1127
York, to display work from 1894–1910. However, he
included only the work of his own circle known as the
Photo-Secessionists. The offense taken by the counter-
Secessionist organization, called the Photo-Pictorialists
of America, was so great that Stieglitz decided to take no
further part in advancing pictorialism. The rows among
other pictorialists carried on, with further splits evident
in exhibitions designed to keep pictorialism alive to
the present day. Despite its popularity, or because of
it, pictorialism’s contribution to art photography was
largely ignored until the late 1970s. Recognizing its
historical importance also meant acknowledging its
ignominious end. In 1978 historian Weston Naef de-
scribed pictorialism’s late phases as “the most despised
art movement of the twentieth century.”
Since the late 1970s, there has been an increasing
interest in pictorialism, with more books, exhibitions
and auction-house sales of the work. Stieglitz and other
Photo-Secessionists remain the best-known art photog-
raphers of the period. The orthodox history centers on
Stieglitz and his circle and has altered little other than
to recover a few neglected artists—signifi cantly men
whose careers were discernibly thwarted by Stieglitz,
such as Fred Holland Day and Rudolf Eickemeyer Jr.
That history repeats the aims of pictorialism laid down
by its fi rst advocates. It tends to repeat the self-assess-
ments and earliest reviews of the movement as based in
personal vision, with emphasis on the spiritual superior-
ity of the artist in a materialistic world.
Of course, this history continues to separate pho-
tography as art from its increasing ease, cheapness and
popularity. From the early 1890s, some photographers
saw the mass production of easy-to-use cameras as a
threat to art. Whereas once it had been possible to make
art photographs only with whole- or half-plate cameras
on a tripod, now people tried to achieve similar effects
with hand-held cameras and negatives no bigger than
a quarter-plate. In theory, if these newcomers had the
correct disposition they also had the potential to make
art. In theory and in practice, as George Davison showed
with “The Onion Field” (1889), an art photograph
could be produced with a pinhole camera, with no lens
or plate at all. Davison demonstrated that technology
was irrelevant, since the basis for art was the romantic-
expressive temperament.
Yet, despite the importance of character, technology
was still a crucial factor in differentiating the artistic
amateur from the snapshooter. Art photographers
bought their own expensive equipment, furnished their
own darkrooms (or used those of exclusive clubs), and
produced individual and exquisite prints. In the 1890s,
an enthusiast for hand cameras warned buyers against
trying to “take” a landscape with a cheap camera with-
out a shutter. The ownership of the landscape, even at
the level of ideas, remained with those who were not
only cultivated but also rich enough to afford elaborate
plate cameras. It was important to stay up-market with
equipment, or (like Davison) temper low-level technol-
ogy with a superior understanding of composition and
darkroom skill.
The mass production of photographic goods led in-
evitably to the popularity of photography as a pastime
among the lower middle classes, and an increasing
number of clubs and societies. The British JournalPICTORIALISM
Delton, Louis-Jean. Mr. Brower’s American Trotters.
The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles © The J. Paul Getty Museum,