Volltext Seite (XML)
276 THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. LMAY 1, 1885. fingers and the thumb of the upper hand are visible. In No. 17 (Mr. Owen Grant) a portion of one hand can just be seen over the frame. Mr. W. B. Richmond, despite his tour de force in “ An audience in Athens during the representation of the Agamemnon” where he has had to pose a dozen or more figures in attitudes of fixed attention—a subject demand ing much study in the placing of hands—is to my mind a little unsatisfactory in the hands of his portraits. Most photographers are familiar with the tiresome interlacing which a nervous sitter sometimes gets his or her fingers into. It is unmeaning, and in a photograph often has a ludicrous effect, occasionally resulting in six fingers to one hand, lopping off top joints, and indulging in other eccen tricities. Mr. Richmond of course perpetrates none of these blunders in No. 110, a portrait of a complacent, portly, and not over handsome dame ; but he has spread out the fingers crosswise in such a way that it is impossible not to believe the sitter was very anxious to show the rings with which each hand is bountifully supplied. In No. 174 (the Hon. Lady Loyd Lindsay), Mr. Richmond has given us a specimen of what may be called the Book of Beauty variety of hand. The outline from the wrist to the tip of the forefinger takes a conventional curve of the Hogarthian type, the fingers are bent and slightly separated, and the whole is obviously artificially posed. Too many examples of this are to be seen in photographs. The same fault in a far lesser degree marks the otherwise fine por trait of Mr. Andrew Lang. Here the arm is hanging far down over the back of the chair, and the band is limp and flaccid. If anyone tries this pose it will be found that in a minute or two the veins become distended, and all smooth ness of outline is lost. Mr. Richmond has not shown this, but then he may intend his portrait to be an instantaneous effect taken just as Mr. Lang threw himself into the chair, and before the band became turgid. Mr. R. Lehmann has an admirable portrait of Mr. Robert Browning—a picture which makes the indifferent work of Mr. R. Barrett Browning, who sends a portrait of his father, seem the poorer by contrast. But surely the only hand seen—it is resting lightly on the hip—-is too small, oi’ has Mr. Browning exceptionally small hands ? Mr. Alma Tadema’s contribution in the way of por traiture, No. 1, is in some respects very remarkable. It is the portrait of a physician. He is sitting by the bedside of a patient; in one hand he holds his watch, with the other he is feeling the pulse of the sick person, whose face is not seen. The hands are those of a strong, self-reliant man, large, well formed, and nervous. The hand of the patient is that of a woman. The contrast tells the story even better than the anxious, thoughtful face of the doctor. If the portraiture at the Royal Academy be only half as good as the portraiture at the Grosvenor, it will do well. WIDE-ANOLE. •—;—•— ARTISTIC FEELING IN PHOTOGRAPHY. BY A. II. WALL. Part HI.— PORTAITURE, Consulting some old photo journals, I stumbled over the report of a meeting of the South London Photographic Society held in January, 1863. Mr. Sebastian Davis was in the chair, and a paper was read on the past progress and present prospects of photography, by Mr. Fry. In the course of a very animated discussion that ensued, I took the opportunity of urging upon the members of the experimental committee, the vast importance of dry-plate photography as an element of artistic progress. I find that Mr. Davis and several of those present agreed with me, and our worthy Vice-president, who was at the head of that committee, said (I quote the report) :—“ The artist is dependent on scientific investigation for increased facilities in the practice of his art, and although the experiments in connection with dry plates have not hitherto led to any striking result, yet there is nothing so important to the advancement of the art phase of photography as the placing in the hands of the artist a dry plate equal in sensibility to the wet.” But this was a prospect which even Mr. Davis did not regard very hopefully. In a conversation which this report originated with one of the dearest and most tenderly remembered of my, alas ! many dead friends, O. G. Rejlander, he said what he after wards very frequently repeated, “We shall never acquire full control over the art-qualities of photography until we have what I often sigh for, dry plates as sensitive as wet ones.” I remember, too, how, at the meeting in question (what a long, long way off it seems when I think of all the men I then knew so well, and so long ago lost sight of) it was urged as against my views, so far as portraiture was con cerned, that in photography this was a too purely com mercial branch ever to be studied on artistic principles; that it must perforce be regarded as a kind of manufactur ing process, “ quantity, not quality, being,” as one photo graphic journalist remarked, “ the chief consideration.” I shrugged my shoulders at this idea, and said, despondently, if so, there is very little chance of upward advance ment in photographic portraiture, and very considerable danger of a downward tendency, by which the art will suffer not only artistically, but commercially. But, such is my conceit and obstinacy, I still believe I was right. Mechanically produced work is valued at little beyond the actual money-cost of its production. It is common, and the largeness of the supply, however great the demand, soon lowers prices, until at last competition brings them down to a level which drives out of the market all who are lot satisfied with its paltry profits, and can carry their talents into a more promising field of labour. Well, the longed-for improvement of that day is accom plished. We now have dry plates as sensitive as wet ones were, and the question arises, has any correspondingly great advance been made in photographic portraiture ? If not, why ? If non-progress is admitted, is it still due to the prevalence of commercial ideas of quantity before quality ; and if so, has it advanced the commercial aspect? In simpler words, do portrait photographers make now either more artistic pictures or more money by their art than they did twenty or thirty years ago ? I know as a rule that prices are very much lower than they were when I practised photographic portraiture, and I know, more over, that some of the most successful photographic por traitists of to-day are those who are artists, and command ing the highest prices. To hear some folk speak on this subject, one might imagine that the only things required are the means of doing artistic work. But of course these are of small utility in the hands of those who do not know what good work is. A skilful operator is not of necessity an accom plished artist, and although this appears self-evident enough to go without words, it is very often really neces sary to demonstrate it to those who are young in artistic photography, and are apt to think that tools and materials at their best, with skilful mechanical manipulation, are all- sufficient for the production of art photographs. A good artistic portrait is one in which the well-lighted head stands out from the background, modelled and rounded out into apparent solidity. The treatment is in general harmony with the sentiment and character. l'he outlines compose well, the greater masses of light and shade give dignity and importance to the general effect, the pose is not hacknied and common-place; and every part falls into its properly dominant or subordinate place. But admirable and striking as the qualities of such a picture must be, these things are largely the result of general rules and principles well understood and cleverly applied. The higher qualities of good portraiture go beyond them. To give expressions which denote character and suggest the presence of thought, and positions which indicate life and
