CanadianReviewof AmericanStudies/Revue

canadienne
d'?ttdesamricaines
Volume28, Number2, 1998, pp.37-79

37

"The Safeness
of StandingAlone":
Alfred Stieglitz,CameraWork, and the
OrganizationalRootsof theAmericanAvant-Garde

J.M. Mancini

The Secessionist
Ideaisneithertheservant
northeproductof a medium.

It is a spirit.Let us sayit is the Spiritof the Lamp;the old and

discolored,
thetoofrequently
despised,
thetoooftendiscarded
lampof
honesty;
honesty
of aim,honestyof self-expression,
honesty
of revolt
againstthe autocracy
of convention.
The Photo-Secession
is not the
keeperof thisLamp,butlightsit whenit may[.]
("TheEditors'Page,"CameraWork18 (April1907),37)
TheSecessionists
carelittlefor popularapproval,
insisting
uponworks,
notfaith,andbelieving
thattheirsharehavingbeendonein producing
thework,thepublicmustnowdotherest.A fewfriends,
andthese
of
understanding
mind,a fewtrueappreciators,
thisisalltheyexpect
and
all theydesire.(Hartmann1904, 47)

38

Canadian Reviexv of American Sin&es

Revue canadienne d'tMes ambricaines

Stieglitz,"Seer"andOrganizer
By manyaccounts,
modernart arrivedon Americanshoressometimeafter

1905,duein largepartto theeffortsof photographer

AlfredStieglitz.If the
1913ArmoryShow(anditspeevishpublicreception)markedmodernism's
officialAmerican
coming-out
party,Stieglitz's
intimateexhibitsof worksby
Rodin, Matisse,andPicasso
between1905 and 1912 servedas the new art's

formalletterof introduction
to a smallerandmorepowerfulviewershp
(Dijkstra1969,Homer1977,Zilczer1985).Not merelyan importerbutan
artistin his own right,Stieglitzhasalsobeenwidelycreditedwith trans-

formingphotography
intooneof theprimary
venues
formodernist
experimentationin theUnitedStates(Orvell1989;Haines1982), atransformation
whichparallelled
FrankLloydWright'sdrivein architecture
towardsa vernacularAmerican
modernism
(Crunden1982, 133-62). Althoughscholars
disagree
on thedegreeto whichStieglitzhimselfinitiatedAmericanphotography's
turnawayfromtheacademic,
pictorialist
styleof the turn of the

centurytowardsthe hard-edged,
geometric
productions
of the following
decades(ArrowsmithandWest 1992; Bunnell 1993, 1-38; Homer 1983;
Peterson
1993;Pettuck1981;Watson1991),few havedeniedStieglitzand
the photographic
schoolhe engendered
a centralplacein the pantheonof
American visual modernism)

Yet, Stieglitz's
talentasanartistandconnoisseur
of thenewonlypartially
explains
hissuccess
withintheartworld,bothoccluding
hisrelationship
to
hispredecessors
andprohibitinga morenuancedunderstanding
of photographicmodernism's
emergence
and rise to preeminence
in the United

States)Stieglitz's
proficiency
asanart-world
organizer,
asmuchasthefreshnessof his vision,transformed
the faceof photographic
productionin
America,andprovided
a modelfor artists
workingin othermedia,aswell.4
As both a preserverof the heavilyorganizational
approachto artistic
production
championed
byhisGildedAgepredecessors,
andaninnovatoron
thoseforms,Stieglitzgavenewshapeto American
understandings
of artistic

creation.
sLiketheGildedAgeinstitution
builders
whohadsought
to promote the development
of art in Americathroughthe establishment
of
museums,
schools,
andcriticism,Stieglitzmadea placefor photography
amongthefineartsbothby developing
institutions
devotedto itsadvance-

].M. blancini/ 39

mentandthroughconstant
negotiation
for itsacceptance
amongthealready
established
structures
of the art world (Keller1984).6

Stieglitz
reimagined
thenature
andfunction
ofcriticism
insignificant
ways.
If he utilizedtime-testedinstitutionalmeansto build a placefor artistic

photography
ina literalsense,
heused
criticism
toachieve
a more
specific
butmoremetaphorical
construction,
building
hiscircleintoanavant-garde,

presumably
independent
ofart-world
ties,andconstructing
theirworks
asthe
inevitable,
naturalnextstepin thedevelopment
of artisticphotography.
By
billingthepromotion
of a particular
setof producers
andproductions
asa
crusade
forthepromotion
of artistic
photography
perse,Stieglitz
closed
off
alternative
definitions
of artisticphotography
andrepresented
hisassociates

astheonlyandself-evident
futureof art (Trachtenberg
1989,ch.4).7
Through
thisrefashioning
of criticism,
andthrough
theconstruction
of a
verticallyintegrated
organizational
structure
thatmirroredcontemporary
movestowardsconsolidation
in business
and industry,Stieglitzsecureda

lasting
placein theAmerican
cultural
imagination
notonlyformodernist
photography,
8butfortheavant-garde
9itself.
VerticalIntegration

Stieglitz's
art-world
empire
consisted
of threecentral
organizations:
the
Photo-Secession,
founded
in 1902,Camera
Work,ajournal
whichranfrom
1903to 1917,andthe"LittleGalleries"
at 291FifthAvenue
inNewYork,

whichbegan
operation
in 1905(Naef1978,116-53).Self-consciously
modelled
afterthevarious
European
splinter
groups
fromwhichit tookits
name,thePhoto-Secession
joinedphotographers
andsympathizers
in an
association
devoted
to theacceptance
of photography
asa validartistic

medium.
Notonlyaconvenient
gate-keeping
device,
whereby
membership
readily
distinguished
insiders
fromoutsiders,
theassociation
also
helped
to
shapethe boundaries
of a unitedfrontfor entryintocompetitions,
exhibitions,
andthelike,undergirding
aesthetic
sympathy
withthebond
of
formal
association.
Membership
withinthePhoto-Secession,
likemembership

withintheSociety
ofAmerican
Artists,
theTen,andtherange
of other
formalandinformalassociations
that artistsformedthroughout
the nine-

teenth
century,
provided
artists
notonlywithsheltered
opportunities
for

40

Canadian Review of American Studies

Revuecanadsenned'ktudesambrcames

exhibitionwithinthefold,butofferedsolidarityandcommoncauseto those

with grievances
against
thehangingcommittees
that determined
the compositionof mostlarge,publicexhibitions.
As the publicface of the Photo-Secession,
the Little Galleries("291")
servedasthestartingpointfromwhichStieglitzcoulddevelopandcontrol
a contextof displayamenable
to Secessionist
needs,providinga seemingly
"independent"
spacein whichmembers'
workscouldbedisplayed
without
outside"interference."
As a site for the presentation
of worksby artistsin
nonphotographic
fields,it servedasa forgein whichto fashionSecessionist
linkswith the largerart community,which, given the group'sdesire to
legitimatephotography
asan art, wasparamount.Exhibitionsof this sort
publiclydemonstrated
thekinshipbetweenartisticphotography
andmore
traditionalmedia,andprovidedan artisticcontextin whichviewerscould

locateSecessionist
works.
Bestof all, aninclusive
exhibition
policyserved
to integratethe Photo-Secession
within the art world by forging lnks
betweenSecessionists
andartistsin otherfields,while simultaneously
attestingto its much-vaunted
independence
from art-worldpoliticsand artworld conventions,
whichdictatedthat photography
and the other arts
shouldoccupy
separate
anddistinctspheres.
TM
Thuswhilethegalleryserved
someof the samepurposes
of manynineteenth-century
photographic
galleries-mostobviously,the public displayof its founder'sphotographic
creations--291differedsignificantly
from venuessuchasMathew Brady's
"galleryof greathistorical
figures"
andNapoleonSarony's
galleryof actors
andothernotables
intworespects
(Orvell1989,8-9; 79-81). 29 l's emphass
on photography's
formalandaesthetic
qualities,ratherthanon its subject
matter,demonstrated
a turnawayfromprevious
usesof themediumasa historical,pedagogical
or documentary
tool.Moreover,Stieglitz'sdecisionto
buildtieswithintheart worldby demonstrating
the linksbetweenphotographyandothermedia,ratherthanto reachoutto a broaderpublicthrough
appeals
to itstasteforthefamous
andheroic,alsomarkeda significant
departurefromprevious
practice.
ThejournalCameraWorkservedasthelinchpinof Stieglitz's
enterprise.

Although
theyinsisted
onitsindependence,
Stieglitz
andfelloweditorJoseph
T. Keileyconsistently
usedthejournalnotonlyto promotethe acceptance
of photography
asanart,butto keepreaders
abreast
ofSecession
successes

J.M. Mancini / 41

andto publicize
exhibitions
at theLittleGalleries.
2Not merelyanadvertisingsupplement,
CaneraWorklayattheheartofa moresubtleenterprise:
Stieglitz's
construction
of thePhoto-Secession
asanartisticsplinter
group,
successful
forthegeniusofitsworks,ratherthanitsdependence
onart-world

politics.
Forthemanyreaders
whocouldnotexperience
theirexhibitions
first-hand,
CanteraWorkwasthe Photo-Secession.
3If the LittleGalleries

provided
anamenable
context
of display
formodernist
works,Stieglitz's
abilityto puta positive
spinonall thattookplacetherein
ensured
thatthat
context
extended
farbeyond
theliteralspace
bounded
bythegallery
walls.34
Leaving
nothingto chance,
Stieglitzsupervised
artisticproduction
from
beginning
to end,integrating
creation,
display,
andcriticism
underone
dominion.

Cantera
Worksupported
thethirdelement
inStieglitz's
empire,
thePhotoSecession.
Withinthefirstyearof publication,
theiournal's
editors
devoted
a smallsupplement
to answering
the"many... enquiries
astothenature
andaimsof thePhoto-Secession
andrequirements
of eligibilityto member-

ship"
("ThePhoto-Secession,"
Camera
Work3 [July
1903],
supplement).
In
thisperiodically
updated
andreprinted
supplement,
theeditors
presented
the
Secession
to thepublicasa unifiedmovement,
dedicated
to a singular
aesthetic
goal,acohesiveness
which
thegroup
itselfdidnotalways
share.
By
including
a"brief
rsum(
ofthecharacter
ofthisbody
ofphotographers"
and
a rosterof theassociation's
membership
alongwitha statement
of artistic

purpose,
theeditors
also
promoted
thegroup's
internal
cohesion,
providing
Secessionists
withbotha conveniently
sanctioned
setofself-definitions
and
a hierarchized
indexof fellowmembers
with whichto describe
andlocate
themselves within the movement.

Comprised
ofaCouncil,
Fellows,
andAssociates,
theSecession
hadroom
enough
forcollectors,
writers,
andothersupporters,
aswellasphotographers.
Whilephotographers
always
helda primary
position
within
the
organization,
Stieglitz
andhisassociates
recognized
theneedto forge
alliances
withsympathetic
nonpractitioners.
Although
thetitle"Associate"
reinforced
thedistance
between
makers
andmereauxiliaries,
CameraWork's

editors
papered
overthisdistinction
bystressing
theunity
ofpurpose
thetwo
ofgaining
entry
therein.
Whileclaiming
thatassociateship
demanded
"no

requirements
except
sincere
sympathy
withtheaims
andmotives
ofthe

Canadian Review of American Studies

Revue canadienne d';t1desambricaines

42

CameraWork
TIlE

MAGAZINE

OUT

AN

VITH-

"IF"-FEARLESS--

INDEPENDENT-\VITH-

OUT' FAVOR

[]

[]

[]

BY M ,RIUb DK ZA AS

Photograph
1. MariusdeZayas,CameraWork,"TheMagazine
Withoutan 'If' '
(Alined
Stieglitz),
in Camera
l%rk
30 (April1910).(Photograph
madebytheBaltimoreMuseumof Art.) Reprintedwith permission
of the BaltimoreMuseumof Art.

