Download pdf - The Art of Seeing - Photographs From the Alfred Stieglitz Collection (Photography Art eBook)

5/25/2018 The Art of Seeing - Photographs From the Alfred Stieglitz Collection (Photog...

http:///reader/full/the-art-of-seeing-photographs-from-the-alfred-stieglitz-collectio

h e etropolitan u s e um o f r t

pI

a.-.. v'

B u l l e t i nSpring1978

A4 '*.4p

4

4

& J

P

-CI

vj ImXs +w~~~~~~



hotographymaybe definedintwo ways:as an instantaneous,mechanicalrecordingof realityand as a formof personal,creativexpression,such as painting.It s certainlyboth.Photographytoday is ubiquitous.Most of us own cameras,and we chronicleoufamily ife-the babypicture, he graduationpicture, he weddingpicture,have become almost rituals.Wephotographorare photographedin frontof monumentsduringourtravels.We see hundredsof photographdaily n newspapers, magazines,books, and subwaycards. Most of thesepicturescould not claim to be art.Onthe otherhand,the camera as thedevice of a trulycreativepersoncan be the ultimatenself-expression.Thephotographeruses his fine eye to select images;with his lens and camerahe interprets nd synthesizesthe waya painterdoes with his pigments.Thephotographs nthis Bulletinare undeniablypartof a creativeprocess.One has onlyto glance at these pictures-at Steichen'sdelicatelybalancechiaroscuro,Evans'satmosphericcathedral nterior,he subtleshapes ofKuehn'sstilllife,or Sheeler's light-struck eometricforms-to concludethat these are highlypersonalartisticachievementsvisuallyrelated o painingsor prints.These photographswere amongthose collected byAlfredStieglitz,pho-tographer, urator, uthor,and publisher.Duringhe early1900s he deter-mined o win forthe mediumrecognitionas a fineart.Throughhis writingworks,photographic ournals, ectures,and exhibitions,he foughtforpho-tographyIn1928 twenty-twoof his own pictures, he firstwe hadevercollected,enteredthe MetropolitanMuseum.As partof his tireless efforts on behalfof photography,Stieglitzbegan, in1894, to acquirethe works of his Americanand European olleagues. Hebuiltupa matchless collection that includedphotographsby manyof hismost talentedcontemporaries-Kasebier,Coburn,Day,Eugene,Steichen,and White-and those of a slightlyyoungergeneration-Sheeler,Strand,Adams,and Porter.He feltstrongly hat these worksbelongedinthe Metropolitan,and 580 of them came to us, firstas his giftin .933 and lateras abequest in 1949. These remarkable ictures,and Stieglitz'sown photo-graphspresented in 1928, were the veryfoundationsof ourphotographycollection,and they set a precedentthatencouragedourcurators, irstWilliamM.Ivins,Jr, and then A. HyattMayor,o boldlysearch out othermasterpiecesof the medium.Succeeding curatorshavecontinuedto buildandtodaywe have approximately 0,000 carefully elected photographs,which because of theirsuperbqualitymakeourcollection rankamongtheforemostof the world.Anexhibitionof 200 pictures romStieglitz'scollectionwillopen at theMuseum nlate May.Madepossible by a grantfromVivitarCorporation,twas selected and organizedbyWestonJ' Naef,Associate Curator f Printand Photographs,and willbe accompaniedby a comprehensivecatalogueof all the Museum'sStieglitzcollectionphotographs.Mr.Naef is the authorof the catalogueas well as this Bulletin,whichcomplementsthe exhibitionThisexhibitionand these publications, omingat the 50-yearmarkof ourphotography ollection,are a fitting ribute o AlfredStieglitz, o whomAmericanphotographyand the Museumowe so much.Philippede MontebelActingDirectorThe Metropolitan Museum of ArtBulletin Spring 197Volume XXXV,Number 4Published quarterly.Copyright ? 1978 by The MetropolitanMuseum of Art, FifthAvenue and 82 StreeNew York,N.Y.10028. Second class postage paid at New York,N.Y.Subscriptions 11.50 a year. Singcopies 2.95. Sent free to Museum members. Four weeks' notice requiredfor change of address. Bacissues available on microfilm romUniversityMicrofilms,313 N. FirstStreet, AnnArbor,Michigan.VolumI-XXXVIII1905-1942] available as a clothbound reprintset or as individualyearly volumes from ArnPress, 330 Madison Avenue, New York,N.Y.10017, or from the Museum, Box 255, Gracie Station, NeYork,N.Y.10028. Editor n Chief of the Bulletin:Joan K.Holt;Associate Editor:Sara HunterHudson; Editoparttime: Shari Lewis. ArtDirector: Stuart Silver.Design: Goslin/Barnett, Inc.On the cover: Detail of After the Grand Prix-Paris (no. 28), by EdwardSteichen



Introduction

Portraitof Alfred Stieglitz (1864-1946) byGertrude Kasebier. 1902. Platinum on tis-sue, touched with pencil near face, 337 x245 mm (131/4x 9% in.). Naef 354.(49.55.170). For a note on Stieglitz, see theinside back cover

n the winterof 1902 GeneralLuigiPalmade Cesnola, Director f TheMetropolitanMuseumof Art,was asked bythe Duke of Abruzzi,a direc-torof Turin's nternational xposition f ModernDecorativeArts,to or-ganize an exhibitof importantAmericanphotographs.Generalde Ces-nola learned hat the best personto advise himwas AlfredStieglitz,atalentedphotographer nd the most serious collector of photographs n theUnitedStates and possiblythe world.Stieglitz,who met withthe General nan office at the Museum, aterrecalled in Twicea Year No. 5-6, 1940-1941]): I old the Generalwhatmight orphotographyhad been and stillwas, and that Iwould let himhavthe collection needed for Turin f he guaranteed hat when it came back itwouldbe accepted bythe MetropolitanMuseumof Art n toto and hungthere. Stieglitzrecollectedthat de Cesnolagasped: Why,Mr.Stieglitz,youwon't insist thata photographcan possiblybe a workof art... you are afanatic. Stieglitzreplied hat he was indeeda fanatic, but hat timewillshow thatmyfanaticism s not completely llfounded.Stieglitzarranged orsixtyprintsby thirty-onephotographerso go toTurin;orty-three f them were revealed, n latercorrespondence,to be frohis personalcollection. Thegroupwas awarded he King'sPrize,and inappreciation,Stieglitzwrote to LuigiRoversi,de Cesnola's secretary, hatafteran eighteen years struggleIam gladto haveaccomplishedmylife'sdream,to see Americanphotography-sneeredat not more thansix yearsago-now leadingall the world.Stieglitzwas not to see the completerealization f his agreementwithdeCesnola,for the General'sdeathearlyin 1903 prevented he photographsfrombeingshown at the Museumas had been promised.Stieglitz'scollec-tion, however, ubsequentlycame to the Museumas a giftin 1933 and as abequest in 1949. Thus his desirefor the photographs o residealongsidemasterengravings,woodcuts, and lithographs, s he contendedtheydeservedto be, was fulfilled.

he collectionnow owned bythe Metropolitan as the resultofStieglitz'sactivitybetween 1894 and 1911, when his acquisitionsofphotographsbegan to abate. Stieglitzobtained most of his photo-graphswhen he was editor irstof CameraNotes (1897-1902) andlaterof Camera Work1902-191 7); butafter 1910 his growing nterest inotherart formscaused the rosterof photographerso be graduallyclosed, and privatecontroversies, nwhichhe seemed continuallynvolvedfinallybrought o a halt his collectingof photographs.Between1907 and 1917, when he met GeorgiaO'Keeffe whomhe marriedin 1924), Stieglitzentered a new phase of his artistic ife,which was inmanyways reflected nthe photographshe hadso resolutelyassembled.The collectionof AlfredStieglitzhad, inthe wordsof GeorgiaO'Keeffe,begunto collect him. Moresignificantly,he photographs,manyof whichwere soft focus and painterly,ame to representa visual mode thatheeventuallyrepudiated n his own workof the 1920s-which he describedterselyas so direct.... Justthe straightgoods.GeorgiaO'Keeffesagely perceivedthe incongruitybetweenStieglitz'saesthetic and the taste he expressed in his choice of workby others. IntheNew YorkTimesMagazine December11, 1949), she wrote: The collec-2



t

I w9I4- , -



tion does not reallyrepresentStieglitz's aste; Iknowthathe did not want[by 1917] manythingsthat werethere;...By 1919, afterthe demise of CameraWork,when he had become inter-ested inavant-gardeart,Stieglitzwrote to his old friendR. ChildBayley nLondonabout his collectionof photographs: Itwould makeinterestinghistory o writeup how Icame by allthese famous masterpieces.Theycosta fortune nactual cash outlay.Mycollection is undoubtedlyunique. Hewenton to describe nostalgicallyhe process of putting norderhis longneglected and messy personalaffairs, particularlyhe five- to six-hundredphotographs, ncluding Steichens, Whites,Eugenes, Days, Puyos,Demachys,Kuehns,Hennebergs,Watzeks,LeBegues, Brigmans,Kase-biers,Coburns,Seeleys, Hofmeisters,Keileys,Evans,etc., etc. Not longafterthese wordswerewritten, he collectionwas putintostorage untilStieglitz's irstgiftof photographs o the Museum n 1933.

