1450
and scientifi c applications of the medium. Fittingly, it
was juried by imminent members of Vienna’s fi ne arts
community who selected for display six hundred pho-
tographs by one hundred and seventy-six persons.
Among the eleven-member panel were Henry von
Angeli, professor at the Imperial and Royal Academy
of Arts, Vienna; John Benk, sculptor; Julius Berger,
professor at the Imperial and Royal Academy of Arts,
Vienna; K. Karger, professor at the Imperial and Royal
School of Art-Industry, Vienna; Fritz Luckhardt, pro-
fessor, imperial councilor, photographer to H.I. Ma-
jesty the Emperor; and Augustus Schaeffer, director of
the Imperial Picture Gallery, Vienna. [Am. Journal of
Photography, March 1891, 124] The preponderance
of painters among the jury members drew criticism
from the ranks of photographers who called for a more
balanced representation.
The strategy initiated by the Vienna Exhibition esta-
blished it as the fi rst international group show dedicated
to collecting the best aesthetic photographs, and one
which recognized its creators without the use of tradi-
tional prizes and monetary awards that had come to be
looked upon as undesirable methods of reward since
the Pall Mall Salon in London. Underscoring the event
was the Secession movement and its emphasis of art
photography as opposed to scientifi c recording, leading
to the formation of camera clubs devoted to advancing
aesthetic production.
Its organizers carefully orchestrated the promotion
and direction of the exhibition using considerable fo-
resight to be the fi rst to include the younger generation
of photographers who were rising through the ranks.
From America, there were ten appointees out of a fi eld
of forty. From New York City, the works of Alfred Stie-
glitz, James L. Breese, Miss Mary Martin and Henry
B. Reid were represented. Others from New York State
included John E. Dumont, Rochester and H. McMichael
from Buffalo. Philadelphia’s most promising young
photographer, John G. Bullock, was selected along with
George B. Woods, from Lowell Massachusetts, and
Chicagoan Mary A. Bartlett [Anthony’s Photographic
Bulletin, June 27, 1891, 355].
The prominent British names were naturally given
strong representation at the Vienna Salon. In fact George
Davison was the star with eighteen pictures, followed
closely by Henry Peach Robinson with fourteen works,
suggesting that the eleven jurors were able to discern the
key aesthetic currents—pictorialism and constructed art
photography—and give them equal consideration. Frank
M. Sutcliffe, although a seasoned professional, chose
to be listed as an amateur and was exhibited beside the
vast majority consisting of amateur ranking.
From Germany, a list of those photographers whose
works were represented by fi fteen or more photographs
included Moritz Hahr and N. von Rothschild. Equally,
distinction was given to works by the then prominent
Countess Loredana da Porto Bonin.
The Austrian photographers played an important
role at the Vienna Salon and continued to advance the
photography Secession movement throughout the 1890s.
Begun the same year of the exhibition, the Wiener Ka-
mera-Club (Vienna Camera Club) promoted the tenets
of art photography and was the artistic counterpart to
the technically oriented Photographische Gesellschaft
in Vienna. During the decade, the Weiner Kamera-Club
published two journals, Photographische Rundschau
and Wiener Photographische Blätter featuring some of
the most beautifully executed photogravures.
An early member of the Wiener Kamera-Club was
Hugo Henneberg. Through his association with French
photographer Robert Demachy and the English photo-
grapher Alfred Maskell, Henneberg brought the gum
bichromate process to the attention of his Austrian
colleagues, Heinrich Kühn, and Hans Watzek. Henne-
berg’s work most closely resembled the pictorial style
of George Davison, then the only British member of
the Kamera-Club in Vienna. Henneberg was Alfred
Stieglitz’s fi rst contact in Vienna and the two had corres-
ponded since 1890. In 1894, Stieglitz became a member
of the Wiener Kamera-Club presumably at Henneberg’s
suggestion. In subsequent years, Stieglitz featured works
by the Austrian photographers at his Photo-Secession
Galleries in New York.
Early in 1896, Henneberg, Kühn, and Watzek began
experimented with colored gum-bichromate prints ma-
king remarkable creative color constructions using up to
three colors. Infl uenced by Impressionism’s rejection of
the objective in favor of visual impression, and motifs
and methods of composition shared by contemporary
painters of the Munich Secession, the group transformed
masses of light and shadow to make pictures whose
eminent qualities of mood prevailed over realism.
Associated with progressive art theories of the late
nineteenth century, the group’s artwork was featured
early in 1898 along with all the other innovative arts
when the Vienna Secession published the fi rst volume
of its journal Ver Sacrum. Calling themselves the Trifo-
lium, Henneberg, Kühn, and Watzek exhibited together
in the photographic section of the Munich Secession
international exhibition in the fall of 1898. By this time
their association led them to sign their prints with a
cloverleaf monogram near their signature to symbolize
the Trifolium. In the subsequent years following the
Vienna Salon, Henneberg, Kühn, and Watzek submitted
their photographs to salons in Paris and London. The
three also became members of the prestigious British
photographic association, the Brotherhood of the Lin-
ked Ring.
The Vienna International Photography Exhibition
was perhaps the most successful and infl uential force