484
implications of these for a photography founded on
Naturalistic principles. Detailed instructions were given
on every aspect of photographic practice. A second,
slightly revised edition followed in 1890.
In Naturalistic Photography Emerson was addressing
those who wished to emulate him. He was also aim-
ing to align photographic practice with contemporary
movements in British art with which he identifi ed. This
brought him into direct confl ict with the photographic
establishment, personifi ed by Henry Peach Robinson
(1830–1901), whose composite, sharply defi ned photo-
graphs were the epitome of all that Emerson despised,
and whose book Pictorial Effect in Photography, pub-
lished in 1869, had been a major infl uence on those
whose photography had artistic pretentions.
Naturalistic Photography, in which Emerson pre-
scribes methods, materials and techniques to be used by
the student who wishes to follow his lead, would appear
to describe, by implication, Emerson’s own working
practice. A study of his published work, however, reveals
this to be only partially true. He advised, for instance,
the use of long-focus lenses, to avoid the ‘false drawing’
given by lenses with a wide angle of view, yet many of
his photographs show just this effect. He also frequently
ignored his own rules on Naturalistic Focusing.
Emerson’s theories of Naturalistic Focusing caused
controversy and confusion. Quoting the work of the
German scientist and medical researcher Hermann von
Helmholtz, Emerson advocated the use in photographs
of a restricted depth of fi eld as analogous to that of
the eye, and, reasoning that photographic lenses were
capable of greater defi nition than the eye, advised that
“... it is always necessary to throw the principal object
slightly (often only just perceptibly) out of focus, to
obtain a natural appearance....” This, of course, simply
shifts the focal plane elsewhere and Emerson’s contem-
poraries, even if sympathising with his aims, were well
aware of the practical diffi culties of achieving them.
In many of Emerson’s published photographs, an area
of sharp focus may be found that, given his antipathy
to retouching, he was unable to disguise. In 1889 he
asked his friend T.R. Dallmeyer to design a lens “like
the eye,” but Emerson found that it did not produce
the effects he required. Other photographers, notably
George Davison, while initially in favour of Emerson’s
principles, subsequently adopted the more diffused im-
ages of Impressionistic Photography, of which Emerson
disapproved, causing some acrimonious exchanges in
the photographic journals.
In 1890 Emerson published a folio entitled Pictures
of East Anglian Life, comprising a selection of ten prints
from his book of the same name. It was intended as a
supplement to Naturalistic Photography, to show in
pictorial form the results that the student should aim for.
Also in 1890 appeared Wild Life on a Tidal Water.During the second half of 1890 Emerson was ap-
proaching a crisis in his artistic life. He had begun to
have some doubts about the artistic status of photog-
raphy and his correspondence with painters, notably
George Clausen, had not been encouraging. Clausen
pointed out to Emerson the limitations of photography
as an artistic medium; limitations of which Emerson
had previously been dismissive.
In May 1890 Hurter and Driffi eld had published the
results of their photo-chemical investigations into the
characteristics of dry plates. An important conclusion was
that once the plate had been exposed, the ratios of the of
the image densities were fi xed and could not be altered
during development. Until then, photographers believed
that tonal relationships could be altered by selective de-
velopment, and indeed this subjective intervention was
fundamental to Emerson’s claims for the artistic status of
photography. He spent three months during 1890 testing,
in practice, Hurter and Driffi eld’s laboratory results and
reluctantly concluded that they were right.
Emerson’s justifi cation of the status of photogra-
phy as an artistic medium relied on the ability of the
photographer to select and frame a subject; to adjust
the focus and the focal plane to emphasise some parts
of the subject and suppress others; and, most impor-
tantly, to adjust the tonal relationships on the negative
to match those as visualised by the photographer. He
wanted the freedom of the artist’s subjective transcrip-
tion of tones, even if this was at variance with their
relative luminance. Science, however, denied him this
freedom. In Emerson’s words: “I thought once (Hurter
and Driffi eld have taught me differently) that true values
could be obtained and that values could be altered at
will by development. They cannot; therefore, to talk of
getting the values in any subject whatever as you wish,
and of getting them true to nature, is to talk nonsense”
(Emerson’s italics).
Emerson came to the conclusion that photography
was not and could not be art and in consequence he
published, at the end of 1890, a pamphlet entitled The
Death of Naturalistic Photography in which he gave his
reasons for this renunciation, as he called it: “... misgiv-
ings seized me after conversations with a great artist,
after the Paris exhibition; these were strengthened after
the appearance of certain recent researches in psychol-
ogy, and Hurter and Driffi eld’s papers; and fi nally the
exhibition of Hokusai’s work and a study of the National
Gallery pictures after three-and-a-half months’ solitary
study of Nature in my house-boat did for me.”
Emerson’s ‘great artist’ has not been identifi ed.
Both Whistler and Clausen have been suggested, but on
the available evidence it seems unlikely that Emerson
would have had the opportunity of “conversations”
with Whistler.
The reactions to this renunciation were polarisedEMERSON, PETER HENRY
Hannavy_RT72353_C005.indd 484 7/5/2007 11:18:18 AM