- he scope of the collection is remarkable,orincludedare photo-graphsby HeinrichKuehn,Rene LeBegue, and RobertDemachy,who, judgingby Stieglitz'sown workof the 1920s and 30s, would nothave appealedto him because theirprintmakingechniqueswerevirtuallyhe oppositeof his own. Stieglitzbecame a pfiristand avoid-ed the highlymanipulatedprintsof his European olleagues.Stieglitz'scollection was not assembled withgreatrationale,butexhibitsa patternof random,oftenspontaneousacquisition.Thereare onlytenphotographers-amongthem J. CraigAnnan,F HollandDay,GertrudeKasebier,EdwardSteichen, ClarenceWhite-representedindepth,selec-tivelyand historicallySeventeen haveonlya single print ncluded.Stieglitzhada varietyof personalrelationshipswiththe photographerswhose workshe owned. Some printscame into his possession because ofan earlyfriendship, uch as he hadwithDay,Joseph Keiley,Steichen,andAnnan.Inmanyinstances photographers ent work o himregularly s thevisualcounterpart f a longstandingcorrespondence.Stieglitz ometimes obtainedprints or other thanaesthetic reasons.Kasebier'sFirstPhotographwas a piece of memorabilia;ome wereexam-ples of new processes or techniques, likethe delicatephotogravureshand-printedbyAnnan.Worksof this kindwereone of Stieglitz's irst nterests,since they clearlydemonstrated he importanceof the photographicpro-cesses to the final mage.He also acquiredprintssent to himforreproductionnthe periodicalsheedited(beforeCameraNotes and CameraWork, e was editorof AmericanAmateurPhotographerrom1893 to 1897). Inthis capacityhe neveraccepted work hat he did not admire,but this does not imply he sameaestheticcommitmento every photographer r everyworkreproduced.ot allof the photographsbelongingto Stieglitzwerevisuallystrongor historically ignificant,norwas everyphotographerequallyaccomplished.For hese reasons, his collectionpresentsa widespectrumof the workproducedduring he formativedec-ades of artisticphotographyn Europeand America,without,however, ncludingcertainkey photographerswho mightbe foundinasurveyof the period.Notableomissionsare PeterHenryEmersonand

4



HenryPeach Robinson,who were, through heirwritingand picturemakinthe most influential hotographersof the generationbeforeSteiglitzand hiscircle. Many nteresting igures,amongothers FrankSutcliffe n England,AchilleDarnis n Paris,RobertR.von Stockertand LudwigDavid nViennaFranzErhardtn Berlin,and EmmaFarnsworthnthe UnitedStates, populainthe 1890s but littleknown oday,are not included.Stieglitzwas certainlyfamiliarwiththeirphotographs hroughreproductionsn lavishly llustratedanthologiesinthe Stieglitz ibrary, ooks thatdisplayedmanyof his ownphotographs,and inthis context he mighthavefound sufficientreason toacquiretheirworks.Evidentlyhe did notconsciouslyattempt o obtainphotographsof all of his talentedcontemporaries;his selection process wadiscreetand highlypersonal.Whatdid the collectioncontribute o Stieglitz'sown creativeworkor tohis understanding f photography?Collectionsof picturesbytheirverynature each certain essons, and his pictures aken beforeWorldWar werdeeply influencedbythose he acquired.From hem he also learnedhowtolookat pictures,how to talk aboutthem,and how to care for them. Betwee1902 and 1910 he traded his role as an artist or those of curatorandpublisher.Hiscollectionwas an incubative xperience, nurturing is love ofand understanding f photographyand accountingfora good partof hisinfluence-aside from his own creativeefforts-upon the emergence ofAmericanphotography.

espite its omissions,Steiglitz'scollection is a touchstonefor modern photography's ormative ears, from 1894 through1910.Stieglitz'scollectingtemporarilyame to a halt about the end ofthe FirstWorldWarwhen he acquiredexamplesby PaulStrand,CharlesSheeler,and MortonSchamberg,establishing he core ofhis holdingsof the twentiesgeneration.Aftera hiatusof another ifteenyears, when Stieglitzwas occupied with his own photography nd withfurtheringhe careers of a handfulof Americanpaintersand sculptors,heagainturned his attention,briefly,o the workof otherphotographers,no-tablyAnsel Adamsand EliotPorter.Eventhoughhe collected the works ofthe five mentionedabove, his acquisitionsof photographsof the twentiesand thirtiesdo not approachinscope those of the generationbefore the WPrivate ollections are expected to have personal pointsof view,unlikemuseumcollections,whichmustbe historicaland representative f manytastes. TheStieglitzcollection has a special value as one of the veryfewassembled by a majorartist o have survived ntact.As such, it is importanas evidence of an artistof this staturejudging he workof hiscontemporaries.Perhapsthe most revealing ntroductiono the collection was providedbStieglitzhimself na letterof transmittal,writtenn 1933, when he turnedoverto the Museum418 photographs.The letter, ddressedto OliviaPainean assistant to the Curator f Prints,WilliamM.Ivins,Jr.,shows his growinambivalence oward hiscollection,and, infact, how close he came toactuallydestroying t. At this point n his lifeStieglitzwas in poorhealth;hispersonalcorrespondenceindicates,moreover,hathe was becomingalienated frompeople and thingsof the earlierdecades. His letteroffering hegifts is phrased,not unexpectedly,with a tone of impatience:



New YorkCityMay9, 1933

Mydear MissPaine,Whenyou came to AnAmericanPlaceand asked me whether I'd be willing osend mycollectionof photographs o theMetropolitanMuseumof Art nstead ofdestroying t as Ihad decided to do eventhoughIknew that there was no such col-lectioninthe whole worldand that it was apricelessone, Itoldyou thatthe museumcould have it withoutrestrictionsof anykindprovided t would be calledfor withintwenty our hours.Youcalled me upon thephonewithinan hourand told me that themuseumwagon wouldbe down the nextdayto get it.Thishappened.Iherewith ellyou that the collection is givento themuseumif it should decide to accept itwithoutany restrictionwhateverThecollectionrepresents he verybest

thatwas done in international ictorialpho-tographyupwardsof seventy odd years.Over wo hundredandfiftyof the printswere exhibitedat some time or otherintheartgalleriesof Europeand insome of theAmericanartgalleries.There are manypriceless printsnotexistinginduplicate.The collectionas it stands cost me approx-imately ifteenthousanddollars.Thisincludesthe cost of storage foryears. Inthe collectionsent you there are whatmightbe termed some duplicates.Inreality

there are but a few of such. Whatmightseem duplicatesto you are in realitydif-ferent methods of printingromone andthe same negativeand as such becomesignificantprintseach with tsown individ-ualityFrequentlyimilardifferencesexist inphotographicprints romone negativeasappearindifferentpullsfromone etchingplate-differences inpaper,differencesinimpression,etc. etc., givingparticularvalue to each pull.Incase the museumaccepts the collec-tionIshall be onlytoo gladat a futuredateto come to the museumwhen MrIvinsreturnsand go through he same withhimandyou and select whatIthink houldgointothe museum'sfiles and whichprintsmightbe discarded.StillMr. vinsmaydecide to discardnone, for all the printssent were at one timeor anotherof impor-tance or Ishouldnot have incorporatedtheminthe collection.Imightadd here that a yearor so ago Mr.Ivinsexpressed the wish thatIshouldpresentthe collectionto the museum butatthattimeIdidnot know whetherIcouldaffordsuch a gift.To-dayt is not a ques-tion of beingable to afford o make such agiftbutthe questionof how Ican continueto physically ake care of it for Iam a poorman as faras finances are concerned andthereforeIdecided to destroythe collec-tion so as to get ridof storagechargesrather hanto go out and tryto place theprintspiecemealor intoto. Iamtellingyouthis so thatyou andyourmuseumtrustees

can understand he facts as they exist. Imightadd thatthe collection containsaboutfiftySteichens and fiftyClarenceWhitesandfiftyFrankEugenes,allveryrareexamplesof these internationallyfamousAmericanartists n photographyThere are furthermorehe veryrare Frenprintsand Austrianprints,Germanprintand Englishprints ogetherwith otherfamous Americanprints.The collectionnaturally oes not incluanyof myown worksince it is a collectioIhave madeof the workof others. Themuseum has a collection of myown worSincerelyyou

