732
primary impetus was to free men of science from their
reliance on artists in the production of records or docu-
ments, but he does not appear to have been particularly
bothered about the effect this project might have on
wider conceptions of Fine Art. Hunt, in contrast, was
careful to restrict the employment of the automatic copy
in a way that would leave Fine Art untouched. In his
account, the photograph appears as an aid to the artist (a
faithful assistant) and not a replacement for “genius” or
“the play of fancy.” “The absence of mind,” which was
so effi cacious in the production of documents, under-
mined any claim to rival Fine Art. “The Sun,” he said,
“will continue to be a very bad painter, too literal in his
details’ and could not therefore ‘supersede the labours
of the artist” (“The Application of the Talbotype,” 195).
This is a familiar Academic argument. In the same vein,
he suggested the real problem was that: “men will be
led to copy from the photographic picture rather than
study from it...” (“Photography: Considered in Relation
to its Educational and Practical Value,” 261).^ He also op-
posed attempts by photographers to rival “the historical
painter”; composition photographs, he thought, “have
a tendency to lower the appreciation of Art in the eyes
of the public” (Photographic Exhibitions, Art-Journal,
February 1856, 49–50). Hunt, then, set photography
in distinction to art. At the same time he employed the
terminology of Academic art theory to describe the
photographic image: “littleness,” “breadth of effect,”
“mind” contrasted to copying, and so forth. It would
take a great deal of work on the part of the next genera-
tion to generate an account that could speak of art and
photography together; even then it would not prove
entirely possible to reconcile these terms.
Steve Edwards
Biography
Robert Hunt was born in Plymouth Dock (now Devon-
port) in 1807. The posthumous son of a ship’s carpenter,
or a navel offi cer (probably one and the same), he became
one of the key scientifi c popularizers of the time, writing
a series of introductory books and publishing articles in
Art Journal and Athenaeum. His most important posts
were held at the Mining Records Offi ce where he was
Keeper, and the Royal School of Mines where he held
the chair of Mechanical Science, from these institutions
he pursued a conception of science geared to needs of
Britain’s mine owners. In 1854, as a result of this work,
he was elected Fellow of the Royal Society, and in the
following year to Fellow of the Statistical Society. He
also authored the Hand-book to the Offi cial Catalogues
of the Exhibition of 1851 (2 vols., Spicer Brothers & W.
Clowes, 1851). In addition to these scientifi c works,
Hunt also wrote romantic poetry and Cornish folklore.
After Andrew Ure’s death, he became the editor of The
Dictionary of Arts, Manufactures and Mines, producing
three editions. His mission to popularise science also
resulted in an odd novel Panthea: the Spirit of Nature
(A Sketch), (Reeve and Benham,1849). Hunt’s involve-
ment with photography was confi ned to the 1840s and
1850s; he died in 1887.
See also: Calotype and Talbotype; Edinburgh
Calotype Club; Photographic Art Journal (later
Photographic and Fine Art Journal); and Talbot,
William Henry Fox.Further Reading
Daston, Lorraine and Galison, Peter, “The Image of Objectivity,’
Representations, No. 40, Fall 1992, 81–128.
Edwards, Steve, The Making of English Photography, Allegories,
University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press,
2006.
Hunt, Robert, A Popular Treatise on the Art of Photography,
Glasgow: Griffen, 1841.
——, Researches on Light, London: Longman, Brown, Green
and Longmans, 1844.
——, “The Application of the Talbotype,” The Art-Journal, July
1, 1846, 195.
——, “The Application of Science to the Fine and Useful Arts:
Photography,” The Art-Journal, Part 1, May 1, 1848, 133–6;
Part 2, August 1, 1848, 237–8.
——. “Photography: Considered in Relation to its Educational
and Practical Value,” The Art-Journal, August 1, 1858,
261–2.
Pearson, A., Robert Hunt, FRS (1807–1887), Federation of Old
Cornwall Societies, 1976.HURTER, FERDINAND (1844–1898) AND
DRIFFIELD, VERO CHARLES
(1848–1915)
In 1863, at the age of 15, Vero Charles Driffi eld became
interested in photography. Ten years later, he worked
at Gaskell Deacon and Company in Widnes, Cheshire,
England, and formed a lifelong friendship with the
works’ chemist, Dr Ferdinand Hurter, through mutual
interests in music and Switzerland. In 1876, Driffi eld
encouraged his friend to take an interest in pictorial
photography, but unreliable exposures, and the lack of
knowledge relating to the action of light on photographic
plates, frustrated Hurter. To determine the strength of
daylight, he designed and patented the Hurter Actinom-
eter, but found lighting conditions were liable to change
whilst making the necessary calculations.
Hurter’s scientifi c approach impressed Driffi eld and
the men modifi ed the actinometer to produce perma-
nent images of daylight on sensitised paper. For twelve
months, between 1885 and 1886, Driffi eld collected the
“daily diagrams of light,” which were compressed into
a set of monthly charts. In a further refi nement, they
transferred the information from twelve charts onto