Page 2 - Is the Camera the Friend or Foe of Art - The Studio - June 1893

Is the Camera Me Friend or Foe of Art?

questions which engross so large a share of public
S THE CAMERA THE FRIEND OR
disagreement to-day. If one dared hint at the
FOE OF ART? 1. BY THE
bare truth of the underlying fact, it might be found
EDITOR. 2. BY SEVERAL
in an anecdote related of Charles Kingsley, who,
I EMINENT ARTISTS. when asked how some new theory in science
I. agreed with orthodoxy, replied : " God's orthodoxy
To decide finally, with evidence to support the is truth." So doubtless the truths—if any—dis-
verdict, whether the camera has been beneficial or covered by the camera will not be found to clash
detrimental to art, and to ascertain how far the with true art before or since its invention; while
conventions hitherto accepted by the painter, and if fallacies are exploded by its use no one need
acknowledged by critical experts, have been lament, new ones are sure to be promoted by its
modified since its introduction, would be hardly introduction, and the balance of wisdom and folly
more easy than to settle offhand whether the in- preserved for the amusement or pity of humanity
vention of gunpowder has had an evil or salutary according to the temperament of the observer.
influence on the progress of humanity. In either The most important item on the programme is
case, strangely divergent views would be forth- doubtless the first—whether artists have modified
coming, much evidence on side issues and indirect any accepted convention since photography has
matter would be inevitably introduced, and whether become a part of the unconscious education of
an evenly balanced mind, if such a thing there be, daily life. It is impossible to deny that many
could hope to discover an absolutely inviolable modern schools of painting appear to have taken a
conclusion is more than doubtful. view of nature as the camera depicts it. The
It is, however, a question of much practical academic composition of landscape or figure-
interest, and the history of the past half century of subjects is for the moment set aside in favour of
art can hardly be discussed on broad principles more or less haphazard arrangements that show the
without taking into account this mechanical artist, apparently careless grouping which a snap-shot
which has killed the miniaturist, banished the from a Kodak presents. It must not be overlooked
lesser portrait-painters, rendered the wood-engraver that somewhere about the time photography left
obsolete, and generally disturbed the commercial the studio and boldly attacked moving, out-door
relations of art much as the steam-engine upset life, Japan began to be felt, and the unselected
the old systems of ships and coaches. Here the naturalism of the camera was strangely reflected in
commercial side need not be touched upon ; things the supremely selected naturalism of Japanese art.
have already readjusted themselves in this respect. This only in passing, for so tempting a parallel
There are photographic practitioners who are must not be pushed too far. That Turner de-
trained artists ; the camera has become a more or stroyed the accepted convention before the camera
less acknowledged item of the artist's equipment. was with the masses, or that Constable sounded
In relation to art the questions that are the most the first note of the rebellion, need not be insisted
interesting seem to be: (1) Whether the automatic upon. The school of Bastien Lepage which,
record of the lens has modified the artist's conven- roughly speaking, is responsible for the largest
tion of nature? (2) whether the education of the number of brand-new figure-subjects painted in
public has been advanced or retarded by its England to-day—that is to say, those wherein
familiarity with the distorted transcripts of actual " modernity" is sought and prized—undoubtedly
scenes presented by the camera ? and (3) whether has been largely influenced by the camera. Its
the photograph itself has in it the possibility of presentations of facts are often but coloured photo-
art, or must needs take a lower rank for ever as a graphs to all intents and purposes ; whether the
scientific presentation of facts recorded dispassion- artist used the lens or not matters little, he saw
ately with more or less truth, but always with an Nature with the unloving eye of the camera, and
entire absence of that sentiment or feeling which is deliberately noted fact after fact, detail after detail,
popularly supposed to be the chief factor in art ? much in the same mechanical way. True, like a
To exhaust the issues of this modest pro- modern art-photographer, he has thrown the whole
gramme might well dismay a series of Art a little out of focus, blurred the outlines, modi-
Congresses should any be convened to thresh out fied the harsh tones of the negative, touched up
the subject. Properly discussed it might hope to the bare facts ; but all the same, he has blackened
arouse as much party feeling and provoke as much his shadows, revelled in local textures, and played
partisan bigotry as politics, religion, or the social the game of the camera in colour instead of
96