AlfredStieg

6


http:///reader/full/the-art-of-seeing-photographs-from-the-alfred-stieglitz-collecti

tieglitz eft the impression n this letter hathe was disposingof hentirephotography ollection,and suggested thathis activitiesaa collector had ceased. Such was notthe case. Stieglitzretainedworksby Annan, Coburn,Demachy,Evans,Shaw, Kuehn,KeileyKasebier,Eugene,Steichen,and Strand,suggesting these photoraphersheldspecial importance orhim.Hekept250 photographsuntilhedied, and theywere distributedby his executor,GeorgiaO'Keeffe, o theMetropolitannd the ArtInstitute f Chicago.Eightyof these went to the AInstitute nd the remaindero the Metropolitan,ssuringthe Museumof thlion's share of the photographsStieglitzcollected.Ironically,n 1933, when he made his firstgiftto the Metropolitan,tieglwas renewinghis interest n young photographers.AnselAdams came toNewYorknthe springof 1933, afterhavingestablishedhimselfas one ofSan Francisco'smost promisingalents,and hadan interviewwithStieglitwho admiredAdams'ssharp-focusrealism.In1936 a similar nthusiasm oEliotPorter'sphotographswas expressed, and between 1936 and 1939Adamsand Porterbecame the onlythirties-generationhotographerso jothe elite circle of paintersand sculptorsexhibitedat Stieglitz'sgallery,AnAmericanPlace, where the mostadvancedpaintingand sculpturewereshown.Absent from he Stieglitzcollection are photographsby certainkeyfig-ures of the twenties, thirties,and forties.EdwardWestonhad an interviewwithStieglitz n 1925, and bothStieglitzand O'Keeffe ookedcarefullyatWeston'sphotographs.Thismeetingcame at the momentwhenStieglitzwas at his lowest ebb as a collector of photographsand, for this reasonanothers,Weston'sworkneverentered the collection.ImogenCunninghamhadcorrespondedwithStieglitz nthe teens, and had photographedhim inthe thirties,butshe, too, is missingfromthe collection.Amongthe otherkeyfigureswithwhomStieglitzcame intocontact inthe thirtieswas LaszloMoholy-Nagy, ithwhomStieglitzcorrespondedwarmly.There is no evi-dence thatStieglitzever saw Moholy'sphotographs,but hadStieglitznotdied withinmonthsof Moholy n 1946, it is possiblethat a friendship ouldhavedeveloped betweenthemthat was as rich as anyStieglitzhad had wian artistof the pre-Warears.


http:///reader/full/the-art-of-seeing-photographs-from-the-alfred-stieglitz-collecti

TheArtof SeeingPhotographsromtheAlfredStieglitzCollection

1. J. CraigAnnan,amongthe mostadmiredof the firstgenerationof Europeanpictorialist hotographers,was probablythe firstphotographer ollected byStieg-litz. His The Churchor the World,whichwittily lludes to the ageless issue of mo-nasticcelibacy,almostperfectly ums upearlyEuropeanSecessionism, a movementawayfromacademicstyles towardhighlypersonalones. Itwas one of the most pop-ularworksat the 1898 MunichSezessionexhibition,where the word heretofore

applied o dissentingpaintersandgraphicartistsbecame associated withphotogra-phy Likemanyof his contemporariesnthecollection,Annanwaveredbetween twostylisticpoles:one favoredsubjectsdrawnfrom heirnatural nvironments;he other-exemplifiedhere-favored the photogra-pheras dramatist, tagingcompositionsbased on imagination ralluding o literarythemes. Some of Stieglitz searliestphoto-graphswerestaged, but, likeAnnan,hesoon abandoned he stylefornaturalism.



2. A Burgos Bullock Wagon, taken byAnnan in 1914, is at the opposite pole sty-listicallyfrom his The Church or the World(no. 1). Here Annan records a slice of life.He has deliberately made his negative withthe model in mid-gesture and the framingset to truncate the bodies of the bullocks torealize stopped motion. Although his nega-tive was exposed instantaneously, Annanwas not content to let his picture stand onthis quality alone. To reproduce it in photo-gravure, he worked the copper printing

plate by hand to introduce surface tonesimilar to that of an etching, which photogravure resembles in technique. The resis an intentional ambiguity between thepurely photographic effects and those prduced by hand.



3. Robert Demachy was Annan's Frenchcounterpart, attempting to reconcile con-flicting stylistic tendencies. Although deep-ly committed to photographing scenes fromlife, he gave them added graphic strengthin highly manipulated prints of the gum-bichromate process, which he was largelyresponsible for popularizing. Although, totake The Crowd, Demachy positioned him-self in its midst like a photojournalist, hechose to render this 1910 negative in agum-bichromate printin which the richlypigmented surface competes with themomentary aspect of the subject. Between1896 and 1900 Stieglitz became intenselyinterested in the printingtechniques pio-neered by Demachy, and he admired theFrenchman's works enormously Stieglitz's1899 retrospective, held in New York,included several gum-bichromate prints.



4. Among he most memorable ubjects byEdgarDegas were his dancers inoils andpastels,which hadan undeniable nfluenceon Demachy. Degas occasionallymodeledhis worksuponphotographs,but otherthanusingthe camera to rendereccentricframingor an odd viewpoint,he rarelysought photographic ffects for them-selves.) InDansles coulisses ("Behind heScenes"), Demachy,whileseeing the worldthrough he eyes of Degas, recordedpure-ly photographicallyhe tonalrangeof theflats andthe naturalposturesof thedancers. But the painterly uality hatmakesthe photograph,printedabout1897,looklikea pastelwas introducedbythegum-bichromate rocess, creatinga sur-face thatdivertsattention rom he carefulcompositionandeffectiveplayof lightsandpatternsvisualizedbythe photographer



5 (above). While Demachy strongly favoredsubjects taken in their natural environ-ments, he occasionally sought to com-pletely control content, making pictures inthe studio, using posed, costumed models.Inthis one, simply titled Panel, he appearsto have created a pastiche of an academicdrawing. However,academic drawingsrarely have the casual fidelityto nature soevident here. No matter how much thisprintof 1898 resembles a drawing, there isthe haunting image of a real person, not anartist's flight of fancy Here Demachy hasintroduced an element of ambiguity: heinvites us to ask ourselves, "Is this really aphotograph?," when we know all the whilethe answer is "yes."6 (right). Britishnaturalistic photographygrew from works and writings of Peter

Henry Emerson, who decried artificialityand sentimentality in photographic compo-sitions and regarded the camera as a toolto be handled with the same honesty as apaintbrush. (He was the first to favorablyreview Stieglitz's European photographs ofthe 1880s when Stieglitz's career was in itsinfancy) By 1890 naturalism, the founda-tion of Britishpictorial photography, was ata turning point: some photographersembellished the naturalistic image withoutentirely abandoning it. Archibald Cochranewas among those who enhanced the visualdrama of rather ordinary subjects throughpurely photographic means, avoiding reli-ance on handwork. In printingThe Viaductabout 1910, he took a negative made inbroad daylight and controlled the exposureto create the effect of dusk.



l - *t

iT

. . -4

, -w

,' t- "?_-, --.1 .



7. Heinrich Kuehn was strongly influencedby Demachy, whose gum-bichromateprocess he adopted and introduced inVienna. In Venetian Bridge, taken at Chiog-gia near Venice, Kuehn recorded on hisnegative, basically, the perspective of thebridge, its outline and those of the roofs,the precise silhouette of the figure caughtin mid-step on the bridge, and the kaleido-scopic pattern of the ripples on the waterHe forced these essentially photographic

effects to the perimeter of the composition;the center of interest here becomes adensely pigmented tone so well renderedby gum-bichromate. The final print,madeabout 1903, is a highly sophisticated com-bination of natural and manipulated effects.



8. Portraits ndfigurestudies formeda sig-nificantpartof the Stieglitzcollection.Stilllifes and landscapes, inthe minority, erenotfrequentsubjectsamongthe artistsrepresented.One reasonfor still ife's lackof popularitymayhave been that it wasbest handled nthe studio,and was there-forethe naturalmotif or those who didcommercialworkand portraits.Commer-cial photographerswere consideredout-casts bythe experimentalistswho com-

prised he mainpartof Stieglitz'scollectibefore1900. Onlyafterthat timedidmanof the firstgeneration(exhibitingby 1896tryto earna living rom heircraft,and anewattitude owardcommercial ubjectscame about. Kuehn'sTeaStillLife,of abo1908, mightbe mistaken or an advertisement forfine porcelain;butits off-centercompositionand soft focus are the telltalmarksof a personalrather hancommercial intent.



