Volltext Seite (XML)
January 30, 1891.] THE PHOTOGRAPHIC NEWS. 83 A REPLY TO DR. EMERSON’S RENUNCIATION. BY GEORGE DAVISON. There are one or two matters of public interest in Dr. Emerson’s eccentric “ Renunciation," and one or two requiring personal reply, which I should like to refer to briefly. It would be waste of time to take this undignified production too seriously, for it is evidently only the out come of violent egotism and offended vanity. First, do not let photographers suppose that Dr. Emer son has the right to claim any originality in regard to naturalistic art. He has merely adapted to photographic methods ideas current among certain artists. He is, therefore, neither entitled to claim further recognition than this, nor has he the slightest right or power to order the funeral of naturalism in photography. Secondly, the limitations of photography are not so great as he now . . . . wishes to make out, for the individuality of the worker is freer than he asserts, and he has allowed himself to be misled by an absurd confusion about Messrs. 1 Iurter and Driffield’s experimental results. The power to alter relative values by exposure, development, and other purely photographic means is infinite. Thirdly, if “ all writings and opinions upon art are as the crackling of thorns,” why does Dr. Emerson return to his vomit in this pamphlet, and re-discuss certain art matters; and why, in the name of all that is consistent, does he threaten photographers with another book on art later on? Fourthly, what on earth has “the dexterity” of the man with paint and brush to do with the matter? The photographer’s dexterity as an artist is not a matter of a few weeks. It takes as long as the artist’s to cultivate. It is a mental training, and the handicraft follows the brain. Fifthly, Dr. Emerson is wise to give up every “ school ” title, and to take to admiring “ all good artists and all good art.” It is what every sensible person has always wished to do, and after passing from one violent extreme to another we may hope he will in time reach a reasonable medium. Sixthly, I believe it to be false that anyone has claimed novelty in the use of rough papers. All the same, these pictures have spoken and will speak for themselves to those who are less amateurs than Dr. Emerson, who has, “by the sweat of his brow, learned under a master!” Long before Col. Noverre's excellent specimens were exhibited, I, and probably many besides, had spoken to Mr. Willis and others about the necessity for such rough- surfaced papers Eighthly, Dr. Emerson’s repudiation of the claims of photography as a means of capable artistic expression is perhaps only natural. In my opinion there is something sadly wanting in most of his photographs, and he himself is probably now finding this out. I trust he is devoting himself to some other pursuit more suited to his abilities—a humorous friend of mine suggests fretwork. In regard to the personal matter, and what Dr. Emerson calls iny “ superficial knowledge,” I shall be well pleased to let my photographic pictures speak for themselves, and stand side by side with his before any competent and unbiassed judge. The quotation used from my private letter seems to me to read in refreshing contrast to the rest of the pamphlet. Dr. Emerson was anxious at that time to recognise what I had done for naturalistic photo graphy. I was not, however, particularly anxious to be very closely identified with Dr. Emerson and his violent aggressiveness. A little of the same appearance of modesty would not injure him. The whole of this busi ness appears to have arisen first in that I dared in a very appreciative criticism to point out Dr. Emerson’s weak ness in respect to treating figures in photographic pictures. In reply to that he wrote : “ You are wrong about my figures ; they are as yet alone ”—a sweet bit of Emersonian modesty. From that time, although treating with me to write for a journal he proposed to start which was to knock everything else endways, he seems to have begun to say hard things about me to others. That I should have ventured to differ from him in respect of the qualities of diffractive photographs caused him further attacks of spleen; and, finally, the fact of my being in vited to read a paper at the Society of Arts appears to have upset the whole of his years of study on natural istic photography, and wrought him up to the pitch of fulminating this . . . pamphlet. The letter which he calls an “ expostulation,” and to which I sent no reply, was one long, violent insult, alternating between threats and wheedling As to the unfairness he complains of at the Society of Arts, he does not mention the name of the friend whose speech was misreported. It can hardly have been Mr. Maskell or Mr. Newman, and they were the only speakers who read their speeches. All the reports seem to me to be fairly accurate so far as they go. Finally, I do not wish it to be supposed that I do not sympathise with Dr. Emerson in his affliction. There are some grains of sense in the pamphlet—more, indeed, than could be expected from anyone even with a good liver after three and a-half months’ solitary study in a house boat during the recent weather. But every reader ought to be cautioned against paying much heed to the outbursts of one who is blown about by every wind of doctrine- now a well-expressed word of a “ great painter,” now the influence of a common every-day artist, and now a mis understanding of a scientific experiment. Give such an one three and a half months’ further confinement in a house-boat and a fresh quarrel, and a new crop of theories or burning thereof maybe expected. It is certainly to be hoped that no photographer who is working out his own salvation by serious study and practice will be deluded by such cheap trash as this pamphlet contains. Let Dr. Emerson cast all the copies of “Naturalistic Photo graphy ” upon the dust heap ; let him—as I think wisely— succeed in covering up the crude and absurd directions “To the Student” in every one of the volumes of “ East Anglian Life,” which, with his genius for advertising him self expensively, Dr. Emerson sowed broadcast over the country—let him do all this and go on “renouncing ” to the crack of doom, and he will only publish his own vanity, and will not be able to stem the tide of advancing culture amongst photographers. [Owing to the provocation given in the pamphlet of Dr. Emerson’s which we reprinted last week, to our valued contri butor, Mr. Davison, it is only right that we should insert his reply ; but as warm discussions of this kind scarcely answer any useful purpose, we shall let the matter drop after this, unless the disputants confine themselves to non personal artistic and scientific arguments of interest to the public. We have omitted a sentence or two from Mr. Davison’s article at places marked by dots.—Ev.] Photographic Conference.—The Camera Club will hold its Photographic Conference for 1891 on Tuesday and Wed nesday, April 7th and 8th, in the rooms of the Society of Arts. The chairman will be Captain Abney, R.E. On April 7th there will be a lantern slide exhibition.
