Volltext Seite (XML)
1862. I of so icements 1 on tlis is catsd .vents batt ther tre a operate CorP. ayden y nembe.z stria ess o» 3 aw ia " factorJ .aw fore W, : two® atall?) iter not M 151 ana0,0 eqtZi xact0 ie 1600 iew 10 ncotoP pbezd ireedaV defb,• i par intin reprobge ee co" • intins,i 1 fno iweese tan! 31° hypOag iaco0 • .d) totici05 20 picturcs erfecy2 ispai . bosr" s cause $ dion. " ngingsto3 tad timen ienic. T arsenite * which i2 ers, in t ix e papest efore u5u: and ad in salts Itandw-, :er theb hat in t ites, witb ■ the leni4 elude 3 ?. that " if you " pic pic™ bjecbs.0 . manJr id fluid.; irtratsz ilthegv ig woble ' the s in arta phyisF THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS Vol. VI. No. 196.—June 6, 1862. WHO SHOULD RECEIVE THE MEDALS—ARTISTS OR EXHIBITORS? “ Falman qui meruit ferat." As the period approaches when the awards of jurors in the Exhibition will be made ; a question of considerable interest arises, which is, however, one of not less difficulty. On examination of the pictures, and reference to the catalogue, it will be seen that the contributor and the artist are not always comprised in one and the same person. A correspondent, whose letter will be found in another column, calls attention to the anomaly which may very easily be perpetrated in the award of medals in such cases, by placing the laurels on brows which have not won them, awarding an honour to the publisher, who exhibits, which unquestionably should belong to the artist vho has produced. We think that it would be unhesitatingly admitted, that it is the skill and ability which produce meritorious works which should be recognized in any award of honours. It is the capitalist who generally gets the largest share of pudding: the skilled hand and conceptive brain might at least have the praise. But we are aware of the difficulties which at once beset this position. In the glorious and vast treasures of industrial art now collected in the Exhibition building, it would be found difficult, we imagine, in the majority of instances, to select any object and say, this is due to the skill of one man. Take the Western Annexe, for example, and examine with renewed wonder and admiration the various machines which seem to do everything but think, and on enquiry it will be found that there is scarcely one which is not the joint product of many brains. It is possible, indeed, that the first master conception may, in many instances, have emanated from one mind, but in so crude a form that with out the more practical executive skill of others, it could never have had a material existence. Take again examples where the industrial more nearly approaches the fine arts, such as the exquisite ceramic productions of Minton or Copeland. In some of these it is the form or design, in some the colour Or painting, in others the material in which the object is Broduced, and in many the combination of all these which "n admiration, and deserve the recognition of the public as Bell as the jurors. To single out the especial artist would be impossible. The exquisite design of a vase may be due to one, the skilful selection and combination of the materials to another, the manipulation to a third, the painting to a murth, the enammelling and burning to a fifth, and so on. There can be but one course for the jurors in such cases. is the skill, the judgment, and the enterprise which directs capital into such channels which the jury must recognize. This enterprise it is, as much as the labour of skilled work- men, which, in a commercial country, raises the standard of 1ts manufactures, and gives its products pre-eminence in the World ; and this it is which will always command pre-emi- nenee and win renown. We submit that the case is different, however, as regards Photography. There i s no difficulty in deciding to whom t ° Palm belongs. Whatever advantages he may have de- tVed from the purest of chemicals and the best of apparatus, 'sc matterswill receive recognition in their proper quarter, wateyer wide-spread publicity his productions may have emuDed through the efforts of an enterprising publisher or resEi0yer, there no is room for doubt at any time that the and th 0 the skilful photographer are due to himself alone, at he alone should receive recognition in an award to merit. Francis Bedford is at this moment in the employ ment of the Prince of Wales : his pictures are announced for publication by Messrs. Day and Son; but no one will for a moment dream of crediting either his Royal Highness, or the publishing house we have named, with the merit of Mr. Bedford’s pictures. As a general rule, moreover, there is no obscurity or doubt existing about these matters. Skilled photographers are well-known and recognised; their pro ductions being more familiar evidence than their sign manual. There is, or may be, however, another difficulty. We have said may be with a reason : we wish in our brief re marks on this subject to discuss it purely as an abstract question, without regard to individual cases ; and since the matter has come under our attention we have avoided exami nation as to whom it might concern. There may be, how ever, we have said, another difficulty. The jurors, we appre hend, will be presumed to have no official knowledge of either artists or exhibitors, except that which comes officially before them in the official records. If then in the conside ration of a meritorious picture by a well-known artist, the only name before them in connection with it is that of a publisher or exhibitor, they will not, we fear, have any choice or discretion as to whom they shall recognize in making the award. Injustice in such cases is, we regret to say, not a new or uncommon thing. We remember a case in which an amateur, of high repute, received and accepted an award in a French Exhibition for an astronomical photo graph, which had been produced and given to him by a friend who was not less distinguished as a photographer. In such a case the jurors would never dream that the exhibi tor was not the photographer also. In the International Exhibition we fear that even where they may know it, they cannot act upon the knowledge. The difficulties may in some cases be still more compli cated. In one of the cases quoted by our correspondent, they are so. Mr. Blanchard’s instantaneous photographs are published by Elliott, but they are exhibited by the photographic firm of which Mr. Blanchard was a partner, and in the first edition of the Catalogue appeared as the contributions of “ Smyth and Blanchard.” Since then Mr. Blanchard has, we understand, seceded from the firm; and in the new and corrected edition of the Catalogue, we find Mr. Blanchard’s pictures catalogued with the name of “ S. Smyth,” from which we conclude that the negatives remain the property of his late partner, whose name in case of an award would, we presume from the Catalogue, be the only one before the jurors. In the Fine Arts Department, where the contributor and the artist are so frequently distinct persons, this difficulty is avoided by discarding medals altogether. In many of the industrial departments we hear loud complaints of the un satisfactory management in the juridical examinations; in the photographic department we hope and believe things are better managed, and notwithstanding that three of the jurors are exhibitors also—Dr. Tindall having resigned, and his placebeing filled, we understand, by Mons. E. Delessert, who is an exhibitor in the French Department—we hope for a satisfactory result. In any case, we commend to the attention of the jury the anomaly which may so easily creep into their adjudication, and suggest the importance of exercising, if possible, a discretion which may avoid it.