Dispute Among Debutantes

The dispute being at the beginning was what made it matter; would the answer make it art.

PH or HP? High heels or Low heels at the dance.

Peter Henry Emerson (13 May 1856 – 12 May 1936) and Henry Peach Robinson (9 July 1830, 21 February 1901) were early photographers with divergent approaches to photography. At least they argued about it. Emerson, a writer who used photography to make records of birds, set the standard. He also came in after Robinson.

Emerson trained as a physician; Robinson as a painter. Emerson believed that the camera was the key to photography being distinct, therefore of value. He thought the camera was capable of science – that people in pictures should be wearing their own natural clothes. He also championed the mimicry of the ‘human eye’ – he taught that the camera lens must be made to reproduce human vision: sharp in the middle; blurring to the outer edge. Somehow, he missed the circular, upside down, etc. parts of human vision. But he was a doctor, not a philosopher.

Which picture is the ‘fake’ photograph?

The one on the left is a ‘pitcher portrait’ “Confessions” by Emerson – It is the real photograph. The one on the right, “Day’s Work Is Done” by Robinson is a multiple print, so qualifies as a fake, drawing the ire of Emerson.

Even in 1970, student photographers considered the distinctions stilted, anachronistic, irrelevant to their artistic principals or image considerations. They are both attempts at story telling. The story being told is generic, well established emotionally without device. The frames are used similarly, the tone ranges vary, but not enough to be claimed as superior presentations of story or fact.

For those who know painting of the time you understand some of the relationships, as well as the morals being promoted by the photographers. These weren’t their invention, not even their discovery; they were following the same paths, but using different steps. And like so many people striving to lead to the same place, they argued about the better way. They couldn’t see how much alike they were.

They danced to the same music — one on the ‘stage’ of the camera; the other on the stage of the darkroom. One made a negative, the other made prints from many negatives. As if one shot a single camera one take, the other multiple camera spliced movie. Among aesthetically accomplished photographers both approaches are handled easily.

It is unlikely that either of these images would be shown as new work without expecting some smiles, grins or even laughter. Cast, and costumed differently you may get a show; but not an argument.


“The Human eye is not even centered, the magnitude of the corneal eccentricity appears to be quite irregular and adventitious, and so on.” — Helmholz

 

Dear Visual Studies

what is clear to me

by now it is clear that you aren’t returning my check; it is clear that you didn’t keep your commitment to provide reprints, or return my check.

it is clear that your structure is the same as any other business, run simply, sloppily made rules, carried out by functionaries aware of their vacation, treating research requests as interruptions.

I expect dishonesty, false promises from a profit business; that is the founding basis of opaque blind commerce. That shouldn’t be  the basis or philosophy for a non-profit, otherwise, there is no need to make tax or structural distinction among them. If they act the same, they are the same.

now isn’t then;

then when Visual Studies Workshop was a fertile place, bold: attracting the committed, driven by a mission spirit, with a goal of a broadening, rather than a deadening future. a place beyond the market drivers, something other than a tax deduction.

what may not be clear to you

is how much VSW has changed. what you were, and what you’ve become; where you were headed, and how far off course you’ve gotten.

Turning a non-profit into an organization that is as layered, with interactions like a profit business is pretense and false promise. It is also bad mimicry. No small business succeeds with so much pretentious departmentalization over such small amounts of money. They would die of overhead and organizational inertia.