Volltext Seite (XML)
1862. the ere o1 aGrtb ell. B2 intereb r enqu I attel; eAlit king a, plates" we bat vmep 22 02; tion 0 med b; icoloura een c30, , madipa agersb appesrg abtless 3 andiqn i dforf, initelzige unt 0, rt d hca > quire Plea aft n ounCee its;bu1" nxedin than atd ' thei neetins: is redudi , r hav1b:a ound risee5 he ste ached, odinad%1 st,be3 isses6, ey, Q ’ii' Bat204 tion"N icae2®3 chtor xets0 it the"a ioraf onger tor l in 1,1 25 hismd" anrine lyuse" onrsp" nized !a or in 7 th eparinfee ghe"oe Reishedve 0 ma", t0 he printo menc ro 6 larq‘ THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. Vol. VI. No. 202.—July 18, 1862. one in Beven, being a little more than one in three. On proceeding to ascertain the proportion of these honours carried off by ritish photographers, we are still less satisfied with the rela- tion between medals and honourable mentions. The number of British contributors is about one hundred and sixty; whilst the number of medals is only twenty-six, or less than one in 21X: the honourable mentions are fifty-two, or nearly one in three. In France, where the contributors are about one hundred and twenty, the medalists are thirty-two, or over one in four, and the honourable mentions forty seven, or over one in three. Now, as we are utterly unwilling to admit that the pro portion of first-class merit in the British Photographic Wepartment was less than elsewhere, we arc driven to other ^pleasant conclusions ; wo are not willing to charge the We french gentlemen, who were on the jury, with being B Shsgenerous in their decisions regarding the works of tatish contributors, than they were to the productions of somr own countrymen, still less arc we disposed to admit c ‘ c other reasons which might be suggested; but we are polled to conclude that the wretched position assigned to AWARDS OF JURORS IN THE EXHIBITION. The second great ceremony in connection with the Inter national Exhibition is over. How processions were mar- stalled, how addresses were delivered, and bands played, low the grand pageant was performed in all its parts, it is Unnecessary to describe here, as our readers are doubtless more interested in the important announcement that the awards are made and published. The record of medals and honourable mentions tills a bulky volume, sold by the Com missioners for five shillings, this being the cheapest rate at which successful exhibitors were apprized of their good for tune, anil the unsuccessful that they had been overlooked, or were undeserving of recognition. In another page we give the awards in Class XIV., with the reasons appended, as published in the official record. In the main we believe the decisions are tolerably just, and will give as much satisfaction as could be anticipated, under the circumstances. We have before stated that the consti tution of juries was in many cases far from satisfactory, consisting as they in many cases notoriously did, of nominees of the Commissioners rather than of exhibitors. Neverthe less we believe the work is as well done as is customary on such occasions. That some injustice will be perpetrated there cannot be a doubt. Perhaps in examining the works of twenty-five thousand exhibitors, and awarding nearly seven thousand medals and five thousand three hundred honourable mentions, it would be impossible to escape some act of unfairness. That the jurors generally have been actuated by a desire to be liberal in their awards, is evidenced By the somewhat unusual fact that nearly one-half of the competitors in the race obtain some honour, that consider ably more than one in four obtain the highest award, and ®ore than one in five obtain the honourable mention. In the class devoted to photography, it is satisfactory to observe that the proportion of honours exceeds the general average. The total number of contributors in all parts of the world to this class, so far as we can ascertain, are slightly under 'cur hundred, whilst the total number of awards is two hun ted and thirty-two. It is somewhat singular, however, that In a further analysis we find that the number of medalists • this class is rather less than the average, the number being eighty-five, or rather more than one in five ; the Dumber of honourable mentions is one hundred and forty- j British photography has affected the judgment of the jurors, ' as it must that of the public; that the crowded, irregular- arrangement, and too often obscure and unreachable posi tion of the contributions, has placed them at a disadvantage which has affected the decisions; that the damp too, which has destroyed their works, has also induced adverse opinions of their merits. That the last cause has, in some cases, been in operation, we have the best reason to believe, and pic tures which were marked for medals, have on a further- examination, when the damp walls had begun to do their fell work, been reduced to honourable mention merely. Thus the injury to British photography and British photo graphers done by the Commissioners, pursues them throughout the whole business. But there is another point in connection with this subject which strikes our attention, and which the circumstance to which we have just referred does not serve to make expli cable. We have no wish to cavil with the awards of the jurors. We know that, in the Photographic Department, they were the subject of much discussion and consideration, and that the jury divided again and again in arriving at some of their decisions. But we cannot overlook the singular- fact that whilst in the British department there are no medals whatever for photographic apparatus, lenses excepted, there are medals for apparatus in the French department. It will scarcely be affirmed by any one that, in apparatus generally, and in cabinet work especially, the French con tributions surpass those in the British department. We apprehend that a contrary verdict must be given even by the most prejudiced person. We find in the list of honour able mentions, such names as Ottewill, Hare, and Meagher, amongst manufacturers; and such as Murray and Heath, Horne and Thornthwaite, Bland and Co., McLean and Mel- huish. Hockin and Wilson, Solomon, and others, amongst dealers and manufacturers. It may be that there was such uniformity of quality in the articles exhibited in appa ratus, that whilst all were meritorious, none so far exceeded the rest as to deserve the distinction of a medal. If such were the case, we cannot see, since medals were sown broadcast in some directions, why they might not have been as liberally bestowed here. Medals for apparatus were given in the French department: with this we find no fault; but we do protest against the distinction implied, when it is no torious that in thorough excellence of apparatus generally, the English manufacturers are unsurpassed, we might say unequalled in the world. We find in one case a medal is given in the French department “ for an arrangement for altering the focus of a lens!” This is to M. Derogy for his ingenious method of lengthening or shortening the focus of a portrait combination by the insertion of a supplemental lens. We find no fault with the award in itself, but it docs give bitter point to the fact that all the clever invention, and all the excellent workmanship and material in the British department failed to secure more than an honourable mention. Another singular circumstance in connection with the awards for apparatus, is, that notwithstanding the excellence or superiority of their contributions, we do not find the names of such houses as Ross, Dallmeyer, Rouch, and others, referred to at all. It is true that medals have been awarded to the latter for pictures, and to the first and second for lenses, but we fancy that this will scarcely render entire silence on their apparatus generally, satisfactory. Some of the omissions in the award for pictures are in no sense less singular. If anything deserved recognition in the distribution of honours, we apprehend that steady and sue-