I ~~~~.v~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 1

-'1I - I IL: 't



9 (left). While Demachy and Kuehn, want-ing their works to reflect nature, retainedthe essential photographic qualities, ReneLe Begue worked with tone and texture,softening details and forms during theprintmaking o the point where his photo-graphs could easily be mistaken for othergraphic processes. Academie, of 1902,with its crayon-like markings, stronglyresembles a lithograph.10 (right). FrederickH. Evans was attract-ed to two subjects difficultto treat in ahighly personal manner: simple landscapeand cathedral architecture. Both motifshad become banal in the works of com-mercial photographers of the 1860s and70s, and Evans gave them a new life.When it was first exhibited, H. SnowdenWard,a critic, wrote of this picture in Pho-tograms of the Year 1910: "Evans in hisDeerleap Woods makes his theme of twobare trunks, both flecked with sunlight, onegracefully yielding, the other straight anduncompromising. It is nothing of a subject.Few men would have attempted it, becausefew would have seen any beauty in it.Evans both saw and recorded the coolshade, the tranquility, he placid air,and thewarm, playfulsunlight." The picture wassubtitled "AHaunt of George Meredith"and was probably taken in 1909, the yearthis Britishpoet and novelist died.



I ?`.c5?1?c'?L Ir lr :/I :?t

I'? * : " ?? ic ' ?ti: t ,c:? fH;.. est:' ; r ;rt h3: I :t'?( 111I 6;.iilj JI .?e ?1 r,?:S1.. :? ??ri? ?? 'L .?'?:j?ilryr3n?l .cd ,;1;; IvJ?,

i?lr

Irl ?crc:..rIr

): 1I i . C r



11 (left). Cathedral interiors posed a prob-lem that baffled Evans's predecessors: howto record with equal clarity (and artistry)the deep shadows of the spatial recesses,which received little light, and at the sametime hold detail in the elegantly designedwindows through which the light passed.Evans's solution was to printon platinumpaper capable of the most delicate rangeof tones, masking off the brightest areasand letting them printafter the deepestshadows. InYorkMinster,made about1900, he introduced a bold compositionalelement, devoting the entire rightside of

the picture to a shadowy column, againstwhich a narrow window in the backgroundis set in counterpoint.12 (above). F Holland Day emerged as amajorforce in American photography in1898, the year The Seven Last Words wasmade. Day himself posed for the crucifiedChrist, using as his model at least onebaroque painting, Guido Reni's Crucifixion.Steichen-who photographed Evans admir-ing one of these prints at a London exhibi-tion-wrote a sensitive appreciation of thiscomposition in The Photogram (1901):"Few paintings contain as much that is

spiritualand sacred in them as do the'Seven Words' of Mr.Day. It is a narrowmind indeed that introduces personalitieinto such a work of art as this. Ifwe knewnot its origin or its medium how differentwould be the appreciation of some of usand if we cannot place our range of visioabove this prejudice the fault lies whollywith us. Ifthere are limitations to any ofarts, they are technical; but of the motif be chosen the limitations are dependentthe man-if he is a master he will give usgreat art and ever exalt himself."



13-14. Day's model for Ebony and Ivory(above) and An Ethiopian Chief (right) wasAlfredTanneyhill,a helper in the Dayhousehold, who seems to have had thecomposure of a professional. These pic-tures, dating from 1896/97, were amonghis studies of Negro models-some of themin ersatz native costume-that werepraised for their imaginative handling andbrought Day recognition before the cre-ation of his sacred series (see no. 12). Wil-liam Murraywrote in Camera Notes in1898 that Day's "aspiration has been to lift

us into the realms of the imagination byavoiding the vulgar effects of mere realisticquality;and he has aimed throughout hiswork to suggest, not the mere beauty thatdelights the eye, but the grace whichmoves the intellectual and higher sensibili-ties as well."Day was probably the first Americanphotographer collected by Stieglitz, and hecontinued to hold Day's work in highesteem even after their friendship ended in1900.



r



4u t

) -"

4



15 (left). John G. Bullock exhibited withStieglitz at the 1891 Vienna Salon, oftencalled the first exhibition of modern artisticphotography Bullock specialized in winterlandscapes, and hoped to become themaster of that subject. For his collection,however, Stieglitz chose a picture involvingsome of the same problems yet havingnone of the romantic overtones of a winterscene. The White Wall,of 1901, is acurious subject: a blank stucco wall whoseirregularitybecomes the center of interest.In his treatment of "nonsubjects," views orobjects thought too ordinaryfor seriouscompositions, Bullock looked forward tothe twentieth century, and particularlytoStrand's "nonsubjects" of the late 191 Os(see no. 49).16 (above). New Yorkwas a magnetic sub-

ject for photographers around 1900, evenfor Stieglitz himself, but, ironically,he col-lected very few pictures of the city. Possibthe flood of New Yorkscenes, many ofthem ineptly done, made them seem lessdesirable from a collector's point of view.Stieglitz did own this small photographtaken in 1904 by Joseph Keiley,a lawyerwho traveled the ferry daily from his Broolyn home to his Manhattan office. Here,what at first appears to be a hastily com-posed snapshot, with intrudingrails andsupports, emerges as a fully studied com-position, evidenced by the interplay of iridescent light and deep shadows and theferry decisively positioned in relation to thintersecting lines. Stieglitz may have seenin this printan affinityto his own earliermoody New Yorkpictures of 1902/03.



17 (left).Keiley'sassociation withStieglibegan about1898, the year KeileyandGertrudeKasebierphotographeda groupof Indians-including hisSiouxchief-whwerevisitingNew York.Keiley, dedicateamateur, ollaboratedwithStieglitz oimproveupona glycerine-developedplatnumprintingprocess thatproved o beamongthe most painterlyphotographicmethods ever devised. Themagicof Keiley's style lay in its strongnaturalism,which could withstand ven the mostenegetic additionaldrawing.Here the broadbrushedstrokesreinforce he strongfea-tures of the model.Keileywas moresuc-cessful in reconcilingnaturalism nd higmanipulative rintmakinghan LeBegue(see no. 9), whose handretouchingoftenseems like an afterthought.18 (right).Keiley'smost imaginativephograph-in its departure romnaturalisticforms-was also his mostwidelyexhibiteprint.Manyof the exhibitions nwhich ABacchanteappeared,including he firstheldbythe Photo-Secessionin NewYorin 1902, were selected entirelyor in partStieglitz, uggesting thatthiswas amonghis favoritephotographs.About he timethat this picturewas taken, in 1898, Stieglitzwas stronglycommitted o printmaktechniquesinvolving highdegree ofmanipulation. tieglitz's irst-handknowledge of the elusivequalityof these effectprobablyncreased his appreciationorthalreadyengaging subject.



r? r?,I

?*r'?'

'i`?; '

Is:i?I

??r; . ,r - I'b?:;?

F

L

y*. 1." ."E-1 zi'i

381f21? ?''`.?

i?i- ?' radKCI I

r;?ur C6 r ?,?1-r"?I

ZLQ11 IIL ?-? 9 ?'F' :

,,?? r

)?SLj L;-- L I'i5

PCI;) j CI I ,,? ?rL.. r $.' r?;',tdrJ. ?C'' ';Qf?. SP1F' -?

rCLi r? '15'



j-) ? ? .L:' ??4L:( I ;9i;: ?..???,?- ?-?- ??C I .r.r .r? ?i.C2; ': ')r?.. \?n,:e ?? .. ??? ?-? ApW,II- t'? ?5I?Q.r.I 1.4-* r ???'" Irj, " r: ? u?"?- ?I ;1.'?.'? :L I: ??'cs tir ??(A t?t? i'?LL?.ft"r?. ;?fi? cl. 41t

J r_LIc,u

.C:54.iW?': f?..i r:'s ::x,jsidI- ' `1 :,???Y ?r- 2)fr: ? r?.P re ,, /CcpS?:i;? '' J`;"- ?,-? ., d"

L; r ?.:??~. .. -

.; ov

ft

r'

I.%'?"

*

"s,t t,; ;.*'I .;, - .' . .

:. - ..I I ,. .. .I ,



19 (left). WilliamB. Dyer was among themembers of the illustrious "1898 genera-tion" that included White, Kasebier, Keiley,and Steichen, and although his pictureswere intensely admired by his colleagues,L'Allegro s the only original Dyer printknown to have survived. Dyer turned pro-fessional sooner than his contemporaries,and made a specialty of book illustration.This picture, printed in 1902, was widelyexhibited for its purely artistic merits, yet italso combines the important ingredients fora successful commercial illustration-astrong design and an eyecatching subject.20 (right). Eva Watson-Schutze beganexhibiting in Philadelphia and New York nthe late 1890s and was a near contem-poraryof Gertrude Kasebier,whose careerhers very much resembles. Watson-Schutze was one of the first woman ama-teurs to open a portraitstudio, andapparently did not share her amateur col-leagues' disdain for commercial work. LikeKasebier,she often photographed women,girls, and children. The Rose, of about1903, is distinguished for its fine statementof the art nouveau sensibility and couldeasily have served as the model for anEdward Penfield or Louis Read poster fromthe same period.



