons, the artist will assuredly be successful, perhaps beyond his most sanguine expectations, but once interfere with him, the spell is broken, and once compel him to make alterations against his will, not only will you find his touches niggardly, but they are given without firmness, force, or effect. The touches might be given at random, for any advancement of their creative merit; his ideas are, in fact, crippled, and if that picture is ever completed, the eye and mind will at once intuitively feel that there is a want, and that want will be inspiration.

The ideas of an artist are irreproachable and impassable. Once confined, his own conceptions swayed, his capabilities are disabled; mind and hand must be as free as the wind of heaven, unshackled by prejudice or importunities.

Having thus solved the problem why artists cannot adapt themselves to follow nature in its identical peculiarities, the same reasons likewise explain the necessity why Art and Photography should be combined, a consumation still more desirable in the art of portraiture, where the artist, perforce, is made obedient to the truth of reality.

The portrait thus conveyed by Photography, is not only an immense saving of time, labour and trouble, both to artist and sitter, by being enabled to secure individuality, but the variety of talent required for an artist to execute a portrait from life, is thus adequately balanced.

In the “Operating” Department another stamp of artistic merit is required—“Conception,”—the eye being called upon in every way to arrange such pictorial effect that its every production may be in themselves studies. Thus has the felicitious combination of Science and Art become irrevocably united—each depending upon the other for success. The latter is, as I have before remarked, distinguished for its unerring accuracy of drawing in all its individual properties and shading; the former for imparting all the glowing warmth of nature; and this inestimable acquisition has likewise invoked a higher, purer, and simpler standard for the truthful representation of contemporaneous life, by unavoidably adhering to the reality of nature, surrounding, in place of being personified, in some fantastic guise or otherwise poetic myth.

Art, in the present age, stands conspicuous for its great achievements in Truthfulness, which has been guided and assisted by the aid of the Camera. Perspective, the great key to Art, was fabulous before Photography was introduced; and by its aid what perfection has it not obtained, not only is distance mathematically exact, but the round, soft, accuracy of light and shade in nature, is most beautifully defined!

Photography not only aids and assists the Fine Arts, but gives invaluable aid to Architecture, Astronomy, Geology, Mineralogy, Science of Chemistry, Physiology, Literature, and numberless sciences, and likewise what the human eye is incapable of discerning, the microscope reveals and Photography delineates. Thus are we supplied with copies perfected by its aid, of every work of art, ancient and modern, thus multiplied and preserved for generations to come. We will now glance, in conclusion, upon the defects which have tended to constitute that opprobrium attached to the productions of photographic portraits by the public in general. The opinion that Photography exaggerates to such an excess that, the lineaments it has pourtrayed are quite distorted, or that five or ten years have suddenly been added to a “sitter’s” age, and their youth apparently eclipsed by the lines being, perhaps, too harshly defined, and the shadows too strongly marked, adding innumerable furrows, reverential and admired in old age, but despised in youth! This defect is most easily obviated, and no one who loves his profession will consent to such over-printed copies going out into the world, for it is by the after process that this defect exists, and not in the actual taking of the photograph, unless the subject is very badly lighted, which will occur when there is too much or too little light. It is possible to print a proof until all the details, even in the high lights, are entirely obliterated, and the likeness scarcely discernable. But this is entirely the fault of the artist. Care must be taken that each impression is carefully watched, and printed according to scale; this undoubtedly requires the most exacting patience and perseverance; but with untiring care expended upon each impression not the slightest trace of exaggeration will be visible, every shade and detail will be rich in the soft rotundity which nature rejoices in.

These few short hints, and brief and explanatory statements of General Art Principles, may, we trust, be found enlightening and useful to all supporters of Fine Art, not forgetting that a small grain of seed often becomes a goodly tree; let us not trample its first tender shoots beneath our feet, in contempt at its feeble efforts to obtain expansion, as it breaks from its mother bed of soil to imbibe the freshness of the dew-drops and the glorious sunbeam of day. No!—let us by careful training assist its maturity by removing from its path any noxious weeds that spring up spontaneously, and by the same method of cultivation eradicate the evils that threaten to sap its tender youth.