]. M. Matwire/ 43

groups
shared.
sTheeditors
didtheirbest
tolendcachet
tosupporting
roles,
moreover,
byemphasizing
theexclusiveness
oftheirranksandthedifficulty
Secession,"
the editorsinsistedthat

it mustnotbesupposed
that thesequalifications
will be assumed
asa

matterofcourse,
asit hasbeenfoundnecessary
todenytheapplication
of manywhoselukewarminterestin the causewith whichwe are so

thoroughly
identified
gaveno promise
of aidingtheSecession.
("ThePhoto-Secession,"
CameraWork3 Uuly1903],supplement)
To securetheenthusiastic
cooperation
of collectors,
critics,andothernonartistsessential
to thesecessionist
cause,
supporters
hadto bereassured
that
they,too, "aid[ed]theSecession"
in meaningful
ways.
Theurgeto formadvantageous
alliances
outweighed
merelyprofessional
considerations.
AlthoughCameraWork'spurpose
was,onthemostobvious
level,to challenge
andredefineexisting
boundaries
withintheartisticguild
in orderto makeroomforphotographers,
it wouldbea mistake
to interpret
the Photo-Secession
assimplya fledglingprofessional
association.
Camera
Work brimmedwith demandsthat photographers
be treatedas artists.
Nonetheless,
its writersbristledat the suggestion
thatartistsin otherfields
couldevaluatephotographyon the basisof their professional
experience
alone.As a distinctand quicklydeveloping
medium,they argued,photographyresisted
easyassessment
evenbyexperienced
art-worldprofessionals
(Stieglitz1905, 50-51; Watson-Schutze
1903, 46-47). Cuttingshortsuggestions
thatphotographic
juriesbe madeup of palntersandsculptors,
CameraWorkregularCharles
Carfin6wrotethat
printsthat mighthavepassed
for notablea shorttimeagohavebeen
superseded
in characterand qualityby later productions;
and even
amongthe photographers
themselves
it is onlythosewho havekept
themselves
in touchwith theimportantexhibitions
thatarein a position
to judgeof the kindof workwhichshouldbeaccepted
asrepresentative
of thelatestphaseof themovement.
Withoutsuchexpertassistance
a
jury of paintersand sculptors
wouldhardlyprovesatisfactory
in the
judgingof photographs,
for sofewof themhavetakenenoughinterest

Canadian Revev of American Studres

Revue canachenned'6tzles ambricatnes

44

to acquaint
themselves
withthesubject.
Exceptasanassistance
to their
ownwork,theydo nottreatit seriously,
andtheirattitudetowarda
printisgenerally
oneofsurprise
thatit should
beasgoodasornoworse
than it is. (1903, 44)

Membership
withinthephotographic
profession
alsodidlittleto guarantee
sympathetic
orkindtreatment
inCamera
Work.Whenthewell-credentialed
professional
photographer
Julius
C. Strauss
"presumed
to actasspokesman
forthephotographic
pictorialists,"
Stieglitz
quicklyundercut
hisauthority.
Freely
acknowledging
Strauss's
status
as"awell-known
professional
portraitphotographer,"
Stieglitz
denied
thatmembership
in thephotographic
profession
qualified
himto speakfor thegroup."No doubt,"theeditorwrote,
Mr. Strauss
wasactuated
bywhat he conceived
to be thebestinterests
of photography,
andfortakingtheinitiativeis entitledto muchcredit;
buthisconnection
withthemodernpictorialmovement
hashardlybeen
suchasto havegivenhim the knowledgeand experiencenecessary
to
impress
theauthorities
withthehistoryandconsequent
rightsof photographyasa fineart.
("PictorialPhotography:
The St. LouisExposition,"Camera Work 1

Uanuary
1903],37)v
CameraWork'shostilityto mereprofessionalism
in photography
stemmed
fromthe Secession's
desireto be defineddifferentlyfrom otherAmerican
artists'associations,
whichoftenwere organizedaroundcommonprofessionalaspirations
ratherthansharedartisticstylesor methods.
LikeCarfin,
$tieglitz
described
artisticphotography
asa movement,
withrulesof associationderivedfromaesthetics
ratherthanprofessional
protocol.Asconstructed
in the pagesof CameraWork,the artisticsplintergroupwasa movement
whichtranscended
professional
boundaries,
holdingits ownwithin the art
world as an organization
whichsimultaneously
relied on and deniedits
integration
withinthatcommunity.

Stieglitz's
explanation
of Strauss's
ineptitudeas an interpreterof pictorialismexposes
anotherfunctionof the metaphorof "movement."In
questioning
Strauss's
capacity
tospeakin "thebestinterests
of photography,"

J.M. Ma.cm / 45

Sneglitz
firstexcluded
Strauss
fromcommenting
onthe"modern
pictorial
movement."
Quickly,though,he extended
thisbanto all artisticphotography,questioning
Strauss's
familiarity
with "thehistoryandconsequent
rightsof photography
asa fineart."Byblurringthedistinction
between
the
two, StieglitzexpandedSecession
terrainto includenot only their own
productions,
butall artisticphotography.
Moreover,heexpanded
theirrole
beyondthe production
to the interpretation
of artisticworks,claiming
exclusiverightto photography's
history,aswell asitsfuture.Bydrawing
boundaries
between
Secessionists
andprofessionals
inthisway,Stieglitz
both
laidthebasisfor Secession
unitythroughself-interpretation,
andhelpedto
excludealternative
visions
of the possibilities
for artisticphotography.
Stieglitz's
formationof anelaborate
matrixof institutional
supportforthe
pctorialist
projectattests
to hisprofound
debtto organizational
developmentsin theGildedAgeart world.Convinced
thatAmerica's
clearest
path
to artisticgreatness
lay in the establishment
of institutions
devotedto the
display,dissemination,
andexplication
of art, GildedAgeart loversdotted
the landscape
with museums,
schools,and criticaloutlets(Harris [1966]
1982,Horowitz1976,Miller 1966).Although
nineteenth-century
institution
buildershadgenerallyrepresented
theconnection
between
organization
and
artisticresultsin rathervagueterms,proposing
thatgreaterpublicart consciousness
fostered
bynewmuseums,
forinstance,
wouldcontribute
to ageneralizedimprovement
in Americanartisticproduction,
someartists'groups
recognized
organization's
moretangible
potentials.
Whilethesegroups
generallyreliedonassociation
fortheirstrength,
theyoccasionally
turnedto criticismaswell.The Societyfor theAdvancement
of Truthin Art, thus,relied
heavilyon itsjournal,theNewPath,in itscampaign
to transform
American
art (Ferberand Gerdts 1985).

The Photo-Secession's
organizational
structurereflected
Stieglitz's
thoroughunderstanding
of theneedfora multilayered,
institution-building
ap-

proach
to successful
artisticproduction.
Stieglitz
himself
hadbroken
new
groundin thisrespect,
attending
to the 1896mergerthathadcreated
the
CameraClub, New York, and savedthe New York CameraClub and the
Societyof AmateurPhotographers
fromstagnation
(Peterson
1993, 12-16;
Homer1983,34-3 9). Stieglitzalsotookchargeof thegroup's
journal,Cam-

eraNotes,hopingthattheregularpublication
ofcriticism,
examples
ofgood

46

Canadian Review of American Studres

Revue canadienned.tudesambricmnes

photographic
work,andinformation
aboutthecluband"whatis goingon
in thephotographic
worldat large"wouldinspirecreative
advances
among
itsreadership
(quotedin Peterson
1993, 16).
In CameraWork,Stieglitz
recognized
a newandpowerfulusefor criticism,
surpassing
GildedAgepractice
in significant
respects.
Unwillingto embrace
fullythemethods
of hispredecessors,
whohadusedcriticismto promotenot
onlythe development
of particularart institutions
but the importanceof
institution
building
perse,Stieglitzusedcriticism
to morecomplicated
ends.
Denyingtheimportance
of institution
building
to artisticproduction,
Stieglitz usedCameraWorkto createa fictionalinstitutionas powerful asthe
museum,the market,or any of its nineteenth-century
predecessors:
the
avant-garde.
If GildedAgewritershadseencriticism
astheglitteringthread
which tied institutionto institution,which bound artist to art world, and

which drew the observer's

eye to the brilliant fabric that resulted,the
Secessionists
understood
thatcriticism
couldbeusedjustaseasilyto opposite
ends.While Stieglitzandhisassociates
wovecollectors,
artists,and critics

together,
thethreadspunby CameraWorkconcealed
ratherthanrevealed.
In theirhands,CameraWorkproduced
notart-worldunity,butthe mythof
non-affiliation.

"The Safeness
of StandingAlone"

If Stieglitzwasto denytheorganizational
rootsof pictorialism's
success,
it
wouldnothaveserved
hispurpose
to portraythePhoto-Secession
asmerely
an improvement
uponor surrogatefor existingart-worldorganizations.
Throughout
thenineteenth
century,
a succession
of rebelgroups
hademerged
withintheAmerican
artworld,eachclaiming
tooverthrow
thestalemethods
of the "establishment,"
andto representartists'true and future needs(see
Morgan 1978).They soughtto replacethe "establishment,"
however,with
new institutions.As it turnedout, most of theseassociations
eventually
developed
anunhappy
resemblance
to theirpredecessors,
fallingintocom-

fortable
routines
ofnepotism
andsterility
andspurning
newworksin favour
of thetiredproductions
of already
established
members.
2Justdecades
after
itsfounding
in the1870s,forexample,
theSocietyof American
Artistswas
shedding
itsownsplintergroups
suchastheTen,whono longerbelieved

J.M. Mancini/ 47

thattheassociation
providedan environment
suitablydistinctfromthatof
the Academy(Gerdtset al. 1990).
Stieglitzproposed
something
different.While CameraWorkdid revealthe
conventionalaspectsof the Photo-Secession's
structure--divisioninto

multiplelayersof membership,
specialdistinctionfor artisticmembers,
membership
by selectionrathe
editorsalsousedthejournalto construct
the
Secession
asa different
kindofentity,reliantsolelyonaesthetic
sympathy
for

itscohesion.
2Caffinpromoted
thisvision
mostsuccinctly,
arguing
that"The
Photo-Secession,
in fact,is all that oneparticularstrongpersonality
stands
for, syndicated"
(Caffin 1907a,27). Caffin'sattributionof Secession
imperative
to a single,unifiedwill masked
thecomplicated
negotiations
within
thephotographic
community
thathaddetermined
thegroup'smembership,

diverting
attention
instead
to thegroup's
aesthetic
principles.
zz
Nonetheless,
it still suggested
that onedominantpersonality
(Stiegtitz's)
mighthaveforcedthe restto submit.Stieglitz's
ownanalysisof theSecession'scharacterthusfurtherunderplayed
its organizational
aspects,
both
avoidingtheuseof organizational
metaphors
(syndication)
andeschewing
all
suggestion
of the group'sdominanceby any one individual.Displacing
agency
ontoa vaguespiritof honesty,
Stieglitzdescribed
thePhoto-Secession
as the

Spiritof theLamp;theold anddiscolored,

thetoofrequently
despised,
thetoooftendiscarded
lampof honesty;
honesty
of aim,honesty
of selfexpression,
honestyof revoltagainsttheautocracy
of convention.
The
Photo-Secession
isnotthekeeperof thisLamp,butlightsit whenit may.
("TheEditors'Page,"CameraWork18 [April 1907],37-38)
Byinsisting
thatthePhoto-Secession
wasanaesthetic
movement
ratherthan
an organization,Stieglitzdistancedhimselffrom GildedAge relianceon
institutions
asthetoolsof artisticprogress,
andwasableto naturalize
his
ownaggressive
rolein thegroup'sformation.Byidentifying
hisorganization
withEuropean
Secession
movements
whichhadovertlycriticized
themarket,
moreover,
Stieglitzwasableto rhetorically
maskthePhoto-Secession's
pro-

foundindebtedness
to corporate
sponsors
suchasKodak.
23Thus$tieglitz
set
thestagenotonlyforthedevaluation
of institution
buildingasa viableroute

Canadian Review of American Studies

Revue canadienne d'dtudes ambrcaines

48

to artisticprogress,
butforthenaturalization
ofartisticproduction
underthe
avant-garde.
If, in describing
theSecession
asa single-minded
"Keeperof the Lamp,"

Stieglitztreadedlightlyon the issueof the group'sorganizational

characteristics,
otherwritersboldlydeniedanysuchattributesto the association.
PaulHaviland,for one,exclaimedthat

we aredealing,notwitha society,notwith an organization,

asmuchas
with a movement.
TheSecession
is notsomucha schoolor a following
asan attitudetowardslife; andits mottoseemsto be:re'Giveeveryman

who claimsto havea message

for the worlda chanceof beingheard.'
(1909, 22)

Onceagain,CameraWork'smetaphorical
description
of theSecession
asa
movement,
ratherthana formalassociation,
both providedthe rhetorical
basisforSecession
unitythroughcommonpractice,andarguedfor itsunique
claimto "honest,"
free,andthereforenaturalproduction.Affiliationwith a
movement
hadpayoffs
forparticipants,
aswell,rhetorically
unitingdisparate
producers
andallowingthemto forgetthemoreearthlycomponents
of the
artisticlifempolitical
intrigue,
theconstant
struggle
for fameandsuccessin
favourof a purernotionof artisticproduction.
In 1906, the Photo-Secession
achieveda milestonein its struggleto gain
acceptance
forphotography
asanindependent
artisticmedium:an invitation
to mountanexhibitatthePennsylvania
Academy
of FineArts.The academy
had,afterall, "helpedto initiatetheSalonmovement
in Philadelphia,"
only
to close"itsdoorson thephotographers
andtheirclaims"a few yearslater
(Keiley1906,49-50). A signof the Photo-Secession's
coming-of-age,
this
invitationinspiredCameraWorkinsiderJosephT. Keileyto pen a brief
historyof thegroup,inwhichhetrumpeted
Secessionist
triumphsandsetthe

stagefor its futureaccomplishments?