21 (left). Gertrude Kasebier aspired earlyher career to make the finest photographshe could and still support herself througher art. One of her boldest decisions wasto abandon conventional studio paraphernalia of papier-mache accessories, high-backed chairs, potted palms, artificialfloers, and Turkishcushions. Heradventuresome ideas and her great suc-cess with portraitsof mothers and childresoon brought her a loyal following. Mothand Child, of about 1899, exemplifiesKasebier's abilityto focus intently on themodels themselves without relying onshopworn props.22 (right). Gertrude Kasebier occupied aspecial place in Stieglitz's circle as the fiof several importantwoman photographewhose works he came to admire. Kasebispecialized in family portraits, particularlthose of mothers and children. Blessed AThou Among Women, taken in 1899, is thmatically enigmatic. The provocative title(from Luke 1: 28) introduces a Biblical elment that suggests we are witnessingsome Christian ritual. The subject could,however, be no more complex than whatwe see-a young girl in a doorway receiving gentle encouragement from an elder



?;g0-ni

:'

1-':

,. . I

I'T:

'VrM . . eI:, .r

.;

i.A.t

r.

IIr

i'

I _4?



?

I? L?r5)L?-?5F-1-? . I,UTF;.?Y-.I?i"?.-L-7??41 :;*?c L.? 3 ;$?+r'

_: '

, , *'' - '_

_ _ ..-- '-t?;i',-''

; C-TY 'bt? i*C??r ..hl

- " ?;-C' `?L?*r't.,9hY

-"^^MB^.c.-J *7.;.I'- S4,

* *.^.-^*"*'*FaS^ \r. .- *)**'*"^ ^ i t,.* - '-. - ^

; L I?.?C 4.rs El?iCr

SIILILICI ?cr - tpr. ..

4 .. - --C -



23 (left). Rudolf Eickemeyer,Jr, admired bycritics for his "scientific realism," was, forEuropeans, among the most influentialAmerican photographers. In 1894 he andStieglitz were invited to join The LinkedRing, London's exclusive photographicsociety, and they served as the Americanscreening committee for entrants to itsannual Photographic Salon. Usually Eick-emeyer preferred subjects with a stronghuman content, and A Summer Sea, takenin 1903, is an exception among his works.Here extremely delicate light and atmos-phere and a subtly oblique point of vieware combined for an effect of naturalsimplicity

24 (above). Edward Steichen, who hadknown Auguste Rodin since 1901, photo-graphed the sculptor's plaster model forhis bronze of the novelist Honore de Bal-zac in the summer of 1908. In his autobi-ography Steichen recalled: "[Rodin] sug-gested photographing it by moonlight. Iimmediately went out to Meudon [fromParis] to see it and found that by daylightthe white plaster cast had a harsh, chalkyeffect. Iagreed with Rodin that under themoonlight was the proper way to photo-graph it, I had no guide to refer to, and Ihad to guess at the exposure. .... Ispentthe whole night photographing the Balzac.Igave varying exposures from fifteen min-

utes to an hour,and secured a number ointeresting negatives."A week or two later Steichen presentedthe prints to Rodin, and, Steichen wrote,they "seemed to give him more pleasurethan anything I had ever done. He said,'you will make the world understand myBalzac through these pictures. They arelike Christ walking on the desert.' " WheStieglitz saw a set, he was, according toSteichen, "more impressed than with another prints Ihad ever shown him. He puchased them at once."



25 (left). Steichen met Stieglitz in New Yoin 1900, when Steichen was on his way tEurope, and Stieglitz purchased severallandscapes from him. Shortly thereafterSteichen turned to quite a different artistiproblem-the nude. He quickly adoptedstylizations that became his hallmark: thelight female figure, her face obscured,emerging from a dark void; and a singleprop, such as a mirror, ase, or flower,thwas nearly invisible but frequently suppliethe title (this 1902 printis Figure with IrisSteichen may have abandoned his nudesafter they were severely criticized byGeorge Bernard Shaw. Shaw wrote: "Stechen's life studies look as though theywere taken in coal cellars. He starts withbrown, and gets no further than brown,and the parts of his figures which areobscured by darkness... suddenly becomindistinct and insubstantial in a quiteunconvincing and unreasonable way."Shaw, who hated any kind of manipulatioof the photograph, was probably offendedby Steichen's unorthodox methods.26 (right). In Paris in the early 1900s Steichen became interested in European styland processes, particularlythe gum-bichromate technique popularized byDemachy and enthusiastically endorsedStieglitz. Steichen's first gum prints weremonochromatic, but as he became moreproficient, he sought increasingly delicateeffects and more colors. To make this picture three bichromate pigments, terreverlamp black, and sepia mixed with black,were brushed onto ordinary drawing papand exposed to light through a negative.(Each pigment required a separate step.)The pigment hardened according to theamount of light passing through the negative; when the paper was immersed in tapwater,the most exposed portions dissolveonly slightly,thus removing a small amouof pigment; while the parts exposed for thshortest time were washed away, creatingthe highlights. The brushmarks at theedges, ordinarilytrimmed, are retainedhere for compositional effect. In pose andmood Steichen's 1904 experimental prinreflects the influence of Whistler,Sargentand the French graphic artist TheophileSteinlen.



oI ?

N

-



27. TheStieglitz amilyportraitshatevolvedfrom he close personalfriendshipbetween SteichenandStieglitzepitomizeSteichen'sconcept of how a portraitshouldbe composed. Wallswithpictureframesor othersimple propsbecomeimportant esign elements. The sittersdefinethemselvesthroughcostume:Stieg-

litz nthisprint,madein 1905, wears hisovercoat,as though caughton the run;hisdaughter,Katherine,wears a daytimedressandbroad-rimmed at thattypifies urn-of-the-centurygirlishness.Their inkedarmssuggest an intimacyhatcounterbalancesthe psychologicaldistancebetweenthemimpliedbyStieglitz's urnedback.



28. Steichen recalled in his autobiographythe taking of this photograph: "One day inthe summer of 1907, I borrowed from afriend a German hand camera called theGoerzanschutz Klappcamera. Armed withthis camera, Imade my first attempt atserious documentary reportage. Iwent tothe Longchamps Races and found anextravagantly dressed society audience,obviously more interested in displaying and

viewing the latest fashions than in followithe horse races." The series, including thprint,After the Grand Prix-Paris, was raramong the works of his Paris years, whenmost of his negatives were made in the stdio. Although evidently attracted to theelaborate costumes, Steichen still renderhis subject with a fine eye for the dynamiof motion and space.



29 (left). The Flatiron was a very popularsubject for photographers after its con-struction on Madison Square in 1902.Stieglitz photographed it in the winter of1903, providingan unavoidable model forthis printmade by Steichen a year laterSteichen paid subtle homage to Stieglitz inhis composition, even using a tree branch,sweeping from edge to edge, that relatesto the tree, extending from top to bottom,in Stieglitz's picture. But the differences inmood and light cancel out the similarities.Stieglitz isolated the building in a snowylandscape, causing it to emerge from light;Steichen chose evening light, and thebuilding emerges from dusk. Stieglitz print-ed his as a small photogravure, while Stei-chen made an enlargement, to which hedelicately applied colored pigment. Stieglitzmust have held Steichen's composition inhigh esteem, for he collected four exam-ples in different hues-all the knownvariants-a traditional practice amongserious collectors of etchings, lithographs,and woodcuts.30 (right). In 1903, shortly after Steichen'stemporary returnfrom Paris, he was askedby the painter Fedor Encke, a friend of theStieglitz family,to photograph J. P Morgan.Encke had been commissioned by Morganto do a portrait,and the artist wanted towork from a good photograph. Steichenmade an exposure of a pose set by Enckeand another with the head and hands inslightly different positions. When Morgansaw the proofs, he ordered a dozen of theEncke pose but tore up Steichen's favorite(reproduced here), exclaiming "Terrible " fMorganwas offended by the light falling onthe chair arm, giving the appearance of ashining dagger blade, he did not say so.Others have suggested that this subtlecompositional device (although it is possi-bly accidental) alluded to the Machiavelliantactics through which Morgan rose to aposition of power Steichen resented Mor-gan for destroying his proof, and whenMorgan changed his mind and ordered aset of prints, it took Steichen three years tomake them.



31 (left). Inthis touching photograph(dated 1903) of his young son, Maynard,holding a volume of Camera Work,Clarence White expressed in visual termshis affection and esteem for this journal.Stieglitz, who was photographed onnumerous occasions with Camera Work,was its editor from 1902 to 1917. NumberOne, prepared late in 1902 by Stieglitz anJoseph Keiley,featured the work of Ger-trude Kasebier, and included her very popular Blessed Art Thou Among Women (no22). Soon Camera Workhad nearly a thousand subscribers in the United States andabroad and was considered the finest photography publication in the world. It offerephotogravure reproductions of superbquality,which today are often collectedindividuallyas fine prints. The journalceased publication in 1917, after Stieglitzturned his attention to painters.32 (right). When this photograph, printed1905, was exhibited at the National ArtsClub four years later,the critic J. NilsonLaurvikwrote: "The fine seated portraitoMrs.White... was, photographically speaking, not only the best print in the exhibitioby reason of its masterly handling of thelight in the shadows and its correct rendeing of all the values, giving a sense ofspace and atmosphere, but in my opinionwas the best printpictorially Itpossessesin a high degree all the qualities that distiguish a fine portrait. It has reserved sim-plicity,combined with dignity,that give tothe whole an air of supreme distinction."White's use of light in this picture of hiswife is compositionally the opposite of Stechen's in the Morgan portrait (no. 30).Steichen used light as an artificial deviceintroduce drama and illusion. White, on thother hand, realizes drama with light, butthe effect is of the utmost naturalism.



