Volltext Seite (XML)
644 THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. [September 11, 1891. to make it, so that it is pretty clearly demonstrated what the art of illustration owes to photography. The phases of art in which photography can be of material help covers the whole range—classical, historical, genre, landscape, animal, marine, or architectural. In classical painting the artist in search of material may go to Pompeii, for example, make his studies and notes, and then supplement those by photographs. Imagine the advantage he has over one who has visited the place, say, fifty years ago. The photographs give him the minutest detail, texture, and every quality, except colour ; and if a practical knowledge of photography has been acquired, he may select the special objects, or particular points of view, best suited to his purpose. He can thus collect details of costume, accessories, and backgrounds with the greatest facility, knowing, at the same time, that they cannot be otherwise than absolutely true. In genre, the painter can arrange his figures, and get a pretty good idea of their composition and value. In landscape, he can study an infinite vatiety of effect and detail. The same in marine, and what can be more beautiful than some of the photo graphs of water with the varied movements and reflections ? I know that old-fashioned painters of the conservative school will condemn this as rank heresy. There is a sort of impression that the aid of photography in art implies— at least, in painting—something which is incompatible with its dignity, and that the man who uses it, and is found out, loses caste among his confreres. But the fact remains that photography is extensively used, though painters will not admit it. The very fact of being accused of having had recourse to photography is libellous, and Van Beers brought an action in Paris some years since, and won his case, because a journalist asserted that photography has been used in his picture of “The Siren.” The journalist was misled by the photographic look of the picture ; it was as near the realisation of photography in colour as any thing could be, and technically it was extraordinary work. This is eminently a realistic age, especially in art matters, and the public have discovered a great deal as to appearances and facts in nature from photography. In every expedition now-a-days a camera is looked upon more or less as a necessity. It is remarkable the resem blance between the work of some eminent painters, when reproduced by photography, and photographs direct from nature. This is, perhaps, most noticeable in the work of the modern French school, of that portion who work out-of-doors. The subject is not generally so much thought of as the absolute truth of the rendering; but the “ values ” or proper relation of parts must be true. One can readily see this by glancing through any of the num bers of the Figaro Salon, and noticing the work by such men as Dagnan-Bouveret, Dupre, Pasini, Ridgway-Knight, Muenier, Haquette, Tattegrain, &c. In the use of photography as an aid to illustrative and pictorial art, it is pre-supposed the artist should, if possible, be his own photographer, so that the result should be that of his own labours, and I cannot see what possible objection there can be to a camera supplementing a sketch book. By the aid of both, he certainly will be able to obtain results which he could not if one or the other were alone used. One does not wish to exalt photography at the expense of art, and in the great essentials photography has no place; but it may become, in judicious hands, a most valuable aid. One has been accustomed to cant phrases generally applied to painting, also applied to photography, especially that of “Impressionism”—subduing detail for effect—in which Mr. Emerson made himself so conspicuous. I do not wish to reopen the question, but some of the finest photographs I know in portraiture were of this character. I remember years since seeing portraits by Mrs. Cameron —notably of Darwin and Tennyson—which, to my mind, as portrait photography, were unsurpassed. They gave the character, and not merely the surface quality; you saw the individual behind the frame, and not thrust in front of it; the lines on the face were there, but not ob trusively so ; and the faces had not been retouched until the surface was that of porcelain. It is vain for the photographer to try to infuse into his work the undefinable charm of great artists like Millet or Corot. Millet only gave the essentials, religiously keeping out what was unnecessary; his hard-worked and uncomplaining peasants were the embodiment of the silent toil of centuries. Photography at its best can only give you facts ; they may be subdued by being out of focus, but still they are there. Nor can photography give you the poetry of an evening as Corot did, where you saw the gentle ripple on the water, the breeze shaking the leaves on the trees, and the feeling of peace and repose. The majority rush into photography without even a rudimentary art knowledge, the result being that our aesthetic sense has many a rude shock ; as it so frequently happens that, while the technique is all that could be desired, the choice of subject and composition are execrable. By a rudimentary art knowledge it is not im plied that a knowledge of drawing even is essential, but some idea of selection, composition, and beauty of line. This can, in a measure, be attained by carefully consider ing wherein consists the beauty of one picture, when compared to another of equal merit, technically remem bering the maxim that “ art is to conceal art.” It is a curious fact that in painting, as in photography, the results are in a way the reflex of the idiosyncracies of the individual. A common photographer makes his sitters look common ; one only has to take the average work of the cheap photographer and see how vulgar his sitters appear, and the way in which any objectionable peculiarity seems to be intensified. Even Mr. Pennell, in his recent tirade against photo graphy, generally admits the aid it is to the illustrator. If I mistake not, practical proof of this is to be found in some of his illustrations; only two examples need be men tioned. In the article on “ Venetian Boats” in Harper's Magazine for March, 1890, pp. 541 and 553, the two illus trations look as if drawn from photographs well known in Venice, that used to be sold at a shop in the Piazza, on the left-hand side, between San Marco and the Caffe Florian. The illustration on p. 541, called “ An After noon Call,” is practically a facsimile of the original; the other, called “Passenger Boats from the Islands,” only partially so. The principal boat with figures appears to be drawn from a photograph taken some twelve years since at the Murano side of the city on the Fondamenta Nuova, where these boats land; they are never seen near the Custom House, where Mr. Pennell has drawn them. The London and Provincial PHOTOGRAPHIC Association.—• September 17th, The Lantern Microscope Demonstration, by Mr. T. E. Freshwater. The PHOTOGRAPHIC Club.—Subject for September 16th, “ Reducing and Intensifying ” ; September 23rd, “Enlarging.” Saturday outing to Ockley ; train leaves London Bridge 12.50.