Keileydid morethanmerelydocumenttheSecession's
arrival,however;underthe guiseof recounting
the
group'spastaffairs,he usedhiscriticalhistoryactivelyto shapeandmould
itsidentity.Burying
theorganizational
content
of Secessionist
activityunder
a barrageof claimsaboutthegroup'sindependence,
Keileytransformed
a
momentof patentinstitution
buildingintoevidence
notonlythatthegroup

J.M. Mancmi149

Canadian Review of American Studies

Revue canadienne d'gtudes amrmames

50

hadstoodapartfromthesurrounding
artworld,butthatits autonomyhad
guaranteed
itssuccess.
Eventhoughhis announcement
heraldedthe fact that a hallowedarts
institution
hadagreed
tosupport
andshelter
theSecession,
Keileymaintained
that the invitationprovedthe Photo-Secession's
removefrom art-world
intrigue(Keiley1906).ThePhoto-Secession,
hewrote,
hadkeptapartfromall entanglements
with otherorganizations.
Effort
wasrepeatedly
madeto affiliateit withotherorganizations,
or to draw
it intocontroversy.
Experience
hadtaughtit thelesson
of thesafeness
of
standing
alone.Into controversy
or politicsit alwaysdeclinedto enter.
On theotherhand,it opposed
norecognition,
andsoughtto secureit for
its own exhibitions.(1906, 49-50)

Bypresenting
independence
asthecauseof present
andindisputable
events
(thePhoto-Secession's
currentsuccess,
exemplified
by thePennsylvania
exhibition),Keileylent it the forceof historicalfact. In this way, Kelley
surpassed
thecelebratory
andpromotional
rhetoricendemic
within Gilded
Agecriticism,
positing
a newrelationship
between
criticsandthe eventsat
hand.MostGildedAgewritershadrendered
theirobservations
abouttheart
world rathertransparently,
perhapsnotingthe placeof particularevents
withinthelargertrajectory
ofAmericanprogress
in thearts.Keiley'shistory
hada moredefiniteendpoint.
Keenlyawareof the invitation'spotentialto
confirma largersetof claimsaboutthe Photo-Secession
and pictorialism
generally,
Keileytransformed
it from a simplemarkerof success
into evidencefor the group'sindependence
fromart-worldaffiliations,andfor its

single-minded
adherence
to anaesthetic,
ratherthana political,goal.2s
Stieglitzandhisassociates
employed
a widevarietyof rhetoricalstrategies
to shapean independent
Secession.
Powerfulamongthemwasthe editors'
consistent
appealto a centraldichotomy
by whichtheyjudgedall opportunities for exhibition. Camera Work divided exhibition situations into two

clearlymarkedcategories:
thosein whichthePhoto-Secession
wasfreeto
displayitsworks,unencumbered
by outsideinterference,
andthosein which

thetaintof externalmeddling
prohibited
viewersfromexperiencing
pictorialistworksin thecorrectmanner.Insisting
thattheSecession
itselfhave

j.M. Mancini / 51

CanadianReview of AmericanStudies
Revuecanadienned' gtudesambricmnes

52

full controloverthejudgment
andselection
of itsmembers'
productions,
CameraWorkannounced
in 1903that"it isthepolicyof thePhoto-Secession
to exhibitonlyuponinvitation,andthisnecessarily
impliesthat itsexhibit
mustbehungasa unitandin itsentirety,
withoutsubmission
to anyjury"
(Editors1903b,50).Suchproclamations
emphasized
theunityandimpenetrabilityof the Photo-Secession,
whilewarningtrespassers
to respectits

boundaries?
If theSecession
worriedthatjuries'invasive
appraisal
of its
members
asindividuals
wouldcompromise
itsindependence,
it alsofretted
thatoutside
organizers
lackedthe capacity
to showphotography
to its best
advantage.
S.L. Willard expressed
this fear in the journal'ssecondissue,
writingof theThirdSalonat Chicagothat
remarkson juriesandon hangingmayseemlesspertinentthan a criticismoftheprints;buta poorsetting
will mara goodplay;cheaptypographyandbindinga goodbook;inexperienced
performersan artistic
musicalcomposition.
Pictorialphotography
may well claim a place
amongfinearts,butdignityandsanityareneeded
in itseveryrelationif
it is to attractthe approvaland recognitionof peopleof tasteand
cultivation.(1903, 49).

By relinquishing
its works to the inexperthandsof outsiders,Willard
suggested,
theSecession
wouldneverbeableto convince
theworldof photography'struemerit.
Stieglitz's
appealto"independence"
asthestandard
forSecession
entryinto
exhibitions
servedseveral
purposes.
It allowedhimto explaintheSecession's
uneasiness
concerning
competing
institutions,
andenabledhim to distance
the groupfrom the manyfriendlyassociations
it had made.Moreover,it
allowedStieglitz
to performthisdistancing
whilecontinuing
to portraythe
approvalof theseoutsidegroupsasevidence
of the Secession's
merit.In
describing
Secessionist
participationin exhibitionsoutsidethe Little Galleries,the editorsoscillated
betweenself-congratulation
for havingbeen

recognized
by galleries,
critics,andotherart-worldplayers,andcarefully
placedbarbsaboutthe inadequacy
of non-Secessionists
to makeaesthetic
decisions.
In assessing
oneof "thetwo mostimportantexhibitions
of pictorialphotographs
heldin recentyearsin thiscountry..., at theCorcoran

J.M. Mancmi / 53

Art Galleriesin Washington

andat theCarnegie
Art Galleries
in Pittsburg
[sic]in February,"
CameraWorkannounced
that
at Pittsburg
the interestis equallygreat,theexhibition
beingstillopen
at thiswriting.In orderto insurethecomplete
carryingoutof ourideas,
theDirectorof the Photo-Secession,
accompanied
byMessrs.Steichen,
Keiley,and Coburn,traveledbothto Washington
and Pittsburg
to

superintend
the hanging
of the prints,a matterof greatimportance
whichisgenerally
underestimated,
aswell asformallyto openthehalls
to the public.The localpressshowedmuchinterest,devoting
a large
amountof space
withtheusualinadequate
newspaper
illustrations
to the
Secessionand all its works.

("Photo-Secession
Notes,"CaneraWork6 [April1904],39)

Disguised
by theirmildness
of tone,andinserted
withinthelarger,congratulatory
framework
oftributes
toPhoto-Secession
success,
these
criticisms
nonetheless
hit theirmark,provingthedistance
between
Secessionists
and
their peers.

Camera
Work'sdichotomization
of independence
andinterference
served
anothercrucialpurpose,
explaining
andnaturalizing
thefounding
of the
LittleGalleries.
Thedevelopment
ofinternal
structures
forthedissemination
anddisplay
ofSecessionist
productions
layattheheartofthegroup's
success,

drawing
attention
fromallcorners
oftheartworldandproviding
aphysical
locus
forpromoting
thegroup's
cohesion.
Stieglitz
andhisassociates
insisted,
however,
thatthesignificance
ofthePhoto-Secession's
organizational
activity
layin onlyone,particular,
result:
theestablishment
of a "neutral"
and

"independent"
space
inwhich
"quality"
alone
determined
content,
27andin
whichviewers
couldencounter
pictorialist
works
without
thetaintofoutside

prejudice
or politics.
2Thishadbeennecessary,
Keileyargued,
because
"academic
andart-organization
exhibitions,
withfewexceptions,
havedegenerated
intobeing
conservators
ofaesthetic
snobbery
orofthecommercialization
of art"(Keiley1911,23).Casting
alloutside
involvement,
even
onthepartof friendly
parties,
asa hindrance
totheproper
display
ofpictorialist
works,
Camera
Workargued
thatthecreation
ofawholly
Secessionrunexhibition
environment
wasnotonlydesirable,
butabsolutely
necessary

Canadian Review of American Studies

RevuecanadiennedYtudes arn6rames

54

for pictorialism
to thrive.By developing
a rhetoricalcontextin which
"Secessionist"
cameto standfor "independent,"
Stieglitzand hisassociates
emptiedthe Little Galleries
of all contextual
import;in the presumably
neutralspaceof the Little Galleries,the editorssuggested,
worksspoke
loudly,clearly,and forcefullyfor themselves,
necessarily
winningan audienceof thrilledsupporters.
In this way, CameraWork transformedan
organizational
issue--how
to promoteanddisseminate
art works--intoa
purelyaesthetic
matter,independent
of itsinstitutional
context.
In reality,Stieglitzandhisassociates
paidcloseattentionto the detailsof
display,creating
contexts
that enhanced
thereceptionof Secessionist
productionsand distinguished
Photo-Secession
exhibitionsfrom thoseof its
competitors?
Besides
arguing
forphotography's
inclusion
amongthefine
artsthrough
aconcurrent
display
ofdrawings,
paintings,
andphotographs,
3
Stieglitzsurrounded
Secessionist
productions
withtheconventional
trappings
ofartisticdisplay.
Thisgainedhimthescornof criticCharlesFitzgerald,who
sneered that

theexhibition
at present
openatNo. 291FifthAvenueissimplyreeking
with 'art' downto the very catalogue
with its eccentriclettering,its
prettylittlegoldseal,anditsragged
edges.
Thereissurelynothingwanting in theway of refinements;
if thereis a question,it is whetherall
theseexcrescences
aretraceableto a foundationas solidasthe photographers
wouldhaveusbelieve.Theysuggest,
notthestruggles
of exploration,buttheeasysatisfaction
of established
convention,
notto say
the refinement
of decay.([1905] 1906,33)
More importantthan the cataloguewas Stieglitz'smanipulationof the
physical
environment
ofdisplay,
whichStieglitz
usedto distinguished
PhotoSecession
exhibitionsfrom thoseof its contemporaries.
As early as the
1870s,artists
in EuropeandtheUnitedStateshadchallenged
contemporary
modesof display,arguingthat crowdedwallsandthe "skying"of certain
paintings
abovebeholders'
line of sighthadpreventedmanyworksfrom
beingadequately
seen,andthat the placement
of insiders'work "on the

line"reinforced
academy-sponsored
hierarchies.
In response
to this,asmuch
asto outrightrejection,manyartistshadcalledfor a radicalrevisionof ex-

].M. Alarwini/ 55

i,

56

Canadian Review of American Studies

Revue canadienne d'tudes amrtcatnes

hibitionpractices.
Fromthe 1870sonward,for example,JamesMcNeill
Whistler
staged
aseries
ofexhibitions
whichshowcased
hisownworkwithin
a contextentirelyof hisowninvention.
3 Leaving
no detailsto chance,
Whistlernot only directedthe placementof pictures--hungin singleor
doublefileacross
thelineof sight--butselected
frames,materialsandcolour
for thewalls,andthedesignandcontentof exhibitioncatalogues.
In one
case,theartisteveninstructed
gueststo wear blackandwhite, so asnot to

disturb
hiscarefully
devised
colourscheme)
2
WhileWhistlerprovided
a well-known
alternative
to conventional
modes
of display--hehad orchestrated
two showsin New York in the 1880s-Stieglitzfollowedhisexample
onlyin part.Although
Whistler'sexhibitions
had emphasized
harmonybetweenworksand their environments,
his intentionwasneverto effacecontextentirely.The Whistlerianexhibitionwas
alwaysanevent.In contrast,
Stieglitzhungworkssparsely
withina minimally
decorated,
neutrallycoloured
space(seephotographs
2 and3), therebynot

only distinguishing
exhibitions
at the Little Galleriesfrom spectacularly
crowded
Academy-style
shows
(seephotograph
4), butbolstering
claims
thattheSecession's
onlyconcern
wastheproduction
of meritorious
works.
This physicalsimplification
of exhibitionsettingsagain enabledthe
naturalization
oftheSecessionist
contextofdisplay,
bypresenting
a carefully
constructed
environment
as proceeding
logicallyfrom worksthemselves.
Supporting
thisview,Caffinsuggested
thatthe contextlessness
couldbean
exhibition's
primaryvirtue,writingof oneshowthat"I haveneverseenan
exhibition
presented
withsodiscreet
a taste
.... Thesecretof itsdiscretion
. . consisted
in adoptingthe photographic
print itselfas the unit of the
scheme
of arrangement.
Thissounds
obvious
enough,butobserve
theresult
of conforming
to it logically"
(Caffin1906,33, emphasis
added).
34
The cry of "independence"
helpedto maskthe full importanceof
Secessionist
involvement
in outsideexhibitions,
aswell.AsKeileydescribed
it, theExhibitionatthePennsylvania
Academy
possessed
a special"Placeand
Significance"
in thehistoryof the Photo-Secession
because
it hadprovided
thegroupwitha powerfulopportunity
to displayitsworkbuthadcompelled
the organization
to "surrender
no groundgained"(Kelley1906, 50). The
Photo-Secessiondemanded control over the context of exhibition to avoid

undueinterference,
to besure;equallyimportant,however,wastheirneed

J.M. Mancim / 57

for the conventional

trappingsof artisticdisplay.The contrastbetween
Photo-Secession
reaction
to thetermsofparticipation
atPhiladelphia
andat
theSt.LouisWorld'sFairdemonstrates
Stieglitz's
realization
oftheprofound
degree
to whichthe contextof displayinfluenced
works'reception.
The
Pennsylvania
exhibition
provided
thegroupwithanopportunity
to explain
andpromotea pictorialist,
Secessionist
platform;moreover,
it offeredit an
amenable
andovertly'artistic'institutional
backdrop,
and,equallyimportant,a degreeof controloverthe interpretivespaceof the exhibitioncatalogue.The academy,in short,offeredthe chanceto presenta unitedand
exclusive
front,andmarkedSecessionist
worksunmistakably
asartisticcreations.In contrast,participationat St. Louiswould havedemandedthe dis-

persalof thegroup'soeuvreamongthelesserproductions
of nonmembers.
Asphotographs,
theSecessionists'
workswouldhavebeenbanished
fromthe
FneArtssectionat St. Louis,madeto standnotwith paintingsor etchings,
butwith the productions
of professional
portraitphotographers
andother
hacks.Not surprisingly,Stieglitzboycottedthe St. Louisexhibition,describing
thedecisionof somepictorialists
to participate
as"a pity"("PhotoSecession
Notes--St. Louis,"CameraWork5 [January1904], 50).
Stieglitz's
realinnovationwasto expandtheSecessionist
contextof display
beyondthegallerywalls,to fit themuchlesstightlybounded
spacecreated
by CameraWork, and to usethis enlargedcontextto directobservers'
responses
to Secessionist
productions.
(All thewhileinsisting,
of course,
that
theSecession's
admirers
hadcometo judgment
throughdirectandunmediatedinteractionswith its works.)StieglitzusedCameraWorkasan alternativeforum for the dissemination
of Secessionist
works,the main attraction

ofthejournalbeingitsmanyhigh-quality
photographic
plates?Indeed,
the
editorsinsisted
thatthe platesdeserved
the sameattentionasanyoriginal
printsdisplayed
at exhibition.
as
While CameraWork served,in a literal sense,as an extensionof 291,

