M. Adam Salomon, a sculptor of ability, a Chevalier of the Legion of Honour, took the photographic world by storm, by his portraits exhibited at the Paris Exhibition of 1867, and he continued to practise it up to within a short time of his death. Let the best sculptors and painters be asked how they regard photography—especially when they are at work on posthumous works. Finally we will give here an opinion on photography as written by an able landscape painter—namely, T. F. Goodall.
“Photography has undoubtedly played an important part in the development of modern art, both in figure and landscape. In landscapes we are inclined to think that the influence of photography was for a time hurtful, for this reason, painters were apt to emulate the detail of the photograph, and lose the breadth of man’s view of Nature in consequence. They did not take into account the fact that the lens commonly used was a more powerful mechanism than the human eye, or that it reproduced at once every detail of a scene with more distinctness on the plate than the eye would on the retina, even if the attention was concentrated on one part only at a time, and that therefore the resulting picture was not a true representation of Nature, as impressed on the mind by human vision. But for artistic purposes this may be remedied, and it appears to us that photographers must take the point into consideration if they would use the camera as a means of artistic expression. Hitherto the chief aim of the photographer seems to have been a biting sharpness of detail in the negative, which is generally quite fatal to the result from an artistic point of view, for in breadth lies the beauty and sentiment of landscape. To produce a picture the photographer must select his lens and adjust his focus, so as to get an expression as nearly identical with the visual one as possible, and he must print in such good tone as will give the closest approximation to the values in nature. In all these matters the result will depend on the taste and intelligence of the author, and bear the impress of his mind. If that be commonplace, his negative will be so also; if artistic, so will be his picture. There is no reason why photography, in capable hands, may not be made a means of interpreting nature second only in value to painting itself, destined to supersede all other black and white methods in bringing an extended knowledge of and taste for art to the masses of the people. The prejudice existing against photography arises from the fact that hitherto it has been worked merely as a mechanical process; but if by results it can show that it is worthy, it will rank as a fine art. Dr. Emerson was the first to advocate rationally the claims of photography to this distinction, and, artists will admit, has by his subsequent work made good his position so far as his own productions are concerned. There should be a great future for photography if followed on really artistic lines. It should be hailed as a most powerful ally by the modern school of painting, as by means of it people may be taught to perceive how false are many of the pictures they believe in, and how much more beautiful and interesting is truth. From an art-educational point of view its value can scarcely be overrated; much has been done, by photogravure and other processes of reproduction, to spread a knowledge of pictures, and there is no reason why the same methods should not be used for original work. A good photogravure is to be preferred to a bad painting or second rate engraving, and is incomparably better than the odious chromos and wretched prints with which so many walls are disfigured.
If, instead of being satisfied with mere topographical views or foreground sketches, the photographer has cultivated artistic feeling, means are at his command for communicating to others what has impressed himself, and he may produce work of permanent value. Everything depends on what he finds to say and how he tells it. If the operator has artistic insight, it will show itself in his negative, just as it would on his canvas, if he were a painter. The mechanical and chemical processes, the practical judgment necessary in timing his exposures, the skill and knowledge necessary in developing his plates; these are his technique; but the art value of the result will depend on what he communicates to us by its aid. As long as his ideas of pictorial art are confined in landscape to views of churches and ruins, rustic bridges and waterfalls, or topographical views of the haunts of tourists, taken from the guide-book point of view, and in figure to artificial compositions, reminding one of an amateur theatrical performance, so long will his work be destitute of artistic qualities, and therefore valueless, but if he brings to his work a genuine appreciation of the picturesque in landscape and figure, and a knowledge of how so to place a subject on his plate as to convey his impressions to others, he may produce most beautiful and meritorious results. He must learn, as the painter has to do, to distinguish what in nature is really suitable for pictorial purposes, on account of beauty of form, or tone, from what merely gives him pleasure by some quality which, however impressive in nature, it is not possible to transfer to canvas. A picture being a design enclosed by four straight lines, can only please and impress by certain suitable decorative qualities in the subject. To know what will make a picture is one of the most difficult secrets in landscape art; knowing just how much of a scene to take in, where to begin and where to end, decides whether the result will carry a distinct and complete impression, or be merely a haphazard study.”