*r



33. White often enlisted the cooperation ofhis family and friends for his photographs,and as a result they convey a special inti-macy that became his signature. Themodels for The Kiss were the Reynolds sis-ters of TerreHaute, Indiana. Changingmores have altered the way this picture isperceived. At the time it was taken, in

1904, it was natural to interpretthis as twosisters expressing family tenderness in away that was customary then. Todaythemore common response to this picture isas evidence of an unusual love betweenthese two girls. The partiallyobscured fig-ure at the left and the enclosing architec-tural elements enhance the intimacy of

the subject.About the time this photograph wasmade, White resigned his job as a book-keeper in a wholesale grocery in NewarOhio, to pursue photography full time. Hmoved to New York,where he worked asan assistant to Stieglitz in the Little Galleies of the Photo-Secession.



34. Among the challenges faced by artist-photographers of about 1900 was how tomake photographs that would share withpainting and the other graphic arts thedecorative function that they often per-formed. White's Spring is inherently orna-mental in its strongly patterned shapes andthree-part composition; but the model's

evocative gesture and expression assure touching human element. The design issimilar to the compartmentalized stained-glass windows that were popular about1898, when this printwas made; yet artisworking in glass could rarely achieve thetantalizing combination of literallyrenderspace and implied space seen here.



35 (left). Alvin Langdon Coburn was introduced to photography by a distant cousinF Holland Day (see nos. 12-14). Coburnaccompanied Day to Europe in 1900/01 help organize the New School of AmericaPhotography exhibition in London andParis. Coburn was much influenced by Dadopting the element of psychologicaldrama Day had pioneered. Taken about1909, this picture of an elegant youngwoman, Elsie Thomas, blowing a bubble,creates tension by forcing us to ask,"Whenwill it burst?" Coburn's portraitswere lavishly praised by the English criticincluding George Bernard Shaw, andprompted by the warm reception of hiswork, he moved to England permanently1912.36 (right). Although Coburn's reputationwas based on his portraitwork (see no.35), his real interests lay outside the stu-dio. His great love was to search for stronmotifs in the world at large. A subject sucas The Rudder-Liverpool, which Coburntook in 1905, was available to any photographer who could find his way to the dockBut few photographers would have con-centrated on the powerful sweep of thestern and rudder and the interlocking network of shapes that give this compositionat once boldness and simplicity.Coburndeliberately avoids the most commonplacseafaring iconography of spars and sails,choosing to focus on the interplay betwethe massive hull and the graceful ropessupporting the scaffolds.



-

f~ P~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~?

_~ ~ ~ ~~~, I JS

-~~~~~~~~~-

;,.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

^^-BT'~~~~~~~~~~~~~~^^^^^'^Yj^^B^^B~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ABwttiR te f& i^i^^^^^^^^^^^^^y' ^^^^^^^^^^^1~~~~~~~~~~J?

I^^^SSSQA~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ysrK -rr-^R4LB HeHr^^ ^ ^^^^^ ^ ?^



-

04 0 t.

,tiA -,iqq

A

V tr

olg - - I d-

- -*-'2~~~~J-?if - - 'kt It o-%. RI

_*-W

[v 's '.Jri

r~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

- - ap -

N ' :

_/m , ,__

S

w,,

I

0. .)I

40Z

:-It.I

l --

44?L



37 (left). By 1900 youngAmericanpainterslikeWinslowHomerand JohnSingerSar-gent had evolveda particularly mericanvarietyof impressionism, nd itwas naturalthatyoungAmericanphotographershouldlookto thisstyleof painting orinspiration.Here, na 1906 compositionentitledTheWhiteBridge-Venice,Coburnadoptsatypicallympressionistpictorialdevice ofshiftingattentionawayfrom he naturalsubject,the picturesquebridgeand strid-ing figure,anddirecting t to the playoflighton the water.Thegum-bichromateprocess used for this printwas particularlysuitedto the painterly ffect that Coburndesired.38 (right).AnneW.Brigmanwas a shipcaptain'swife,who had a greatdeal oftimeto photographwhilehe was at sea.Herhomewas California, nd the climatethereperhapscontributedo her choice ofa favorite ubject,the nude inthe land-scape. Brigman nce wroteto Stieglitz hatof all the photographshe reproduced nCameraWorkNumberFive,the ones thatimpressedhermost were Demachy'snudes, particularly heStruggle,which sheinterpreted s an allegoryof woman's con-flictwithoppressivenaturalorces. Brig-mantook as her themethe triumph fwomankind verthese forces. Incantation,of 1905, depictsa highpriestessof nature,vulnerableo her brutal urroundings ettriumphantverthem.



39 (left).For his 1906 pictureentitledThBurning f Rome,George H.Seeley posehis sisters on a hillsidenear the familyhomeinStockbridge,Massachusetts,asettingthat could not have been fartherfrom he Rome of EmperorNero.Seeley,student of Greek and Romanhistory,cajoledhis mother ntosewing costumesthat he used intableaux,such as thisonto whichhe gave evocative titles.Evenwithoutreference to the titlethe girlsloogenuinelymenaced. LikeCoburn see no37), Seeley focused attentionon the playof light,addingan eyecatchingvisual element thatcompetes with he literaryallusion.40 (right).Born n Dresden,educated inParis,a residentat various imes of bothLondonand NewYork,BaronAdolfdeMeyer ed an internationalife. Marriedothe illegitimate aughterof the PrinceofWales,he was comfortable n high societa lifestylealien to most of Stieglitz'scol-leagues. De Meyer'smodels-often hisfriends-were fashionablewomendressebycouturiersand coiffedby masterstyliBy 1917 he was one of the highest-paidfashionphotographersnthe world.TheSilverCap,done about 1912, was probatakenbefore he became a commercialphotographer.t s a fineexampleof howskilledhe was at dramatizingostume.



it--

N4.1' 4'^*'iVk-:*

a"



41. Perhaps as a diversion from photo-graphing people, de Meyer,in about 1906,took a series of flower studies. Kasebierand Steichen, struck by their beauty, col-lected some prints for themselves, andthese were also admired by Stieglitz. Soona de Meyer exhibition was mounted at thePhoto-Secession Galleries that included

several of the flower pieces; among themwas WaterLilies, a composition that with itsoff-center bowl focuses attention on thereflected petals and other refractedshapes. Stieglitz acquired this pictureabout 1909, around the same time asKuehn's Tea Still Life(no. 8); they areamong the few still lifes in the collection.



42. De Meyerbecame fascinatedwith bal-let and tooka powerful eries of photo-graphsof Nijinsky ancing"TheAfternoonof a Faun" n Paris.Thisstartlinguntitledprint s stylistically elated o the dance pic-tures,whichwere published na deluxebookin 1914. Themodel,with a strange

mask over herface, is shown ina dan-celikegesture againsta veryshallowspace, whichresembles the narrownon-traditionaltage uponwhich the "Faun"was performedn 1912. Her ense left haand provocativepose make this enigmatpictureeven moremysterious.



43 (above). Arnold Genthe, an Americanwho had studied in Germany, was a tutor tothe children of a German businessman liv-ing in San Francisco. He began photo-graphing for his own amusement about1896. Fascinated by the San FranciscoChinese community, he made an extensiveseries of prints, later published as a bookentitled Old Chinatown. He is probably bestknown for this unsettling picture of the citi-zens of San Francisco watching as theircity burned during the fire after the greatearthquake of 1906. We are shown a scene

of great calm that is contradicted by theburned-out buildings along the street, andby the billow of smoke that fills the sky.After moving to New York n 1911, Genthehad a flourishing career as a society por-trait photographer.44 (right). Charles Sheeler was a studentof painting at the Pennsylvania Academy ofFine Arts when he took up photographyWhile he saw it as a medium of creativeexpression, photography also became hislivelihood. He was a close friend of thepainter and constructivist sculptor Morton

Schamberg, and they shared a house inDoylestown, Pennsylvania, where this piture was taken in 1917. Inthis compositiSheeler concealed the light source behinthe iron stove, leaving it in silhouette, whthe opposite wall is bathed in light, creata mosaic of shapes. No attempt has beemade to illuminate fully the architecturaldetails; certain parts are obscured in shaow while others are overexposed. Throuhis handling of light, Sheeler drained theroom of space and transformed the whointo a bas-relief composition.