Stieglitzalsousedthejournalto buildandbroadenthediscursive
contextof

Secessionist
display.
3vTo do this,Stieglitzreliednoton thegroup's
independence,
buton thereputationof otherswithintheartworld.LikeGilded
Agewriterswho haddrawnattentionto friendlyEuropeanresponses
to the
CentennialExhibitionand other signsof Americanprogressin the arts,
Stieglitztradedon thereputationof Europeasthecapitalof art, frequently

Canadian Review of American Studies

Revue canadienned'tudes amricaines

noting
positive
European
criticism
oftheSecession)
Continuing
sensitivity
to America'spositionof obscurity
withinthe international
art scenediminished
thelikelihood
thatreaders
wouldchallenge
praisefromsuchlofty
quarters.
To preempt
charges
of arrogance
forhavingsooftenrepeated
these
wordsof acclaim,andasa meansof reinforcing
theirown disentanglement
fromtheirauthors,
Camera
Work's
editors
mincingly
refrained
fromprinting
themall, writingthat
in recentnumbers
we spokeof printingsomereviewsof the PhotoSecession Invitation

Collections which had been sent to various

European
capitals.
We had hopedto publishin thisnumberextracts
fromthesearticles,butuponmatureconsideration
havedeemedit best
to omit them. The Photo-Secession and its workers have so often been

accused
of over-weaning
arrogance
andconceitthatthe eulogistic
tone
of all thesecritiques
wouldseem,if reprintedby us,to lendsometruth
to thesecharges,
andtherefore,
to saveourmodesty,
we feelconstrained
to foregopublishing
thesereviews.
(ExhibitionNotes,"CameraWork 11 [July1905], 57)
In casecriticaltributesdid not proveto readersthat the Secession
was a
contender,
the editorsalsofrequentlyinventoriedthe manyreputablein-

stitutions
whohadthrowntheirsupport
pictorialism's
way.3To ensure
that
suchreferences
would not be taken as mere toadyingto the art-world
establishment,
CameraWorkalsocontributed
a helpfulindexof well-known

rebelgroups
withwhichreaders
couldassociate
theSecession?
An innovativeeditorialstrategysupportedCameraWork's rhetorical
appeals
to independence,
arguingnot onlyfor thesovereignty
of thePhotoSecession,
but the autonomyof the journalitself.Avoidinga fixed staff,
Stieglitzpeopled
itspages
witha constantly
evolvingcastof critics,devoting
onlya limitedamountof spaceto official,editorialopinion.Not satisfied
with themeresolicitation
of outsideviews,the editorsoftenreprintedlarge

blocksof textdirectlyfromcompeting
publications.
ImplyingthatCamera
Workhadescaped
fromeventheirowncontrol,theeditorsexpressed
a "wish
to reiterate
forthenthtimethatthearticles
published
in themagazine
do not
necessarily
reflect[ou]rownviews.Asa matterof fact,fewof themdo.It has

J.M. Mancini/ 59

beenourpolicy--andit will continue

to beourpolicy--toprintsucharticles
aswe deem timely, interesting,or provocativeof ideas"("Our Articles,"
CameraWork 17 [January1907], 41).

In truth,CameraWorkdid supplyreaderswith a widearrayof viewson

artisticand photographic
issues,not all of them friendly.The journal's
critical"regulars,"moreover,did notcheerunceasingly
for theSecessiomst
cause.The usuallysympatheticCarfin brandishedhis own criticalinde-

pendence,
lacinghiscommentaries
withacerbic
expositions
ontheegotism
andfollyof artists,photographers
included?Although
roomyenough
for
multiplevoices,
Camera
Workwashardlyahavenfordissent.
Printing
hostile
views,butcertainlynot embracing
them,thejournal'seditorstookstepsto
ensure
thatreaderscoulddistinguish
challenges
fromthe"partyline."More
thanwillingto flex editorialmuscleto keepunrulyopinionsin line, the
editorsenforcedthesedistinctions
througha complexstrategy
of editorial
contextualization.
Thisstrategy
enabled
readers
to locatetherelationship
not
onlyof particularauthorsto the Secessionist
core,but to determine
the

proximity
of theirindividual
viewsto current
Secession
opinion.
While
allowing
Stieglitz
to marginalise
theviewsoftheSecession's
critics,
thisstrategyalsoprovided
a powerful
mechanism
bywhichto maskthebonds
betweenfriends.If the Secession
were to passasan autonomous
association,

independent
ofpolitics,
intrigue,
orinfluence,
thiswas
ofcriticalimportance.
CameraWork,for example,
frequently
contained
numerous
"outside"
reviews
of importantart-worldevents.
Thepublication
of thesecommentaries,
culledfromdisparate
sources
andprinted
serially,
signalled
Secession
confidence
andnonchalance
concerning
art-worldsquabbles.
Yet,if thepresenceof theseoutsideviewsdemonstrated
the Secession's
willingness
to take

onallcomers,
theirpresentation
toldaverydifferent
story.Oftenprinted
in
muchsmaller
typeface
thanthesurrounding
sanctioned
text,theseextracts
usually
succeeded
a briefintroduction
thatprovided
readers
withthekeysto
deciphering
and distinguishing
betweenthe narratives
that followed.
Publishing
a panorama
of responses
to the1908exhibitof Rodindrawings
at the Little Galleries,thus,the editorsprefaced
theextractswith the fol-

lowingexclamation:
"It maybesaidtothecreditofNewYork--provincial
asit undoubtedly
isinartmatters
generally--that
inthisinstance
a truerand
morespontaneous
appreciation
couldnowherehavebeengivento these

Canadian Review of American Studies

Revue canadienned'?.ttMesamrica:nes

60

remarkable
drawings"
("TheRodinDrawingsat the Photo-Secession
Galleries,"CameraWork22 [April1908],35). In casethisrecommendation
(or
the fact that the exhibitionwas held on the Secession's
home turf) did not

sufficiently
colourreaders'
expectations,
the editorsalsoreprintedthetext
of thecatalogue
in full,"forthebenefitof the readers
of CameraWorkwho
didnothavethepleasure
ofseeing
theexhibition"
("TheRodinDrawings
at
the Photo-Secession
Galleries,"CameraWork 22 [April 1908], 35). Thus,
evenbefore
thefirst"outside
opinion"
wascast,theeditors
hadsetupa pow-

erfulandencircling
context
for itsreception.
42
The editorssometimes
extendedthis strategyof contextualization
to the
sequence
of "outside"
views,aswell. In theRodinpiece,theyarranged
reprintedextracts
in descending
orderof sympathy
to Secession
opinion,with
themostoutrviewslamelybringingupthe rear.43W.B. McCormickthus

gripedwithonlyseeming
impunitythat
'thesedrawings
shouldneverbeenshownanywhere
butin thesculptor's
studio,for they are simplynotesdashedoff, studiesof the human
form--chieflyof nudefemales--thatare too purelytechnicalto have
muchgeneral
interest
exceptthatof a notveryelevating
kind.Stripped
of all 'art atmosphere'
theystandasdrawings
of nudewomenin attitudesthatmayinterest
theartistwhodrewthem,butwhicharenotfor

publicexhibition.
'44
ComingontheheelsofJ. N. Laurvik'sassertion
thatthe exhibitionwas"'a
challengeto the prurientpurityof our puritanism,'"
McCormick'srant
againstdepictions
of "nudefemales"of a "not very elevatingkind" pro-

claimed
himasa censor.
4sJ.E. Chamberlin's
contention
thattheshowwas
"ofverygreatimportance
to artistsandsculptors,
thoughdoubtless
it will be
prettynearlyincomprehensible
to thegeneralpublic,"an opinionaffirmed
byArthurHoebet,furtherprepared
readersto markMcCormickasa man
out of theknow.46Prudes
andoutsiders
mayhavebornethe heaviest
brunt
of contextualization,
but insiders
who expressed
unsympathetic
viewswere
also susceptible
to criticism.When Caffin'ssteadysupportwavered,the

editorsquicklystepped
in,labelling
oneof hismostvirulentattacksonartists
"AsOthersSeeUs"(Carlin(1905,25-26). Similarly,CameraWork'seditors

j. M. Mancsm/ 61

undercutCaffin'scriticalauthorityon specifically
aesthetic
issues,
particularlywhenCaffinfailedto express
coredoctrines
of theSecession.
47
Contextualization--or,
whatmightmoreproperlybecalleddecontextualization--alsoworkedto dissolve
thetiesthat boundsympathetic
writersto
the Photo-Secession. The editors worked hard to demonstrate that the

"independence"
of CameraWork'swriterswas compromised
neitherby
excessive
intimacywiththeSecession
nortoomuchpoliticalcloutwithinthe
art world. Thus, in introducingCaffin'scriticaldebutin the new venue,
Stieglitzcontrasted
his open-minded
treatmentof pictorialism
to Julius
Strauss's
grandstanding
onthesubject.
Caffin'sinclusion,
Stieglitz
suggested,

promised
notonlymoreintelligent
readings
ofpictorialism,
butthepotential
for provocation
disabledby Strauss's
comfortable
positionwithin the
profession.
Pictorialphotography
havingat lastwonrecognition
in recentEuropean
ArtExhibitions,
themanagers
oftheSt.LouisExposition
haveawakened
to thefactthattheycouldno longerignoreitsclaims;although,
until
Mr. Caffin, the art criticandeditorof the Americansectionof The
International
Studio,tookupthecudgels
forthecause,
theauthorities
inSt.Louisseemed
bentuponfollowing
theoldnarrowpath.Norwere

theyentirely
unjustified
in theirconservatism
in viewof theirlackof
knowledge
ofwhathadbeenaccomplished
in thismedium.
("Pictorial
Photography:
TheSt. LouisExposition,"
Camera
Work1
[January1903], 37)

WhileStieglitz
admitted
thatCaffinhaddisplayed
priorsympathy
withthe
Secession's
aesthetic
aims,hecarefully
avoided
mention
of thecritic'slong-

standing
affiliation
withCamera
Notes.
Treating
Caffin's
views
asfound
objects
rather
thantheopinions
ofatrusted
companion,
theeditor
obscurely
wrotethat"Mr. Caffinhascovered
thegroundsoadmirably
in TheInternational
Studio,
andrepresents
sothoroughly
thespiritwestand
for,thatwe
feelthatwe cando nobetterthanpresentit to ourreaders
in itsentirety"
(Pictorial
Photography:
TheSt.LouisExposition,"
Camera
Work1 [January
1903], 37).

Canadian Review of American Studies

Revuecanaclienne
d'tudes ambricames

62

The Undoingof thePublic

Althougheditorialsleight-of-hand
effectivelymaskedthe relationship
betweenthePhoto-Secession
anditscriticaladmirers,
CameraWorkgenerally
employed
moresubtlemeansto denytheorganizational
rootsof pictorialism'ssuccess.
Emptying
theactof lookingof all contextual
content,Stieglitz
usedCameraWorkto redefinethe process
by whichobservers
cameto form

judgments
aboutworks.CameraWorkoverturned
nineteenth-century
critics'
definitionof criticalknowledge
asanaccretion
of yearsof studyandreflection,representing
judgment
asa blistering
momentof revelationin which
works alonewon viewers over without their consent,much lesstheir consideration.4a

Stieglitz's
promotion
of thecontextually
neutral"momentof revelation"
asthekeyto tasteformationhadpowerfulconsequences
not onlyfor the
Americanart world in its narrowestsense,but for all Americanswhose lives

mighthavebeenaffectedby the makingandconsuming

of art. By denying
the importance
of Secessionist
institutionbuilding,$tieglitzwas able to
attributethegroup'ssuccess
entirelyto itsartisticproductions.
In thisway,
Stieglitzhelpedto initiatea modernistart criticismwhich promotedthe
makingof aesthetically
"superior"
objects
astheprimaryandexclusive
goal
of artisticactivity,andwhichlocatedtheprimarysourceof artisticmeaning
in artisticobjects,
ratherthanwithincomplicated
interactions
betweenview-

ersandworks.
4Not coincidentally,
Camera
Workalsooffereda radically
curtaileddefinitionof the "public"for art, continuinga processof diminutionbegunby professional
criticsbeforetheturnof thecentury.
so
In thepagesof CameraWork,the infinitelyeducable
publicpromotedin
the1870sfinallygavewayto a full-fledged
aristocracy
of taste,exemplified
bySadakichi
Hartmann's
sassertion
that

theSecessionists
carelittlefor popularapproval,insisting
uponworks,
not faith,andbelieving
thattheirsharehavingbeendonein producing
thework,thepublicmustnowdo therest.A few friends,andtheseof
understanding
mind,a fewtrueappreciators,
thisisall theyexpectand
all theydesire.(1904,47)

,J.M.Martcm/ 63

Theavant-garde
aristocracy
ofvisionpromoted
byStieglitzandhisassociates
differedsignificantly
fromtastehierarchies
operative
sincethe1870s.To be
sure,institution-building
writersin theperiodaftertheCivilWarvaluedthe

opinions
of someobservers
overothers,
tendingto givecredence
to those
who,like themselves,
had earnedtheirsaythroughyearsof art-worldactivity.Thesewritersneversuggested,
however,
thatcriticalfacilitystemmed

purelyfromtalentor other"natural"roots,or that differences

in the
"natural"abilitiesof observers
couldnot be overcome.
To post-CivilWar
writers,education
providedthesinglemostimportantsourceof perceptive
skill.AlthoughCaffindescribed
publicperception
elsewhere
aseducable,
malleable,
andopento improvement,
Secessionists
generally
upended
thisas-

sumption,
raising
"naturally"
occurring
insight
in itsplace.
Deliberately,
CameraWork'scontributors
deniedtheroleof education
in
theformationof criticalfacility.Hartmann,forone,scorned
thethoughtthat

thepubliccouldeverappreciate
"anartasvirileandfascinating,
individually
local and bitter as that of this Montmartre bohemian[Toulouse-Lautrec],"

growlingthat

art appreciation
cannotbetaught.It maybefostered,
gradually
developed
in somenaturally
responsive
andneglected
individual,
buteven
thenit will lackfreedom
andspontaneity.
Appreciation
is anindividual
growth,likeartitself,andit necessitates
inborntalentfromthestart.
Forthatreason
artisbythefewandforthefew.Themoreindividual
a workof art is, themoreprecious
andfreeit is aptto be;andat the
sametime,asa naturalconsequence,
the moredifficultto understand.
(1910, 37)