What great artists elsewhere have thought of photography is shown by the following extract from one of J. F. Millet’s letters to his friend Feuardent. After asking Feuardent to bring him some photographs from Italy, Millet continues, “In fact, bring whatever you find, figures and animals. Diaz’s son, the one who died, brought some very good ones, sheep among other things. Of figures, take of course those that smack least of the Academy and the model—in fact all that is good, ancient or modern.”
The daily use made of photography by artists is another proof of the good opinion in which it is held by them. You could not get these men to say a word in favour of chromo-lithography, because that is a hybrid craft with few possibilities. These questions being disposed of, we will proceed to discuss an assertion of Mr. Hamerton’s, that photography is like a reflection in a mirror. Now from what we have shown in this book, means are at the artist’s command to influence the final picture in every stage of its development. If an artist such as Carolus Duran, say, were thoroughly versed in photography, and a craftsman, like one of the numerous operators employed by the large photographic firms, were to be placed together, say on one of the Norfolk Broads for a week, according to Mr. Hamerton’s reflection theory, they would both return with work of the same quality, differing only in points of view; for Duran’s reflections would be the same as the craftsman’s, point of view always excepted. A theory that allows such an absurd application needs little comment, one remark only will we put forward. In what ignorance of optics Mr. Hamerton has allowed himself to remain! when every one knows that a reflection in a mirror is a virtual image, and does not exist. By pushing this theory to its logical conclusion, a monkey with a camera could produce as good pictures as Mr. Hamerton could make with the same instrument.
In “Thoughts on Art” Mr. Hamerton speciously compares photography with painting. Why not compare it with etching? It can never be compared with painting until photography in natural colours is an accomplished fact. Mr. Hamerton, after speaking of the limited scale of light in all art, goes on to say, “But look at poor photography’s scale compared with the scale in painting.” Just so, but it has a much greater scale than any other black and white method, far greater than the scale of his pet etching. Why did he not state this? Why did he ignore it? Further on Mr. Hamerton enunciates that if we expose for the glitter of the sea, everything on the bank will be without detail. It is unnecessary to say this is not so, and any good photographer can easily prove this statement. Of course the only excuse for these untrue statements is that such marvellous strides have been made in what is called “instantaneous photography” since Mr. Hamerton committed his last criticisms to paper (in 1873), that probably he does not know that photographs can now be taken at midnight by a flash of light in a fraction of a second, and with very fair results, as any one can prove for himself. Mr. Hamerton finds too that the sum of detail in good topographical drawings is greater than that in a good photograph. Well, Mr. Hamerton may do so, just as some people see green as red, but all good photographers will laugh at the statement, and we challenge Mr. Hamerton that we will produce a greater sum of detail in a photograph of a set subject than he will by any amount of drawing, and consider it no great feat either. But this has nothing to do with the artistic value of photography, or with its comparison with painting. Mr. Hamerton is here comparing it with architectural drawing.
Mr. Hamerton next says the drawing of mountains is false in photography. If that were so in 1860, it was Mr. Hamerton’s fault for ignorantly using his lens, for, as we have shown, lenses are true perspective delineators if correctly used.
Finally Mr. Hamerton, in 1873, sums up his objections to photography from the purely artistic point, as follow:—
I. “It is false in local colour, putting all the lights and darks of natural colouring out of tone.” With the aid of orthochromatic plates it does no such thing, as any reader can prove for himself by getting a chromograph with yellow, red, blue, or any other bright colours, photographed by Mr. Dixon, of 112, Albany Street, London.
II. “It is false in light, not being able to make those subdivisions in the scale which are necessary to relative truth.” This is not so. It is false in light so far as all art is false in light, but photography can make more subtle distinctions in the scale than any other known black and white method.