I

1I .*

4



-yv.. . ? ittr;J??'1 -?$.?I( ? ??.?I*- "?;;"6

ic??1 '\ cr8ul-

'?C.r -?Ii . ?-

,.,.. ? ?(Z r?e r cf*Sf .B:p



45 (left). In this photograph, taken in 1917,of the underside of the staircase in hisDoylestown house (see no. 44), Sheelercontinued his experiments with bright lightand viewpoint that molded and even dis-torted architectural forms. By the latetwenties Sheeler began to use these photo-graphic studies as models for his paintings,which were further evolutions of the idea ofthe abstracting quality of light.

46 (above). Paul Strand used variousdevices such as dummy lenses and view-finder prisms to enable him to appear to befocusing his camera in one direction whileactually focusing it in another Inthis man-ner he was able to catch his subjects off-guard, as he has in this untitled photo-graph taken in New York n 1916. (It isreproduced here for the first time.) Thehuman consciousness exemplified in this

picture was one aspect of the stylistic dity that Strand experienced (along withsome of the painters in Stieglitz's circlebetween 1914 and 1917, when hedigressed into a series of photographsforms and textures. Strand's contributiophotographic style of the twentieth centwas to reconcile the objective and the psonal in his perception of the world.



47 (above). The dialectic of style that wasStrand's main concern during the Waryears (see no. 46) required that he make atleast one photograph combining theopposing elements of human content andpurely formal design. Ifthe human contentwere the sole consideration of this 1915picture, taken from the New YorkEl, thestriding woman framed by the girder andthe edge would have been the center ofinterest. Instead, the composition is domi-nated by the curvilinear patterns of lightand shadow that create a network of formsdistinct from the rectilinear architecture.The photograph is ultimatelyabout conver-gent and divergent lines and aboutundirected motion through space.48 (right). Stieglitz once said of Strand,who became his prot6ge, that he was thefirst photographer of great promise to have

received his visual education at the Photo-Secession Galleries, where Strand was afrequent visitor as a student. Strand's firstperiod of enormous creativity was fromabout 1915 to 1917, when he was calledfor militaryservice. Inthe army Strandworked as an X-raytechnician, and aboutthis same time he became entranced withcinema, much to Stieglitz's annoyance, asthis new interest interfered with Strand'sstill photography. Garden Iris-CenterLovell, Maine, was made in 1927, afterStrand again applied himself seriously tothe view camera. The iris is treated stylisti-cally like the automobile close-up (no. 49),but, perhaps because of the plant's organ-ic nature, it is more allied with the streetportraits (see no. 46) than with Strand'sexperiments in abstraction.



ii r ;i LCu1. -~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

.1,5 rcr II;~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



/J

' fIt *,'~~~~~~ II

ai=



49 (left). For a few years before the War,Strand grappled with the problem ofwhether to create photographs that wereovertly human in content or to pursue moreabstract themes in his quest for pure form(see no. 47). Here, in a 1917 platinumprint,headlight, spokes, brake drum, andelectric cable establish the automobile as amodern industrialartifact;while the sinu-ous shadows and reflections that createabstract patterns in the soft, brownish-graymonochrome are an expression of art forart's sake.50 (right). Ansel Adams met Strand in Taos,New Mexico, in 1929, a meeting thatmarked a turning point in Adams's photo-graphic style. Duringthe 1920s Strandexperimented with the close-up moreseriously than any other photographer inStieglitz's circle, and such studies (see no.48) impressed Adams. This print,of a shopon Powell Street in San Francisco, includesa magazine rack with a New YorkerdatedOctober 7, 1933, suggesting that the nega-tive was made the first week in October.The out-of-kilterpilaster of the buildingindicates that the view camera was inten-tionally not perpendicular to the subject, asignificant departure from the erect fron-talitytypified by Evans's architectural pho-tographs of the 1890s (see no. 11).



51. Adams was not particularlyknown forhis nature studies when WinterYosemiteValleywas done in 1933 or 1934. Alongwith Americana (no. 50) it exemplifies themovement toward hard-edged realism,dubbed by Adams and its other founders

as the "f/64" (for the smallest lens aper-ture, the one yielding the sharpest pic-tures). The subtle detail in the snow andrich shadows are typical of Adams's mas-terfulgelatine-silver printing style.



52. The title, Political Circus, given byAdams on the back of this printindicates atongue-in-cheek social theme, which issupported by the humorous juxtaposition ofpolitical and circus posters. The corrugat-

ed metal wall on which the posters aremounted, with its deep shadows from traking light, introduces an element of fomalism, which came to be an importanpart of Adams's style.

:



A



53 (left). EliotPorter's 1938 photographSong Sparrow's Nest in Blueberry Bushcreates a still-life composition from a sub-ject that, as the title suggests, might be anornithologist's record. The photograph, dis-playing the stylistic influence of Strand andAdams (see nos. 48, 51), expresses thepattern and ornament that exist in nature-without geometry or architectonic structureyet in a perfect state of harmony and order54 (right). Stieglitz collected many photo-graphs of infants and children, includingexamples by,among others, Kasebier (no.21), Day,and Alice Boughton. A new aes-thetic is evident here in the close-up pointof view and tight framing reminiscent ofStrand's treatment of the automobile detail(no. 49). The picture imparts a feeling ofhuman tenderness, and it was enormouslypopular in its time. The subject is Porter'sson, Jonathan, photographed by his fatherin July 1938.



1. J. CraigAnnan(1864-1946), Scottish.TheChurchortheWorld. 893. Handprintedphotogravureon heavypaper,105 x130 mm (4/8 x 51/8 n.).Naef 13. (33.43.243)

2. J. CraigAnnan.ABurgosBullockWagon.1914. Handprintedphotogravureon tissue, 143 x 171mm 5%x 63/4n.).Naef 40. (49.55.263)

3. RobertDemachy(1859-1938), French.The Crowd.1910.Graypigmentoilprint,158 x 228 mm(61/4 9in.).Naef211.(49.55.205)

4. RobertDemachy.Dans es coulisses("BehindheScenes").About1897.Graypigmentgum-bi-chromate,367 x 188mm (141/2x 71/4 n.).Naef201. (49.55.206)

5. RobertDemachy.Panel.1898. Orangepigmentgum-bichro-mate,147 mmdiam.(513/16 n.). Naef 200.(33.43.56)

6. ArchibaldCochrane(active1900), English.The Viaduct. 910 orbefore.Carbon,455 x363 mm 1715/1e1415/16 n.). Naef 153.(33.43.339)

7. HeinrichKuehn(1868-1944), Aus-trian.VenezianischeBrucke "VenetianBridge"). 902/1903.Brownpigmentgum-bichromate, 15 x 659mm(20'/8x 26 in.).Naef 391. (33.43.280)

8. HeinrichKuehn.Teestilleben"TeaStillLife"). 908/1909.Unidentifiedigmentprocess,283 x 383mm (111/8x 151/16 in.).Naef 400. (33.43.273)

9. Rene LeBegue (ac-tive1900), French.Academie.1902.Gray-black igmentgum-bichromate,41x 180 mm (91/2x 71/8in.).Naef 413.(33.43.258)

10. FrederickH.Evans(1853-1943), English.InDeerleapWoods-AHaunt f GeorgeMeredith-.About1909. Platinum, 44 x111 mm(511/6 43/in.).Naef 300.(49.55.235)

11. FrederickH.Evans.YorkMinster,Into he SouthTran-sept.About1900.Platinum,09 x 121mm(81/4 43/4n.).Naef292. (33.43.368)

12. F.HollandDay(1864-1933), Ameri-can. The Seven LastWords.1898. Platinumfromreducedcopynegative,79 x 328 mm(3/8 x 1215/16n.). Naef196. (49.55.222)

13. F.HollandDay.Ebonyand Ivory. 897Platinum, 83 x 200mm (73/16x 77/8 in.).Naef178. (33.43.166)

14. F.HollandDay.AnEthiopian hief.Abou1896. Platinum, 81 x184 mm (71/8x 71/4 n.)Naef 180. (33.43.157)

15. John G. Bullock(1854-1939), Ameri-can. TheWhiteWall.1901. Glycerinedeveloped platinum. 93 x132 mm (7/ x 53/16in.).Naef105.(33.43.344)

16. JosephT.Keiley(1869-1914), Ameri-can. From New YorFerryboat.904. Glycerinedevelopedplati-num,mountedon goldpaperwitha threadmarginupona largersheet of graypaper,92 x 115 mm(3%x49/16 in.). Naef 383.(33.43.178)

17. JosephT.Keiley.ASiouxChief.About1898. Glycerinedeveloped platinum, 93 x141 mm (7% x 59/16in.).Naef367.(33.43.174)

18. JosephT.Keiley.ABacchante.1899.Glycerinedevelopedplatinum,45 x 193mm(9%x 7% n.).Naef370. (33.43.185)

000.0>

IC-

EI-c

iro

o.