Hartmann's
baldassessment
of thesources
of criticalacumen
placedcriticism

onthesamecreative
planeasartistic
production
whileassaulting
thepublic's
authority
tojudgeandappreciate
art.But,although
hedenigrated
thepublic
fora lackof naturalcriticalfacility,healsocomplained
thatlaziness,
andnot
inborndeficiency,
hadkeptthepublicfromfullyexercising
itsopportunity
to judgeart.Because
artrequired
vigorous
thought,Hartmannmaintained,
mostAmericans
hadsimplyabandoned
it in favourofmusic,film,andother
morepassive
enjoyments.
"Worksof art," hewrote,

Canadian Review of American Studies

Revuecana&enned'tudes arnbrtcanes

64

are generallyso high-pricedthat they are beyondthe meansof the

middleclass.And merelyto studythemis too muchof an intellectual
exertion.Peopleunderstand
a Tschaikowsky
symphony
as little as an
Impressionist
exhibit,nevertheless
ninety-nineout of a hundredwill
preferto heartheconcert,
whileonesolitaryindividualwill derivea similarpleasure
andsatisfaction
fromthepaintings,
for thesimplereason
thatmusicis easierto enjoy.Onepaysa comparatively
smalladmission,
sitsdownandlistens,andthe musicdriftswithoutany personaleffort
into one'sconsciousness.
(1912, 19)

Hartmann'spromotionof a visiblecriticalelect chippedaway at pubhc

participation
in artisticjudgment.
In defining
thesources
of artisticmeaning
and enjoyment,however,this critic and self-conscious
literary agentwas
unwilling
torelinquish
toomuchagency
toworksalone.AlthoughHartmann
proposed
that the criticderivedhis capacityto judgeand enjoyart from
natural,ratherthanlearned,sources,
herefusedto describe
thistalentmerely
in termsof a capacity
to receivepredetermined
impressions.
Carlin demonstrated
a similar reluctanceto abandoncritical agency
completely,
failingto analyse
explicitlytheprocess
bywhichhe himselfhad
cometo admireSecessionist
productions.
Althoughhefrequentlyreferredto
hisjudgments
as"impressions,"
hisactualmeaningfor the metaphorwas
neverclear.Notwithstanding
hisreluctance
to erasehisowninvolvement
in
theproduction
ofartistic
meaning,
Caffindidreassign
agency
to workswhen
describing
thecriticalactivityof others,thusdisguising
the organizational
rootsof theSecession's
success.
Despitedevotingyearsof hisownlabourto
buildingaudiences
throughcriticism,Carlin arguedthat "The PhotoSecession
haspassed
overthe headsof the criticsanddirectlyreachedthe
public"(Carlin1907c,27). His comments
on the physicalcontextof exhibitionattheLittleGalleries
reinforced
thislineof argument,
removing
the
handof organization
fromSecessionist
displaymuchas it had erasedthe
impactof criticism(Caffin1906,33). In thisway, Caffinmaskedthe organizational
activity
whichhadmadedisplay
possible,
constructing
theLittle
Galleriesasa contextless
spacein whichworksalonedeterminedtheir reception.

J.M. Macm / 65

While career critics like Hartmann and Caffin hesitated to remove the

production
of artisticmeaning
fromthecontested
groundbetween
vewer
andworkto worksthemselves,
J.M. Bowlesexpressed
no suchreluctance.
Denying
thathisactions
or sympathies
hadplayedtheslightest
rolem his
admirationof the Secession,
he wrote that

I am merelyan interested
andsympathetic
outsider.
At the outsetI was

neitherfor noragainst
photography;
it madeitswaywithmesolelyby
thesheer
forceofgoodwork.My mindwasopen--'afair fieldandno
favor'beingmycreedin matterspertaining
to artmandI hopeto beable
to keepit so. (1907, 17, emphasis
added)

Again,here,CameraWork repudiatedthe importance

of contextin the
formation
of aesthetic
judgments,
obscuring
Bowles's
position
withintheart
world (hiscomments
werenot accompanied
by an explanation
of how an
"outsider"had cometo arrive at the chanceto expresshis unschooled
opinions
in thepagesof theforemostphotographic
journalof thetime)and
dsmissing
the impactof theparticular
contextof theworks'display.
s'
Unlike Hartmann,who had depictedthe Secession's
appreciators
as
"friends"andabettors
of the cause,
Bowlessuggested
thathisappreciation
hadflowedfreelyfromworksthemselves,
withoutthebenefitwordetriment
wof outsideinfluence.
Bowleswrotethathisjudgments
hadcometo him
uninfiuenced
by any readingor 'talk' on the subject.In fact, I have
deliberately
refrainedfrominformingmyselfonmanypointswhichhave
arisenin my mindsinceI startedto preparethesenotes,because
the
purpose
of thispaperisto recordemotions
produced
ona rankoutsider
solelybythework.My veryignorance
mayhaveitsvalue,perhaps
even
showwhichwaythewind of publicopinionblows,andblazontheway
for a campaignof publicityuponpointsregarding
whichthegenuinely
interestedshouldbe informed. (1907, 17-18)

To Bowles,the meaningof art wasnot producedby the strugglebetween

autonomous
viewer and work, but was produced"on" the emotionsof
passive
viewers"solelyby... work[s]."Byrelocating
meaning's
production

66

CanadianReview of AmericanStudies
Revuecanadienned'tudes ambricanes

within works,ratherthanwithin open-ended,

individualized
interactions,
Bowlesnotonlystripped
individual
viewersof agency,
butof individuality.
More importantly,Bowles'saccountposited"ignorance"as the standard
conditionof observers,
implyingthat similarly ignorantobserversex-

perienced
worksin similarways.Thisassumption
allowedBowlesto merge
hisexperience
withthegeneral
experience
of anunspecified
"public,"about
whoseopinionhecouldsafelyspeculate.
Oncefreeto actasitsmouthpiece,
Bowlesoverturned
themeaning
of "publicopinion."
Thishaddangerous
consequences.
AlthoughBowlespositedthe "public"
observer
asanignorantobserver,
hedidnotsuggest
thatthe"public"for art
included
justanyone.
In Bowles's
formulation,
onlya smallnumberof people
wereabletograspthemeaning
andsignificance
of artworks,andthosewho
couldnotcouldneverbeeducated
to do so.Thusin callingfor "a campaign
of publicity,"
hehardlysuggested
thattheSecession
blanketthenationwith
didacticliteratureontheprinciples
of artisticphotography
to preparefuture
audiences
for theirinteraction
with the medium.Instead,Bowlespressed
a
notionof "publicity"
whichhadlittle to do with buildingan audience
for
pictorialism,
butwhichinsteadindicatedthemanagement
of a self-selecting
audience
whoseapprovalwasalreadyknown.BowlesthusreversedGilded
Age criticism's
understanding
of the relationship
betweeneducationand
perception,
positing
"publicity"
asa gloss,afterthefact,on thoselocalized
elements
thatvisionalonehadnot madeclear,and "genuineinterest"asa
conditiondetermined
not by an observer's
curiosity,but by his or her
approval.In thisway,BowlesrejectedGildedAgecritics'faith not onlyin

the efficacyof institution

building,butin the public'sabilityto shapeand
mould the future of American art.

Bowles's
promotionof a decontextualized
momentof revelationas the
modelfor reception
thussharplylimitedart'saudience.
It alsosignificantly
narrowedtheparameters
of audienceparticipationin the process
of artistic
production.
Bowles's
representation
of audiences
perseconfinedtheiractivity withinthenarrowboundaries
of passive
"reception"
or "observation."
Merereceptacles
forartthat"happened,"
Bowles's
observers'
onlychoicelay
in the decision
to approach
art with an "openmind"or onesealedshutby
art-worldprejudice.
Of hisownbiases,
hewrotethat

].M. Mancini / 67

I am indifferentasto whetherphotography
goesup or down,beinga
fatalistasto theprogress
of thearts,andbelieving
with Whistlerthatart
happens,
thatit depends
entirelyupontheindividual
worker,andthat
we cando littleto eitheraccelerate
or retarditsprogress[.]
(1907, 17)

Judgment,
then,lay in theobserver's
abilityto discern
theunfolding
of a
mysterious
process
aboutwhichheprobably
knewalmostnothing.
In this
way,Bowlesrecastlookingasan almostwhollypassive
act,in whichobservers'
choices
playednorolein thefutureof American
artisticproduction.
CameraWork's redefinitionof the artistic"public"markedthe final
undoing
of theautonomous
audience
championed
byamateurcriticsin the

GildedAge.No longerthefootsoldiers
of animminent
revolution
inwhich
audiences determined the outcome of America's artistic future, viewers

became
simpleobservers
of events
beyond
theircontrolor influence.
While
promoting
a newart, Stieglitzdismantled
themachine
that madeart go.
Whenthedustcleared,all thatremained
wasa sleek,well-honed
columnof
artists,marching
towards
thefuture.Asinaudible
observers,
hangers-on
to
thecampaign
forarthadlittlemoreeffectthanthethrongs
thathadcrowded
theedges
of battleduringthenation's
recentcivilwar.
CameraWork'stransformation
of nearlyall commentary
to fit a single,
coherentnarrativeabout the Photo-Secession
and artisticphotography
marked
boththejournal's
centrality
inthecreation
ofa photographic
avantgardeanditsdeparture
fromprevious
criticism.
In orchestrating
theestablishment
of a complex
institutional
anddiscursive
context
forthereception
of Secessionist
productions,
AlfredStieglitz
ensured
theirsuccess
andthe
success
of anemerging
modernist
photographic
aesthetic.
Byerasing
theinfluence
of hisinstitution-building
predecessors
andconstructing
Secessionist
worksasinevitable,
natural,andindependent
of institutional
entanglement,
helaidthegroundwork
foramodernist
sensibility
increasingly
hostile
to the
needs,desires,
andaspirations
of the public.

Canadian Review of American Studies

Revuecanadienned' g,tudesambricaines

68

Endnotes
AsOrvellargues,

Beginning
around
theturnof thecentury
anewapproach
tothecamera
evolved,
initiatedin theworkof AlfredStieglitz,
whoseinfluenceon the vocabulary
of
photography
was profoundover the next severaldecades.
This approach
emphasized
thephotographer's
eye,hisparticular
angleonthesubject,
whether
derailed
close-up
oraerialview;it emphasized
theidiosyncrasy
of thecamera's
way
of seeing
asa functionof its mechanical
character,
ratherthanits capacity
to
reproduce
a facsimile
of 'normal'vision.Fortheauthenticity
of thecamera,
it was
believed,
wastheauthenticity
of a machine
thatwasaccepted
asa machine.
Andthe
photograph
functioned
notasa surrogate
forexperience,
orasa memorydevice,
but
asaninstrument
ofrevelation,
changing
ourwayof thinkhzg
about,andseeing
the
world. (1989, 198-99, emphasis
added)
2.

Hainessuccinctly
describes
thisas"Stieglitz's
success
in makingtruthvisible"(1982,5).
Thereissomedisagreement
amongscholars
asto theexacttrajectoryof Americanartistic

photography
inthearlydecades
ofthetwentieth
century.
Whilesome
authors
seeStieglitz's
prewareffortsin termsof an antiquated
pictorialist
stylewhichdrewderivafively
on the
conventions
and visionof painting,and others argue that Sfieglitzbeganto see the
apprehension
anddepiction
of stripped-down
objects
asthephotographic
routeto spiritual
understanding
at a muchearlierdate,someauthors
taketheposition
thattherewasnot a
sharpbreakbetween
thepainterly
pictorialist
styleof theturnof thecenturyandthehardedged
stylewhichdeveloped
in theensuing
decades.
CameraWorkitselfisa recordof this
lengthytransition
fromtheatmospheric
to theconcrete.
SeeArrowsmith
andWest(1992);
Dijkstra(1969,95-107);Green(1973,"Introduction");
Orvell(1989,chs.3 and6); Bunnell
(1993, 8-12).

3.

Theimage
ofSfieglitz
asphotographic
seerandfatherof modernism
wasonewhichhehimself
cultivated,
andwhichhiscontemporaries
wereunafraidto promote.
In a 1934volumewhose
contributors
included
WilliamCarlosWilliams,MarsdenHartley,andGertrudeStein,Harold
Clurmanwrotethatthephotographer's
capacity
forlovehasmadeSfieglitza seer.Because
nothingistoounimportant
for
himto see,andbecause
everything
heseesfinallybecomes
theobjectof anallembracing
andtherefore
single
love,hisverysimple,
always
accessible
photographs
takeona 'mystic'
quality,andStieglitz
isregarded
asa 'visionary'!
We areunused
to suchattentionin moderntimes.Sfieglitzisincessantly
attentive.He is attentive
to everything
thatimmediately
confronts
him. Because
he caresfor everything,
because
he loves[.] (quotedin Franket. al [1934, 268]

SeealsoDorothyNorman's
aptlytitledAlfred$tieglitz:Introduction
to an AmericanSeer
(1960).

For themostconcise
expression
of theneedto reevaluate
culturalproduction
in termsof the
conditions
of practice,
asopposedto text-or object-based
analysis,
seeWilliams([1973]
1980).

