221
ing images that were equally remote from everyday
snapshots or printed illustrations.
In the 1890s, it was still possible to ignore artistic
differences and enjoy the benefi ts of an exclusive club.
The Brotherhood enjoyed the vague mysticism of
rituals. The Links used quaint language and (in many
cases) took pseudonyms. For example, after the debacle
at the Photographic Society, Robinson became “High
Executioner,” denoting his responsibility for arrang-
ing the Brotherhood’s annual Photographic Salon in
London. This exhibition was the showcase for the best
recent art photography from Britain, Europe and the
United States of America, and took place in September
from 1893–1909.
Whereas the row that led to the foundation of the
Brotherhood was short and sharp, the row that ended
it dragged on for almost two years from 1908. By then
there was even less agreement about pictorialism than in
the 1890s. Robinson died in 1901, but his preference for
combination prints with a strong narrative continued,
notably in the work of Francis James Mortimer. Al-
though a newcomer to the Ring in May 1908, Mortimer
was to be as infl uential in its demise as Robinson had
been in its foundation. Mortimer became Centre Link
in October that year. The structure of the Brotherhood
was designed to keep power in the hands of the Centre
Link (elected monthly) and his allies, who tended to
be British. This was a strength as long as the Brother-
hood was united but was inadequate in the crisis of
1908–10, when the various Centre Links represented
divided camps within the Brotherhood, and decisions
about the future of the Brotherhood swayed fi rst one
way and then the other.
The fundamental disagreement occurred when
members or supporters of Stieglitz’s Photo-Secession
appeared to have taken over the Photographic Salon of
1908, leaving no room for British pictorialists. Many
American pictorialists, such as Rudolf Eickemeyer and
Fred Holland Day, exhibited at the Salon. However,
from 1899 to 1906 the main American representatives
were those who (in 1902) became members of the
Photo-Secession, including founding members such
as Frank Eugene, Gertrude Käsebier, Joseph Keiley,
Edward Steichen and Clarence White. After a lull in
1907, when the Salon included only one minor Photo-
Secessionist, in 1908 the so-called “American Com-
mittee” controversially swamped the Salon with work
by innovative Photo-Secessionists and their supporters.
When some British Links attempted to regain control of
the Salon, they forced others to declare their allegiance
either to the Brotherhood or the Photo-Secession. The
unexpected result, eventually, was the unlinking of the
Ring in 1910.
In the controversial Salon of 1908, fewer than half
the 203 exhibits were by Photo-Secessionists. Annie
Brigman, S. R. Carter, Alvin Langdon Coburn , Fanny
Coburn, Eugene, Keiley, Steichen, White, Stieglitz and
White (who collaborated on six images) and Eva Wat-
son-Schütze showed a total of 95 pictures between them.
Further, only Coburn, Steichen and Keiley were actually
in London during the selection process, though White,
Eugene and Stieglitz were supposed to have taken part
in the selection earlier on. However, other members of
the Committee, including James Craig Annan, Robert
Demachy, and the Baron Adolph de Meyer were sup-
porters of Stieglitz, and between them had 58 works on
show. Two other selectors, Davison and Heinrich Kühn,
supported Stieglitz but did not exhibit their own work.
In all, the selection committee awarded themselves
three-quarters of the exhibition space. Another 15 Links
showed only 29 pictures between them, which left 21
places for outsiders.
But the supposed American take-over of the Salon
provoked a crisis in the Ring. Francis Mortimer quickly
organized a Salon des Refusés of rejected photographs
in the offi ces of The Amateur Photographer which he
edited from 1908. More importantly, he printed the work
of the rejected Links in the magazine. Most of the pho-
tographers included in the Salon des Refusés played a
part in Edwardian photography but few of them are now
included in histories. They successfully refl ect the cer-
tainties of Edwardian Britain, especially the comfortable
life of the English upper middle-classes. Appreciative
critics described the work as “decorative” or “tasteful.”
In the preface to the list of exhibits Mortimer claimed
that the “progress of art” would be advanced by the
“expression of nature and beauty” rather than by seeking
“ephemeral notoriety” in “temporary art crazes.”
Despite Mortimer’s leadership against Photo-
Secessionist infl uence, many Links favoured it, and
others supported them. The editor of Photography
and Focus, R. Child Bayley, thought that the 1908
Salon might be “eccentric” and “puzzling,” but at last
the Photographic Salon had lost its “heavy respect-
ability.” Now it would “shock and startle many” and
was “all the better for it” (Photography and Focus, 15
September 1908).
The American work was Symbolist whereas the
English was just anecdotal (compare Steichen’s “Globe”
series with Alexander Keighley’s “A Word in Passing”).
The work was urban where the English was rural (com-
pare Coburn’s “Flip-Flap” with John Dudley Johnston’s
“Snow on the Hillside”). It was erotic where the English
was cosy (compare Eugene’s sexually-charged portraits
with Will Cadby’s “Baby Study”). It dealt with the hurly-
burly of life whereas the English was full of peace and
quiet (compare Stieglitz’s “At the Steeplechase” with
Mrs G.A. Barton’s “Morning”).