I-

Ic-

C,

O

r.oC

.2

Q)a0.0

0I-

62



19. William . Dyer(1860-1931), Ameri-can. L'Allegro.902.Gray-green igmentgum-bichromate,20x 169 mm (12% x 611/16in.).Naef 224.(33.43.338)

20. EvaWatson-Schutze(1867-1935),American.The Rose.1903 or before. Brownpigment um-bichro-mate,337 x 128 mm(131/4 5 in.).Naef528. (49.55.191)

21. GertrudeKasebier(1852-1934), Ameri-can. Mother ndChild.1899. Platinum,01 x130mm (715s/6x 51/8in.).Naef346.(33.43.141)

22. GertrudeKasebier.BlessedArtThouAmongWomen.1899.Platinum,30 x 132mm (91/16 53/16n.).Naef 345. (33.43.132)

23. RudolfEickemeyer,Jr. 1862-1932),American.ASummerSea. 1903 printromnegativeof 1902 orbefore.Platinum,38x 187 mm (9% x 7%/in.).Naef 225.(33.43.350)

24. Edward . Stei-chen (1879-1973),American.Balzac,Towardshe Light,Midnight.908. Gray-

25. Edward . Stei-chen. FigurewithIris.1902. Gelatine-car-bon,340 x 188 mm(133 x 77/16n.). Naef458. (33.43.17)

26. Edward . Stei-chen. ExperimentnMultiple um.1904.Terrevertend blackpigment um-bichro-mate,282 x 242 mm(111/8 x 99/16n.).Naef476. (33.43.13)

27. Edward . Stei-chen. AlfredStieglitzand HisDaughterKatherine. 905 printfrom1904 negative.Graypigmentgum-bi-chromateoverglazedplatinumrgelatine-silver, 55 x 400 mm(17'5/6 x 153/4 n.).Naef 509. (33.43.23)

28. Edward . Stei-chen. After he GrandPrix-Paris.About1911 printromnega-tiveof 1907. Gelatine-carbonwith electivelyappliedyellow one(extremely aded),271x 295 mm (101l/i6 x11% n.).Naef492.(33.43.51)

29. Edward . Stei-chen. TheFlatiron.1909 printrom1904negative.Greenish-bluepigmentgum-bi-chromateovergela-tine-silver,78 x 384mm 1813/6 151/8n.).Naef480. (33.43.43)

30. Edward . Stei-chen. J. PierpontMor-gan, Esq.1904 printfrom1903 negative.Platinumrgelatine-silver, 16 x 411 mmgreengelatine-carbon,365 x 482 mm(14%x19 in.).Naef486.(33.43.38)(205/16 x 163/16n.).Naef 497. (49.55.167)

I I

31. ClarenceH.White(1871-1925), Ameri-can. MW-A.D.1903-BoywithCameraWork. 903. Platinum,200 x 153 mm(73/4 6in.).Naef544.(33.43.301)

32. ClarenceH.White.Portrait-Mrs.C. H.White.1905. Platinum245 x 195 mm(9%x711/16n.). Naef 546.(33.43.312)

33. ClarenceH.WhiteTheKiss. 1904. Waxedplatinum, 36 x 152mm (95/16 6 in.). Naef553. (33.43.319)

34. ClarenceH.WhiteSpring-Triptych.1898. Platinum,eft:177 x 22(7 x 13/4n.),center: 204 x 99 (81/16x 35/16in.), right:180 x25 mm (71/8x 1 in.).Naef 554. (33.43.322)

35. AlvinLangdonCo-burn 1882-1966),American.TheBubble1909. Gelatine-silver,282 x 219 mm(111/ x8% n.).Naef 151.(33.43.196)

36. AlvinLangdonCo-burn.TheRudder-Liverpool. 905. Gum-bichromate verplatinum,61 x 292mm(14/4 x 11 2 in.).Naef 131. (33.43.199)



37. AlvinLangdonCo-burn.The WhiteBridge-Venice.1906.Brownpigmentgum-bichromate verplati-num,366 x 290 mm(147/16X 117/16n.).Naef 132. (33.43.212)

38. AnneW.Brigman(1869-1950), Ameri-can. Incantation.1905. Gelatine-silver,270 x 165 mm(10%x61/2 n.).Naef 73.(33.43.121)

39. GeorgeH.Seeley(1880-1955), Ameri-can. TheBurning fRome. 1906. Brownpigment um-bichro-mateoverplatinum,mountedon brownpaperwitha narrowmargin n a largersheet of green, uponasheet of naturalwovepaper,246 x 196 mm(91/16 x 73/4 in.). Naef440. (33.43.326)40. BaronAdolfdeMeyer 1868-1946),German,ived nEng-landand the UnitedStates.TheSilverCap.1912. Gelatine-silver,457 x 276 mm(18 x107/8n.).Naef 218.(33.43.233)

41. BaronAdolfdeMeyer.WaterLilies.1912 printromnega-tiveof about1906.Platinum,61 x 352mm (105/16 x 137/8 n.).Naef216. (33.43.234)

42. BaronAdolfdeMeyer.DanceStudy.About1912. Gelatine-silver, 27 x 435 mm(127/8 17/8 in.).Naef219. (49.55.327)

43. ArnoldGenthe(1869-1942), Ameri-can. After he Earth-quake,San Francisco.1906. Gelatine-silver,133 x 235 mm(51/49/4 in.).Naef 307.(33.43.223)

44. CharlesSheeler(1883-1965), Ameri-can. BucksCountyHouse,InteriorDetail.1917. Gelatine-silver,231 x 163 mm(91/ x67/16n.). Naef 446.(33.43.259)

45. CharlesSheeler.BucksCountyHouse,Interior etail.1917.Gelatine-silver,30 x163 mm (91/16 67/16in.).Naef 448.(33.43.261)

46. PaulStrand(1890-1976), Ameri-can. Photograph,NewYork. 916. Platinumfromenlargednega-tive,262 x 307 mm(105/6 x 121/8n.).Naef521. (49.55.316)

47. PaulStrand.Fromthe El.1915. Platinumfromenlargednega-tive, mage:326 x 252mm (127/8x 915/16n.),paper:335 x 259 mm(133/6 x 103/16n.).Naef 518. (49.55.221)

48. PaulStrand.Garden ris-CenterLovell,Maine.1927.Gelatine-silver,34 x192 mm (99/16X715/16 n.). Naef 525.(55.635.1a)

49. PaulStrand.Untitled. 1917. Platinum,321 x 252 mm(12%5915/16n.). Naef 523.(44.55.318)

50. AnselAdams bor1902), American.Americana. 933. Gelatine-silver,99 x 152mm. 73/4 5 in.).Nae3. (49.55.178)

51. Ansel Adams.WinterYosemiteValle1933/1934. Gelatinesilver, 34 x 185 mm(91/4x 75/16 in.). Naef 6(49.55.177)

52. Ansel Adams. Po-liticalCircus.1932/1934. Gelatine-silver235 x 178 mm(91/4 7in.).Naef 7.(49.55.306)

53. EliotF Porter(born1901), Ameri-can. Song Sparrow'sNestinBlueberryBush,1938. June,1938. Gelatine-silver240 x 193 mm (97/16x7% n.).Naef417.(49.55.180)

54. EliotF.Porter. onathan. July, 1938. Gelatine-silver,39 x 179mm (97/16 71/6 in.).Naef 418. (49.55.287)

64



Alfred Stieglitz (1864-1946), photogra-pher;editor;writer,curator,and collector,was born in Hoboken, New Jersey. Hereceived most of his education in New YoIn 1882 Stieglitz went abroad to study inBerlin. The following year he took his firstphotographs, and in Europe won manyprizes for his work. After his returnto theUnited States in 1890, he became editor oThe American Amateur Photographer,establishing publishing as one of his mainpursuits. Seven years later he foundedCamera Notes, the journal of The CameraClub of New York,and in 1902 Stieglitz,assisted by Joseph Keiley and others, putout the first issue of Camera Work see no31), which featured photographs by Ger-trude Kasebier. Perhaps in appreciation ofthis recognition, she took a striking portraof Stieglitz the same year (see p. 3). Camera Work,which in its early years becamethe most influentialphotography publicatiin the United States, was after 1912 devoted mainly to avant-garde painting.Stieglitz began organizing Photo-Seces-sion exhibitions (see no. 1) in 1902, and i1905 he opened the LittleGalleries of thePhoto-Secession-later known as "291" fthe address on FifthAvenue. These galleries and Camera Workceased to exist in1917, and Stieglitz went on to found theIntimateGallery and, after it closed, AnAmerican Place. Stieglitz's galleries weremore like private museums, from whichworks were only occasionally sold. Stieglifrequently bought works directly from theartists, and his purchases formed the col-lections of photographs, prints, drawings,paintings, and sculptures that he donatedover a period of years to the Metropolitan