J.M. Mancmi / 69

5.

Muchoftheliterature
onStieglitz
isdevoted
todescribing
Stieglitz's
"good
works"
within
the
artworld,including
hisrolein thePhoto-Secession,
Camera
Work,andtheLittleGalleries.

Byandlarge,
however,
thisliterature
concerns
itself
withthese
institutions
onlyasinertvessels
for thepresentation
of a deracinated
aesthetic
"message."
Peninah
Petruck,
thus,describes

Stieglitz's
"passion
forinnovation
andexperimentation"
as"thatofa missionary,"
1ocanng
Cantera
WorkandtheLittleGalleries
astheprime
outlets
forhiszeal(1981,
25).Indescribing
theactual
impact
ofthese
twoinstitutions,
however,
Petruck
merely
describes
themasvenues
inwhich
Stieglitz
elaborated
hisideas
orpresented
previously
unknovn
European
modermsts
to anAmericanaudience,
withoutexploring
thecharacter
of theinstitutions
themselves.
On

thewhole,
scholarly
descriptions
ofStieglitz's
projects
relyheavily
onhisovndepiction
of
themas"laboratories,"
ordisinterested
spaces
forunfettered
"experimentation"--terms
which
themselves
drewon theculturalauthority
andsupposed
neutrality
of science.
Matthew

Baigell,
forinstance,
writesthat"Sfieglitz
in hisvarious
galleries... offered
something
equivalent
toEmerson's
Concord--a
place
inwhichideals
could
beconsidered
reasonably
free
of tradeandcommerce"
(1987).To date,therelationship
betveen
modernist
criticism
as
discourse
andmodernist
criticism
asinstitution
hasnotbeen
explored
inafullandconvincing
manner.

6.

7.

8.

Themostthorough
examination
of thisdynamic
canbefoundin theworkof Keller(1984),
whoargues
thatthesuccess
of "Art Photography"
owedmoreto Stieglitz's
promotional
efforts
thanto thecontent
of hisworkor theworkof hisassociates.
Although
hisargument
ishighlysuggestive,
Keller'scentralpreoccupation
withtheepistemological
ramifications
of
Stieglitz's
institution-building
activities
renders
it ultimately
unsafisfying.
To Keller,Stieghtz's
organizational
activities
areproblematic
mainlyinthattheyledtothecreation
of "apresngeorientedpseudo
art world"whosecomponents
failedto liveup to thestandards
setby
"legitimate
andfunctional
supportinstitutions"
suchastheacademy,
andwhichpromoted
mediocre
work as"genuinely
innovative."
The problemwiththislineof analysis
is thatit
presumes
thattheevaluation
of art workscanevertakeplaceoutside
of "themanufacture
of
... fame,"andthatbyerasing
the"promotional"
effects
of Stieglitz's
organizational
activines
we canachieveanobjective
"re-evaluation
of themovement."
AlanTrachtenberg's
(1989,ch.4) account
ofcontemporaries'
reception
of theworkof Lewis
Hine providesstunning
evidence
of Stieglitz's
narrowing
affecton Americandefinitions
of
"artistic"
photography.
According
toTrachtenberg,
Stieglitz
initiated
andcodified
adeepand
artificialgulf in Americanconsciousness
between"artistic"photographs,
madeby selfconsciously
artisticproducers
andjudgedsolelyaccording
to aesthetic
qualifies,
and"documentary"
photographs,
whichneitherborethe stampof artisticintentnorexcluded
accidentaldetail.Thisgulf,Trachtenberg
argues,prevented
contemporaries
fromrecogniztng
Hine'ssocially-motivated
workas"art"atall.Trachtenberg
furtherinterprets
Stieglitz's
drive
foraccommodation
withintheestablished
structures
of theartworldasa backward-looking,
anti-avant-garde
strategy,however.In contrast,I will arguethat the drivefor official
recognition
is itselfintegralto theAmerican
avant-garde.
A fascinating
andunusual
attemptto relateorganizational
transformations
in thecorporate
andtheculturalsphere,andto examinetheireffecton modernist
production,
canbe found
in Smith (1993).

A source
ofseemingly
endless
fascination
forscholars,
theavant-garde
inspires
a continuously
grooving
bodyof literature.The bulk of thisscholarship
concerns
itself,however,
with a
limitedsetof questions,
andis particularly
interested
in fine-tuning
analready
overworked
theoryor definitionof the"avant-garde."
Generally
sceptical
abouttheclaimsof historical
avant-gardes--or
the possibility
for a "true"avant-garde
to haveexistedunderanycr-

CanadianReview of AmericanStudies
Revuecanadienned'ttles ambricaines

70

cumstances--this
literature,
although
historicizing,
hasdonelittleto examine
thepractices
of
concrete
historical
avant-gardes.
Thus,various
authors
haveunearthed,
in labounous
detail,
thehistorical
unfolding
of themetaphor
of theavant-garde,
the logicentailedin thisconstantly
shifting
discourse,
andtheimpactof thembothontheformalcharacter
of theartisnc
andliteraryproductions
of thelate-nineteenth
andtwentieth
centuries.
Describing
their
activityasasearch
fora newaesthetic
language,
untrammelled
bytraditions,MateiCalinescu
([1977]1987)writesthattheprimaryobjective
of theavant-garde
"wasto overthrow
all the

binding
formal
traditions
ofartandtoenjoy
theexhilarating
freedom
ofexploring
completely
new,previously
forbidden,
horizons
of creativity.
Fortheybelieved
thatto revolutionize
art
wasthesameasto revolutionize
life" (112).Considerably
lessattentionhasbeendirected
towards
providing
anaccount
of thecharacter
of specific
historical
avant-gardes
associaland
organizational
entities.
While the language
of the avant-garde,
rootedin militaryand
revolutionary
metaphor,
isitselfrich with organizational
implications,
mostscholars
have
glossed
overthe organizational
activitycentral,first,to the creationof avant-gardes
as
conglo
meratio
nsof sympathe
ticproduce
rs,and,second,
tothepromorion,disse
minario
n,and
reception
of theirworks.Poggioli
([1962]1971)setthestageforthisframeworkin hisclassic
study,
bydescribing
the"littlemagazine"
asthesolitary
voiceoftheavant-garde,
cryingalone
against
theclamourof "mass
journalism"
andthe uniformityof the dominantculture.In
describing
theavant-garde
journalasthebearerof fullyformedaesthetic
positions
or works,
Poggioli
ignored
themessenger
completely
in favourof themessage
carried,writingthat
sometimes
thegoalof thelittle reviewis merelyto publishproclamations
or a
series
of manifestos,
announcing
thefoundation
of a newmovement,
explicating
andelaborating
itsdoctrine,
categorically
andpolemically.
Or elsetheymerely
present
to a friendlyor hostilepublicananthology
of thecollective
workin a new
tendency
or by a newgroupof artistsandwriters. (22)

Although
anovertresponse
toPoggioli,
Biirger's
(1984)approach
replicates
thisderacinated
account
of the avant-garde
andits productions,
relyingon a notionof "self-criticism"
to
describe
itsmomentof origin.Biirgerwrites,
withthehistorical
avant-garde
movements,
thesocialsubsystem
thatisart enters
the stageof self-criticism.
Dadaism,the most radicalmovementwithin the
European
avant-garde,
nolongercriticizes
schools
thatpreceded
it, butcriticizes
artasaninstitution,
andthecourse
itsdevelopment
tookin bourgeois
society
....
Onlyafterart, in nineteenth-century
Aestheticism,
hasaltogether
detached
itselffrom
thepraxisof lifecantheaesthetic
develop'purely.'(22)
In Biirger's
theory,thus,theavant-garde's
onlyconcretespurto self-criticism
isnotsocial
conditions,
butartitself.A similartendency
canalsobeseenin Abrahams
(1986).Seealso
Egbert(1967).
10.

Worksexhibited
byPhoto-Secession
member
George
A. Seeley,
for example,
provoked
the
editor to comment that

although
it wasa severe
testforthese
pictures
to behungaftertheexceptionally
imaginative
[drawings]
of Miss[Pamela
Colman]Smith,theywellsustained
the

].M. Mancini/ 71

prestige
of thegalleries.
Theexhibition
isstillopenaswegotopress.
("Photo-Secession
Notes,"Camera
Worki8 [April1907],49)
Thisself-conscious
toneof reassurance
quickly
gaveway,however.
ByOctober,
theeditors
hadadopted
a morematter-of-fact
strategy
for demonstrating
the appropriateness
of
displaying
photography
alongside
worksin moretraditional
media,breezily
mexmoning
photography,
etching,
anddrawing
allin thesame
breath
asif therehadneverbeenany
dispute
asto photography's
positionamongthearts.

Someof the exhibitions

planned
for thesucceeding
monthare:Dravings
by
Rodin;Etchings
byWilli Geiger,
of Munich;Photographs,
byFrankEugene;
by
Eduard
Steichen,
in colorandmonochrome;
by.Joseph
T. Keiley;
byF. Holland
Day;aseries
ofplatinotype
studies
made
byClarence
H. WhiteandAlfred
Stieglitz
in collaboration[etc.].

("Exhibitions
at theLittleGalleries,"
Camera
Work20 [October1907],26)
11 Astheeditorswroteof thefirstnonphotographic
exhibition
in 1907,
Theexhibition
ofdraxvings
inblackandcolorbyMissPamela
Colman
Smith,held
at theLittleGalleries
of thePhoto-Secession
inJanuary,
marked,
nota departure
fromtheintentionsof the Photo-Secession,
buta welcome
opportunity
of their
manifesting.
The Secessionist
Ideais neithertheservantnor the productof a
medium.("TheEditors'Page,"CameraWork18 [April1907],37-38)
12. "'CameraWork'owesallegiance
tonoorganization
orclique,
andthough
it isthemouthpiece
of tilePhoto-Secession
thatfactwillnotbeallowed
to hamper
itsindependence
intheslightest
degree"("AnApology,"CameraWork1 [January
1903],16).
13. Indeed,theeditors
suggested
thatCamera
Workconstituted
theirreaders'
exclusive
source
of
information
aboutphotography,
writingthat "we knowthatof our readers
but a small
percentage
seeanyotherpublication
devoted
to pictorial
photography
except
Camera
Work"
("TheEditors'Page,"CameraWork18 [April1907],37-38).
14. Theeditors
occasionally
notedthisgenerally
unspoken
circumstance,
reprinting
tilecatalogue
fromtile 1908exhibition
of Rodindrawings,
forexample,
explicitly
"fortilebenefitof the
readers
of Camera
Workwhodidnothavethepleasure
ofseeing
theexhibition"
("TheRodin
Drawings
at thePhoto-Secession
Galleries,"
CameraWork22 [April1908],35-41).
15. On therelationships
between
Sfieglitz
andvariousparticipants
in hisventures,
seeLowe
(1983).

16. Charles
Caffin(1854-i918),whoemigrated
fromBritainin 1892,wasoneof theforemost
criticaldefenders
ofartistic
photography
in theUnitedStates.
Afterdoingdecorative
work
at the World'sColumbian
Exhibition
in Chicago,
Caffinmovedto NewYork,wherehe
worked
asa criticforHarper's
Weekly,
tileEvening
Post,tileNewYorkSun,theStMio,
and
theNewYorkAmerican,
aswellaslecturing
at tilePennsylvania
Academy
ofFineArtsandthe
YaleSchool
of FineArts.Although
initially
hostile
toStieglitz's
work,Caffinwasconvinced
of itsmeritafterStieglitz
recommended
himto theeditorofEverybody's
to authora series
of articlestileeditorhadaskedSfieglitz
towrite.Thereafter,Caffinbecame
committed
to
demonstrating
theartistic
meritsof photography,
bothinarticles
andin hisPhotography
as
a FineArt (1901). On Caffin,seeUnderwood(1983);WilsonandFiske(1888,22:261).

CanadianReview of American Studies

RevuecanadiennedYtudes ambrtcaines

72

17. The editors'firmness

on thispointis evidenced
by theirreiteration,in the nextissue,that
"Mr. Strauss
didnotrepresent
thespiritor ideasof those'photographic
pictorialists'
who

havegainedthe recognition
of modernphotography
in the field of art" ("Exhibition
Notes--Re
St.Louis,"Cantera
Work2 [April1903],51). Thefrictionbetween
artistically
mindedphotographers
andtheircommercial/professional
associates
wasnot limitedto
Stieglitz's
circle,butwasa mainstay
of organized
amateurphotographic
"reform"rhetoric
duringthelasttwodecades
of thenineteenth
century.
Foranaccount
of amateurs'
attempts
to differentiate
themselves
fromcommercial
photography,
seeKeller(1984, 251-52).

18. In distinguishing
themselves
from profit-making
photographers,
Secessionists
modelled
themselves
afterGermansecession
movements,
whichwereestablished
partlyasa reaction

against
thecommercialization
of theAcademy.
Onthosemovements,
seeKarl(1985,10910).

19. Bythetimehefounded
thePhoto-Secession,
Stieglitz
hadalready
honedhisskills
asart-world
organizer.
Underhisstewardship,
andduein particular
tohismanagement
ofCamera
Notes,
NexvYork'sCameraClubhadenjoyed
itsgreatest
periodof success.
Perceiving
hisPhotoSecession
activities
astreasonous,
theclublaterrevokedhismembership.
SeeStrauss
(1908,
26).

