Volltext Seite (XML)
156 THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. LMARCH 6, 1885. advertising, in addition to the newspaper mentions, he may induce innocent people in various parts of the country to withhold commissions otherwise intended for the local firms, in order to give sittings when visiting the Inventions. Again, certain publishing houses have not been allotted space to exhibit their novelties, probably for the obvious reason that it would interfere with the sole right. This appears to be a policy neither in harmony with free or fair trade, since the authorities, in proposing to take a share of the gross receipts by way of payment for special privileges granted, undoubtedly become virtually members of a trading firm. Again, no one supposes that negatives so taken will only be of use during the period the exhibition is open to the public. Duplicates and enlargements will no doubt be obtainable afterwards. Moreover, should the arrangement prove lucrative, there is no guarantee that the com missioners will not run a permanent photographic estab lishment at South Kensington, and thus unfairly compete with professional photographers, whose business is sorely curtailed by the present general depression of trade. The primary object of all exhibitions of an international character is to foster industry, and the direct reward of industry is profit to those who compete—that is, the masses. When the authorities also take the profits, the object of the exhibition is defeated.—1 am, dear sir, yours faithfully, W. M. Ashman. Sir,—You have already called attention in your “Notes” to the seriously objectionable course proposed by the council of the International Inventions Exhibition, but really, the more the matter is considered, the worse it appears. Every legitimate object of such an exhibition seems stultified by being combined with a close monopoly in the exercise of a profession so honest in its emulation, and which mingles art with science, and science with art, more than—I believe I may boldly say —any other. In medical science only is there anything like so complete a training for a man as that which includes the fullest treat ment of questions in art, chemistry, and optics? And what would be thought if it were proposed that medical men should tender for the sole right of exercising their abilities in a particular place, stating what share of their “profils” they were willing to hand over? And this is at an Inventions Exhibition! There never was a time in which that increasing recog nition of the deeply-seated contrast between different classes of men and their actuating motives was so clearly marked as at present; one sees, on the one hand, the inventor, ever active in his work from sheer love of it, and whose rich, and too often only, reward is the glow of heart at having practically solved his problem ; and, on the other, the commercial speculator, ever on the look-out for “ a good thing.” Which of these classes was the Inven tions Exhibition meant to encourage, and which of them is likely to be encouraged by this proposed monopoly ? I am not assailing the capitalist who aids an inventor, and who, as he incurs the greater pecuniary risk, may justly expect a proportionate pecuniary profit. The contrast I refer to is between the commercial speculating spirit, and the spirit actuating those who lead the van in science even more than in art. Is it not too plain that it is just the earnest worker, whose profession “endows” his “ research,” who is to be injured, and the commercial speculator, with whom profit is the avowed motive, whose co-operation is invited ? Our country artists are to see their clients seize the “ opportunity” of being “taken” at the Exhibition ; our London artists to lose their legitimate chance among visitors who come to town ; and the “ council of the International Exhibition ” are to share in such profits as may be made out of this business, filched from legitimate workers, after its extra and special expenses have been met. Thus it is that sufferers from depressed trade are to be comforted, and honest competition in excellence encouraged—a speculator is to have a monopoly at a fixed tariff! '1 he Executive Council do not bind themselves to accept the lowest or any tender. I sincerely hope not.—I am, sir, yours truly, W. H. Wheeler. Dear Sir,—The appearance of the notice of the execu tive council of the International Inventions Exhibition, inviting tenders for the exclusive right of taking photo graphs, suggests the idea that it would be desirable to ventilate the question as to whether such exclusive privi leges are beneficial or otherwise, on the one hand to photo graphy and photographers, and on the other to the com munity generally, represented particularly on this occasion by the exhibitors, whose right to have their works repro duced in situ is to be limited to the condition of employing the particular individual or firm appointed by the com missioners, and sharing profits with them. With the view of starting a discussion, 1 beg to submit to the consideration of your readers some of the points that suggest themselves, and hope that others will bring forward argument in support of or in reply to either these or other points which occur to them, and that at all events some good, if only in the form of a clear expression of opinion, may accrue from the discussion. In the first place, it seems an intrusion upon the right of the exhibitor to deny him the choice of the photo grapher who is to reproduce his exhibits. The contractor might not be working the process by which he would wish the prints to be executed, or he might wish to have the negatives taken by some photographer who has had special experience in the particular work that he requ ires to be done. In the great Exhibition of 1862 the work was certainly very good and satisfactory, but what guarantee can there be that a contractor selected for giving the largest share of his receipts to the management will always do likewise, and not endeavour to make his harvest by executing the work at as little cost to himself, irrespective of the perfection of the work, as possible ? A strong argu ment in favour of exclusive concession at the time of the 1862 Exhibition no longer exists. Then the wet collodion process was employed, and there would be risk of damage by splashings from dark-slides and other spills which it would be difficult to trace to individual operators and obtain indemnity for; but the universal employment of dry plates has removed this weighty objection. As to the desirability of public institutions competing with private enterprise, no doubt something may be said on both sides. It appears from the requirements of the tender that the tenderer “ must specify the percentage on the gross receipts which he will undertake to pay,” that the Executive Council becomes in some sort a partner in the photographic business to be carried on. Whether pro vincial or London photographers will suffer appreciably by the attraction of the studio to be erected in the building, from the desire of visitors to be photographed there as a memento of their visit rather than elsewhere, is another question. The commissioners are evidently not desirous to be too bard upon the exhibitors in their limitation of the use of photographs by the latter, since they are to be allowed to distribute gratuitously such photographs of their exhibits as may have been taken before the articles were sent to the Exhibition.—I am, &c., W. E. DEBENHAM. Dear Sir,—My attention has been drawn to a notice appearing in your columns of last week, and recently issued by the Council of the International Inventions Exhibition ; which notice has led me to wonder what the provincial photographers will find to do in the approaching season. This notice is literally an advertisement on the part of the Executive for partners in a gigantic scheme of photo graphy at the forthcoming Exhibition, in which they