1129
Attacking their aesthetics, Keller writes that the pic-
torialists were “charmed” by the high status “reserved
for the artist/genius in Victorian times” and set their
sights “on producing high-art works à la Titian and
Rembrandt.” However, the claims for art were not al-
ways based on the “old masters.” Other favored models
included popular contemporary (or still fashionable)
artists such as Jean Baptiste Camille Corot, George
Frederic Watts, and, above all, Whistler. Further, the pic-
torialists could not have accepted that their place was to
stay with what Keller calls the “merely decorative” arts
of the Aesthetic Movement, since they were contending
for a new space for art photographs as pictures.
Keller also argues that in constructing their own fame,
the pictorialists built “a prestige-oriented pseudo art
world” on a medium with no stable position or history
as an art form, and with negligible support from curators
and collectors. The pictorialists’ self-promotion was
indeed similar to that of the art world, no doubt because
of prestige. It could not have been for fi nancial reward,
since none of the practitioners was making serious
money from art photography, and yet they continued to
pursue it in their spare time.
The position of the pictorialists is complex, because
most were middle-class professionals. Pictorialism was
only a hobby and full-time camera work was extremely
rare. Yet the attraction of mimicking high art becomes
clearer if it is considered in terms of social class. Ar-
tistic production and promotion had no direct business
signifi cance and was largely concerned with member-
ship of the correct social set. In London, the elite art
photographers formed the Brotherhood of the Linked
Ring in 1892, breaking away from the already elite (but
inartistic) Royal Photographic Society. But despite their
secession, art photographers were not bohemians seek-
ing a place outside the market. On the contrary, they
were themselves a niche market. The big photographic
fi rms recognized the special cachet of art, and fi nanced
the amateur magazines to encourage art aspirations.
They continued the same appeal in organized amateur
exhibitions with special sections for the elite art pho-
tographers. For instance, Kodak’s large exhibition in
London in 1897 featured well-known British pictorial-
ists such as Henry Peach Robinson, James Craig Annan,
George Davison and Alfred Horsley Hinton. Further-
more, many of these photographers were employed in
the trade. Hinton was a dealer in photographic goods and
editor of The Amateur Photographer from 1893–1908;
Annan was employed in his father’s fi rm of portrait,
commercial and industrial photography; Davison was
directly connected with Kodak from 1889–1913, and
was Managing Director of the company in England
from 1900–07. Robinson was a professional portrait
photographer and successful author. Other exhibitors
included such famous members of the Brotherhood of
the Linked Ring as Malcolm Arbuthnot, who married a
Kodak heiress and managed the company’s Liverpool
branch, and James Booker Blakemore Wellington, who
founded the company of Wellington and Ward, manu-
facturers of photographic plates.
The tendency to retreat into metropolitan and other-
wise exclusive societies was matched in Europe in the
Cercle l’Effort (Brussels) and the Trifolium (Vienna),
and in the USA by the Elect (Chicago) and the Photo-
Secessionists (New York). Such elite clubs were directly
comparable to the exclusive gentlemen’s clubs of high
society. In addition, many of the leading members of
these societies were unusually wealthy and highly edu-
cated. The Wiener Camera Club enjoyed the patronage
of the Royal Family and aristocrats, as well as photogra-
phers of international standing and high status, including
lawyers (Joseph T. Keiley), bankers (Robert Demachy),
merchants (Theodor and Oskar Hofmeister), and heirs
(Heinrich Kühn). Not surprisingly in such company, the
emphasis was on stylish clothes, on gatherings in fi ne
restaurants, and luxurious club accommodation.
The pictorialists agreed on their exclusivity. However,
they scarcely agreed on anything else. They constantly
wrangled among themselves about methods and styles.
The movement began promisingly in 1891 with an art
photography exhibition organized by the Trifolium
group in Vienna, but personal rivalries meant it ended
badly in London in 1909–10 with the self-destruction of
the Brotherhood of the Linked Ring. Pictorialism then
rapidly disintegrated as a forceful movement.
The seeds of discord were already present from 1889.
Despite the importance of the fi nal pictorial effect, this
was nevertheless related to technical choices, and art
photographers engaged in bitter disputes over processes.
The controversy over printing began in 1889, when
Emerson caused a scandal by advocating differential
focusing, and thereby broke with sharp imagery. The ar-
guments were complicated by those who advocated print
manipulation in the darkroom and those who believed
the photograph should be printed “straight,” insisting on
the purity and integrity of the chemical process. The op-
posing factions never resolved the matter in arguments
stretching over twenty years, and from this distance the
differences between them are less striking than their
similar aim—to make rare and unique prints that were
remote from everyday snapshots, or illustrations printed
in magazines and papers by off-set lithography.
Divided by technique, the two main camps held some
ideas in common. For example, both camps declared
that truth to nature was the most important ideal, and
neither believed this should be mistaken for realism, or
too much detail. However, one camp declared that it
was the duty of the photographer to improve on reality
by any means possible in order to approach the ideal of
nature. These means included staging scenes, altering