20. Themostnotorious
example
of thisprocess
of rebellionanddecadence
xvas,of course,the
National
Academy
of Design(1826),xvhichhadbeenfounded
by rebelNexvYorkartists
disgruntled
withtheAmerican
Academy
of FineArts'controlbymerchants
andothernonartists.SeeBender(1987,126-30); Harris([1966] 1982, 96-99).
21. Therewereseveral
precedents
forthiskindof "sympathetic"
association
inEurope,
including
thePre-Raphaelite
Brotherhood
andtheLinkedRing,towhichStieglitz
washimself
elected.
In theUnitedStates,
however,suchassociations
werealmostunknown,with the exception
of theshort-lived
Society
fortheAdvancement
of Truth in Art at mid-century.
22. Current
literature
reproduces
thisinterpretation,
emphasizing
the"collective
faith"thatheld
Secessionists
together.SeeWatson(1991, 68).

23. On European
Secession
movements'
self-conscious
withdrawalfromthe market,seeKarl
(1985,109-110).On Stieglitzandcorporate
sponsorship,
seeKiefer(1992).
24. Keileyalsotookapersonal
interest
in photography's
re-admission
intoPhiladelphia's
official
artscene;
hehadbeena participant
in thefirstPhiladelphia
Photographic
Salonof 1898and
experienced
itssubsequent
lockout(Peterson
1993, 169).
25. Keiley's
spinonthiseventwas
notunique
withinCamera
Work.In describing
thechange
from
"ridicule to silence and . . . amusement to conviction" that the exhibitions at the Little

Galleries
hadwroughtduringtheirfirstyear,theeditorswrotethat

it comes
asa peculiarly
gratifying
climaxto ourendeavors
thatthePennsylvania
Academy
of the FineArts,one of the foremostand mostinfluentialof the
Americanart institutions,
has,unasked,
requested
us to selectand hangan
exhibition
of photographs
on itswalls".
("Photo-Secession
Notes,"CameraWork15 [July1905],42, emphasis
added).
26.

Cheerfully
setting
thetermsof selection
forthe1910photographic
exhibition
at theBuffalo
FineArtsAcademy
(Albright
Art Gallery),hoxvever,
theSecession
seemed
to havenotrouble
assessing
thevorksof others,announcing
in CameraWork that
thosedesirous
of exhibiting
in the... OpenSectionarerequested
to sendtheir
prints,unframed,express
prepaid,to 291 Fifth Avenue,New York City, where

]. M. Manctm/ 73

theywill bejudged
byThePhoto-Secession
.... Theselection
will begoverned
by
the principleof Independent
Visionand Qualityof Rendering.
To eliminate
accidental
successes,
eachexhibitorin thissection
mustberepresented
byat least
threeexamples."
("An ImportantInternational
Exhibitionof Photographs,"
CameraWork30 [April
19101, 60)

27. "We are devotedly

thankfulthattherearefewerphotographic
'Art Exhibitions'
now than
therewereseveral
yearsago.Whathasbeenlostin quantity,however,hasbeengainedin

quality..
(Wewishthesame
couldbesaidof the'real'artexhibitions.)"
(Editors
1910,53).
28. Theeditorsalsousedthislineofargument
indescribing
thePhoto-Secession,
writingthat"the
aimof the Photo-Secession
is looselyto holdtogetherthoseAmericans
devoted
to pictorml
photography
in theirendeavor
to compel
itsre:ognition,
notasa handmaiden
ofart,butasa
distinctive
mediumofindividualexpression."
Byhighlighting
thelooseness
of itsorganizatton
andportraying
itsattemptto buildaudiences
asthesearch
for"recognition,"
Camera
Work
deflectedattentionawayfrom the Secession's
organizational
effortsandtowardsits arfimc
productions
("ThePhoto-Secession,"
Camera
Work6 [April1904],53, emphasis
added).
29. Theeditors
tookpainstoremindreaders
thattheLitfieGalleries
hadnothing
incommon
wth
art institutions
withwhichtheymightbe familiar,urgingpotential
visitors
to "[remember]
thattheLittleGalleryisnothingmorethana laboratory,
andexperimental
station,
andmust
notbelookeduponasanArt Galleryin theordinary
sense
of thatterm.""Photo-Secession

Notes,"Camera
Work30 (April1910),47.SeealsoHaviland
(1912a,36),whodescribed
shows
at 291 as"demonstrations
of development,
ratherthaneitherexhibitions
of final
accomplishment
of 'shows'
in thepopularsense.

30. As Havilandwrote,"If the position

of photography
amongthe artsis to be firmlyand

permanently
established,
thiscanbeaccomplished
byproving
it capable
ofstanding
thetest
of comparison
withthebestworkin othermediaandnotbyisolating
it" (1910,42).
31. In theUnitedStates,
WilliamMerrittChase
engaged
insimilar
activity
withinhisownstudre,
which
waswidely
known
foritsmeticulously
crafted
display.
Chase's
fondness
fororientahst

gewgaws
andcrowded
presentation
marked
hissympathy,
however,
withcertain
aspects
of
nineteenth-century
modes
of exhibition,
if notwiththeirpolitical
ramifications.
OnChase,
seeBryant(1991).

32. Anexcellent
discussion
ofWhistler's
activities
in exhibition
design
canbefoundin Bendix
(1995, 205-268).

33. AgoalthatStieglitz's
rivalimpresario
Robert
Henrihadbeen
unable
toaccomplish.
AsJames
GibbonsHunekercolourfullyexclaimed,

'No,messieurs
etroesdemoiselles,
lesIndependents,
you'llnever
beattheAcademy
atitsown

stupid
game
bysubstituting
quantity
forquality!
Twowrongs
don'tmake
aright.Oppose

quality
toquantity.
Slash
offtheheads
oftwo-thirds
ofyourapplicants
andtrytokillthe
demonof vaindisplay.'

(Huneker,
"'TheYounger
American
Painters'
andthePress,"
NewYorkSun,reprinted
in
CameraWork 31 [July1910], 51)

34. Carlinuseda similarlineof argument

in describing
the(Secession-juried)
photographic
exhibition
at Buffaloof 1910,writingthat"Onereceived
a suggestion
thattheexhibition

represented
notanincident,
butforthetimebeing
thepurpose
ofthebuilding's
existence"
(1911, 21).

CanadianReviewof AmericanStudies
Revuecanaclienne
dYtudesambrmatnes

74

35. CameraWorkalsofrequently
servedas a surrogate
displayvenue for non-Secessiomst

exhibitions
at theLittleGalleries;
for example,
several
drawings
"Fromthe Drawings
Exhibited
at theRodinExhibition[,]
Photo-Secession
Gallery,January,
1908;April,1910"
werelaterreproduced
in a series
of platesin thejournal.PlatesI-VI; I-II, CameralVork
34-35, 36 (April-July,
October,1911).
36. Defending
theLittleGalleries'
increasingly
frequent
turnto nonphotographic
exhibttions,
Haviland
suggested
thatdisplay
inCanera9(/ork
served
asamorethanadequate
surrogate
for
liveexhibition.
"Theseason,
whichendedwithbuta singlephotographic
exhibition,
hasled
many
ofourfriends
topresume
thatthePhoto-Secession
waslosing
itsinterest
inphotography
andthe'TheBunch
at 291'wassteering
theassociation
awayfromitsoriginalpurpose.
The
bestanswer
is to befoundin the pagesof Camera9f/ork,mthe
officialorganof thePhotoSecessionrain
whichthe bestexamples
of photography
are presented
regularlyto its
subscribers"
(Haviland1910, 42).

37. According
to Trachtenberg,
Stieglitz
frequently
recontextualized
hisoxvnwork,provtdmg
historical
re-interpretations
of hisearlyNewYorkphotographs
decades
aftertheirmaking
(1989, ch. 4).

38. Editors1903a,26-27;"Exhibition
NotesraThe
Photo-Secession,"
CameraWork10 (April
1905), 49-50;"American
Photography
andtheForeignAnnuals,"Camera9(/ork14 (Aprfi
1906), 63.

39. While thislistgenerally

contained
museums,
galleries,
andcameraclubs,it alsoincluded
"General
diCesnola,
theDirectorof theMetropolitan
Museum
ofArt"and"HisMajestythe
Kingof Italy,"whohadgiventheSecession
a "special
award"(Editors1903c,60-61; "The
Photo-Secession,"
Camera9(/ork9 [January1905], 56-57; "ForeignExhibitionsand the
Photo-SecessionNotes,"
Camera9(/ork7 [July1904], 39---40).
40. The mostnotableexamples
of thiswereBritain'sLinkedRingandthe infamous
Salondes
Refuses.
Editors1903a,26-27;"ExhibitionNotes,"Camera9(/ork12 (October1905),59,
"Calendar
of Exhibitions,"
Camera9(/ork14 (April1906),advertising
section.
41. "Thetroublewith most... artistsisthattheyhave'too muchegoin theircosmos.'
Whfie
themajority
of menarecontent
to subordinate
theiregoto theaggregate
cosmos,
andthose
whoseegoisof superior
usefulness
or superior
audacity
reapa materialbenefit,thearnstis
not measuring
hisegowiththeworld,buthugging
it to himself.It issodearto him thathe
cherishes
it in seclusion,
andgivesoutlittlescraps
of it in charityto theworld.Thishecalls
expressing
himself;
andwhentheworld,fulloflargepreoccupation
andin noneedofcharity,
overlooks
hisscraps,
hegivesit badnames"(Caffin1905, 25-26;seealsoCaffin1907b).
42. Reviews
of Secession
exhibitions
frequently
contained
excerpts
fromtheircatalogues;
on
occasion,
thesereprintedcatalogues
consisted
not merelyof positiveassessments
by the
exhibition's
organizers,
butcomments
bytheartists
themselves.
In defending
anexhibmon
of
watercolours
by GelettBurgess
thathadbeenaccused
of beinginsufficienfiy
shocking,
Paul
Haviland
allowed
"Mr. Burgess
[to]explainhisownaim,andto thatendreprinthisintroductionto the catalogue
of hiswater-colors,
'Essays
in Subjective
Symbolism'"
(1912b,
46-47).

43. "TheRodinDrawings
at thePhoto-Secession
Galleries,"
CameraWork22 (April,1908),
35-41. Seealso"Photo-Secession
Exhibitions,"
CameraWork29 (January
1910),51-54.
44. McCormick,"in the Press,"quotedin "The Rodin Drawingsat the Photo-Secesston
Galleries,"
CameraWork22 (April,1908),39.
45. J. N. Laurvik,"in the Times,"quotedin "TheRodin Drawingsat the Photo-Secession
Galleries,"
CameraWork22 (April,1908),36.

J.M. Mancini/ 75

46. J.E.Chainberlin
"intheEvening
Mail,"ArthurHoeber
"intheGlobe,"
quoted
in"TheRodin
Dravings
at thePhoto-Secession
Galleries,"
Camera
Work22 (April,1908),37, 39.
47. Caffin's
insufficient
defence
of "straight"
photography
metthefollowing
response:
Wearegladto printthearticlewhichappears
inthisnumber
fromthepenof Mr.
Caffin,theartcritic,givinghisimpressions
of thesestudies.
We havenontentton
of commentingin anyway uponMr. Caffin'sviews,but feelthattt maybe
interesting,
in passing,
to supplement
anincomplete
statement
madebyhimof Mr.
Herzog'smethodof achievingsomeof his results.Mr. Caffinalludesto Mr.
Herzog's
composite
groups,
butomitstomention
hisactual
method
ofproducing,
let ussay,TheBanks
of Lethe,assuming
thatheposed
thegroupof figures
as
renderedin thatcomposition
andthenphotographed
it. Asa matterof factMr.
Herzogproceeded
approximately
asfollows:
having
madeinnumerable
singleor
occasionally
double-figure
studieson 4 x 5 plates,andhavingmadebromide
enlargements
fromeachof thesenegatives,
andhaving
fromthese
enlargements
cut
outthefigures,
paper-doll
fashion,
hethenproceeded,
ona largepanel,andwith
thesefiguresand a paperof pins,to group and re-group,
arrangeandrearrange--in
short,carryonexperiments
inhis'huntfortheline!'Whenfinallythe
composition
satisfied
hiseye,he pasted
downthepinnedfigures
andwithbrush
andpigmentfilledthegapsandpulledtogether
thesections
of hiscomposition.
Lastly,he photographed
thisresultin varioussizes,thusproducing
a numberof
'original'negatives.
Fromoneof thesetheaccompanying
photogravure
wasmade
withoutanytoolworkor retouching
whatever.
("OurArticles,"CameraWork17 [January
1907],41)
Thisresponse
vasto Caffin(1907c).

48. Recentliteraturetendsto reiteratethis,representing

Stieglitz's
influenceas immediate,
spellbinding,
contextless,
anddrivenpurelybyhisartisticproductions.
Haines,forexample,
writesthat"Stieglitz's
majorcontribution
towriterswasinproviding
contacts"
notwithother
writers,butwith "avant-garde
aestheticg"
(1982,7).
49. The latterassumption
issodeeplyrootedin our thinkingaboutart,indeed,thata writeras
sensitive
asDanielHerwitz,in attempting
to developa contemporary
account
of theavantgardewhichescapes
thegripof avant-garde
self-interpretation,
exclaims
that"sometimes
a
paintingisjusta painting"(1993, 3).
50. CameraWork'sattackson the publicsometimes
took a ratherlugubrious
turn,with one
unnamedauthorcrying,

why is a manwhofightsfor an idealof humanity,

nomatterwhethera poet,
reformer,
philosopher
orartist,always
hooted
bythecrowd,
andpeltedwithmud,
evenbyhisfriends!
It cannotbeotherwise
.... Thepublichasnotimeto reflect.
It isonlyconcerned
withtheeffect.Itsesthetic
appreciation
livesonmemories
or
reminiscences.
It admires
onlywhatit hasseenbefore.It isalways
opposed
to real
originality.
Theroadof novelideasis tooroughfor them.Discrimination
isnot
grantedto thePhilistines."
("TheFightfor Recognition,"
CameraWork30 [April1910]22-23)

CanadianReview of AmericanStudies
Revuecanadienned'tudes ambricames

76

51. Criticandplaywright
C.Sadakichi
Hartmann
(1867-1944)
began
hiscriticalcareerinBoston
writingfortheAdvert/ser
andtheBoston
Transcript.
Enlisting
thesupport
of art-worldfigures
suchasartistsAlbertBierstadt,
W. M. Chase,Augustus
St. Gaudens,RobertHenri, and
curatorandcollector
ErnestFenellosa,
Hartmannfoundedhisownjournal,TheArt Critic,in
1893,butwasforcedintobankruptcy
the sameyearafterbeingarrestedandtriedfor the
publication
ofhisplayChrist.
Hartmann's
eccentric
behavior
andantagonistic
stylehindered
hiscareerasa writer,butwereoverlooked
bySfieglitz,
whotoleratedhisfriend'spricklier
aspects
andwhocitedHartmann
asanessential
aesthetic
influence
attheturnof thecentury.
Hartmann's
tenureat Cantera
Workisgenerally
regarded
asthemostimportantperiodof his
criticism,
andisalsothetimeduringwhichhehadthemostart-worldinfluence,especially
amongphotographic
circles.
On Hartmann,seeWeaver(1991, 1-44).
52. "AsMr. Sfieglitz
hasaskedmetowrite'at anylengthandon anysubject,'I amenabledat last
to sitdownandanalyze
myphotographic
emotions"
(Bowles1907,17).
Works Cited

Abrahams,
Edward.1986.TheLyricalLeft:Randolph
Bourne,
AlfredStieglitz,andtheOriginsof
CulturalRadicalism
in America.Charlottesville:
University
Pressof Virginia.
Arrowsmith,
Alexandra
andThomasWest(eds.)1992.TwoLives:A Conversation
inPaintings
and
Photographs.
NewYork:HarperCollins.
Baigell,
Matthew.1987."American
Landscape
Painting
andNationalIdentity:TheSfieglitzCircle
andEmerson,"Art Criticism4 (1): 27-47.

Bender,
Thomas.
1987.NewYorkIntellectA Histo.ryofIntellectual
Lifein New YorkCity,front
I750 to theBeginnings
of OurOwnTime.NewYork:Knopf.
Bendix,
Deanna
Marohn.1995.Diabolical
Designs.'
Paintings,
Interiors,
andExhibitions
of]ames
McNeillWhistler.
Washington:
Smithsonian
Institution
Press.
Bowles,
J. M. 1907."Photography,
whatD'YeLack?"CameraWork19 (July):17-20.
Bryant,
Jr.,KeithL. 1991.WilliamMerrittChase,
A Genteel
Bohemian.
Columbia,
MO: University
of Missouri Press.

Bunnell,PeterC. 1993.Degrees
of Guidance:
Essays
in Twentieth-Century
AmericanPhotography.
Cambridge
andNewYork:Cambridge
University
Press.
Btlrger,Peter.1984.Theoryof theAvant-Garde.
Translated
by MichaelShaw.Minneapolis:
University
of Minnesota
Press.
Caffin,CharlesH. 1903."Pictorial
Photography:
The St. LouisExposition,"
CameraWork 1
(January):
42-45.
__. 1905."AsOthersSeeUs,"CameraWork 10 (April):25-27.
1906."TheRecentExhibitionsmSome
Impressions,"
CameraWork16 (October):33-37
1907a."Tweedledum
andTweedledee,"
Camera
Work19 (July):26-27.
.
1907b."Emotional
Art:AfterReading
the'Craftsman',"
CameraWork20 (October):32-34.
1907c."IsHerzogAlsoAmongtheProphets?"
CameraWork17 (January):
17-23.

1911."TheExhibition
at Buffalo,"
Camera
Work33 (January):
21-23.

Calinescu,
Matei.
[1977]1987.
FiveFaces
ofModernity:
Modernism,
Avant-Garde,
Decadence,
Kitsch,Postmodernism.
Durham,NC: DukeUniversity
Press.
Crunden,Robert.1982. Ministersof Reform:The Progressives'
Achievement
in American
Civilization, 1889-1920. New York: BasicBooks.

Djkstra,Brain.1969.TheHieroglyphics
of a NewSpeech:
Cubism,
$tieglitz,
andtheEarlyPoetry

ofWilliam
Carlos
Williams.
Princeton,
NJ:Princeton
University
Press.
Editors,
The.1903a."America
attheLondon
Salon,"
Camera
Work1 (January):
26-27.

J.M. Mancini/ 77

1903b."Exhibition
Notes--Photo-Secession
Notes,"Cantera
Work2 (April):50-51
1903c."Photography
at ImportantArt Exhibitions,"
CaneraWork1 (January):
60-61
1910."A DanielCometoJudgment,"
CameraWork31 (July):52-54

Egbert,
DonaldD. 1967."TheIdeaof 'Avant-Garde'
in Art andPolitics,"
Anterican
Historical
Review73 (December):339-66.
Ferber,LindaS. andWilliamH. Gerdts(eds.)1985.TheNew Path.'RuskinandtheAmerican
PreRaphaelites.
NewYork:Schocken
BooksandtheBrooklyn
Museum.

Fitzgerald,
Charles.[1905] 1906. "The PictorialPhotographers,"
New York EveningSun,
(December
9). Reprinted
in "ThePhoto-Secession
Galleries
andthePress,"
Camera
lVork14
(April1906).
Frank,Waldo,et. al. 1934.America& AlfredStieglitz:
A Collective
Portrait.GardenCity, NY:
Doubleday,
DoranandCompany
Gerdts,WilliamH. et. al. 1990.TenAmericanPainters.
New York:Spanierman
Gallery.
Green,Jonathan.
1973.CameraWork:A CriticalAnthology.
Millerton,NY: Aperture.
Haines,Robert1982. TheInner Eye of AlfredStieglitz.Washington,
DC: University
Pressof
America.

Harris,Neil. [1966] 1982. TheArtistin Anterican

Society:TheFormativeYears,1790-1860.
Chicago:University
of Chicago
Press
Hartmann,C. Sadakichi.1904. "The Photo-Secession
Exhibitionat the Carnegie
Art Galleries,
Pittsburg
[sic],Pa.,"CameraWork6 (April):47-51
1910. "ThatToulouse-Lautrec
Print!,"CameraWork29 (January):
36-38.
1912."TheEsthetic
Significance
of theMotionPicture,"
CameraWork38 (April):19-21.
Haviland,PaulB. 1909. "TheHome of the GoldenDisk," CanteraWork25 0anuary):21-22.
1910. "Photo-Secession
Notes,"CameraWork31 0uly): 41-42.
1912a. "Photo-Secession
Notes," CameraWork38 (April):36-37
1912b."Noteson the Exhibitions
at '291'," CameraWork37 0anuary):46-47.

Herwitz,Daniel
1993.MakingTheory/Constructing
Art: OntheAuthority
of theAvant-Garde.
Chicago
andLondon:University
of Chicago
Press
Homer,WilliamHines
1983.AlfredStieglitz
andthePhoto-Secession.
Boston:
LiMe,Brown.
__. 1977.AlfredStieglitz
andtheAmerican
Avant-Garde.
Boston:
NewYorkGraphic
Society.
Horowitz,HelenLefkowitz.1976.CultureandtheCity: CulturalPhilanthropy
in Chicago
from
theI880sto I917. Lexington,
KY:TheUniversity
Press
of Kentucky.
Karl,Frederick
R. 1985.ModernandModernism:
TheSovereignty
oftheArtist,I885-I925. New
York: Atheneurn.

Keiley,
Joseph
T. 1906."ThePhoto-S
ecession
Exhibition
atthePennsylvania
Academy
ofFineArtsIts PlaceandSignificance
in the Progress
of Pictorial
Photography,"
Camera
Work16
(October):45-51.
1911. "The BuffaloExhibition,"CaneraWork33 (January):
23-29

eller,UlrichF. 1984."TheMythof ArtPhotography:

A Sociological
Analysis,"
History
of
Photography
4 (October-December):
249-275.
Kiefer,Geraldine
Wojno.1992."AlfredStieglitz,
Camera
Work,andCulturalRadicalism,"
Art
Criticism7 (2): 1-20.

Lowe,SueDavidson
1983.Stieglitz:
AMemoir/Biography.
NewYork:Farrat,Strauss
andGiroux.
Miller,LillianB. 1966Patrons
andPatriotism:
TheEncouragement
oftheFineArtsin theUnited
States.
Chicago:
University
of Chicago
Press
Morgan,H. Wayne.1978.NewMuses:Art in American
Culture,I865-2920.Norman,OK:
University
of OklahomaPress

CanadianReview of American Studies

Revuecanaclienned' geudesamg'ricames

78

Naef,Weston
J. 1978.TheCollection
ofAlfredStieglitz:
FiftyPioneers
ofModernPhotography.
NewYork:Metropolitan
Museum
of Art/Viking.
Norman,Dorothy.1960.AlfredStieglitz:Introduction
to anAmerican
Seer.New York: Duell,
Sloan & Pearce.

Orvell,Miles.1989.TheRealThing:ImitationandAuthenticity
inAmerican
Culture1880-1940.
Chapel
Hill andLondon:
University
of NorthCarolina
Press.
Peterson,
Christian.1993.AlfredStieglitz's
'CameraNotes.'New York:W. W. Norton & Co./The
Minneapolis
Instituteof Arts.
Pettuck,Peninah
R. Y. 1981.American
ArtCriticism,
1910-1939.NewYorkandLondon:Garland.
Poggioli,
Renato.
[1962]1971.TheTheoryoftheAvant-Garde.
Translated
by GeraldFitzgerald.
New York: Icon Editions.

Smith,Terry. 1993.MakingtheModern:Industry,Art, andDesignin America.Chicagoand

London:University
of Chicago
Press.
Stieglitz,
Alfred.1905."Whe'FirstAmerican
Salonat New York'," CameraWork 9: (January):
50-51.

Strauss,
JohnFrancis.1908."Mr. Sfieglitz's
'Expulsion'--AStatement,"
CameraWork22 (April):
26.

Trachtenberg,
Alan.1989.Reading
American
Photographs:
ImagesasHistory,MathewBradyto
WalkerEvans.NewYork:Hill andWang.
Underwood,
SandraLee.1983.CharlesCalCfin:
A VoicelCor
Modernism,
1897-1918. AnnArbor:
U.M.I.

Press.

Watson,
Steven.
1991.Strange
Bedfellows:
TheFirstAmerican
Avant-Garde.
NewYork:Abbeville
Press.

Watson-Schutze,
Eva.1903."SalonJuries,"CameraWork2 (April):46-47.
Weaver,JaneCalhoun(ed.)1991.Sadakichi
Harimann:CriticalModernist.Berkeleyand Los
Angeles:
University
of CaliforniaPress.
Willard, S.L. 1903. "ExhibitionNotes--The Third Salon in Chicago," Camera Work 2
(April):49-50.
Williams,
Raymond.
[1973]1980.Problems
inMaterialism
andCulture:Selected
Essays.
London:
Verso.

Wilson,James
GrantandJohnFiske(eds.)1888.Appleton's
Cyclopedia
ofAmerican
Biography,
Volume1. NewYork:D. Appleton&: Co.
Zilczer,Judith.1985. "AlfredSfieglitzandJohnQuinn:Alliesin the AmericanAvant-Garde,"
American
Art]ournal17 (Summer):18-33.
JournalArticlesCitedby Title
"American
Photography
andtheForeignAnnuals,"
CameraWork14 (April1906): 63.
"AnApology,"CameraWork1 (January
1903): 15-16.
"Calendarof Exhibitions,"
CameraWork14 (April1906):advertising
section.
"TheEditors'Page,"CameraWork18 (April1907):37-38.
"Exhibition
Notes--Re
St.Louis,"CameraWork2 (April1903):51.
"Exhibition
Notes--ThePhoto-Secession,"
CameraWork10 (April1905):49-50.
"Exhibition
Notes,"CameraWork11 (July1905):57.
"ExhibitionNotes,"CameraWork12 (October1905):59.
"Exhibitions
at theLittleGalleries,"
CameraWork20 (October1907):26.
"The FightforRecognition,"
CameraWork30 (April1910):21-23.
"Foreign
Exhibitions
andthePhoto-Secession--Notes,"
CameraWork7 (July1904):39-40.

J.M. Mancini/ 79

"AnImportant
International
Exhibition
of Photographs,"
Camera
Work30 (Apri]1910):60.
"OurArticles,"CameraWork17 (January
1907):41.
"ThePhoto-Secession,"
CameraWork3 (July1903):supplement.
"ThePhoto-Secession,"
CameraWork6 (April1904}:53.
"ThePhoto-Secession,"
CameraWork9 (January
1905}:56-57.
"Photo-Secession
Exhibitions,"
CanteraWork29 (January
1910}:51-54.
"ThePhoto-Secession
Galleries
andthePress,"
CameraWork14 (April1906):33-40.
"Photo-Secession
NotesreSt.Louis,"CameraWorkS(January
1904):50
"Photo-Secession
Notes,"CameraWork6 (April1904):39-40.
"Photo-Secession
Notes,"CameraWork15 (july 1905):41-42.
"Photo-Secession
Notes,"CameraWork18 (April1907):49.
"Photo-Secession
Notes,"CameraWork30 (April1910):47-54.
"Pictorial
Photography:
TheSt.LouisExposition,"
Camera
Work1 (.January
1903):37.

"TheRodinDrawings
at thePhoto-Secession
Galleries,"
Camera
Work22 (April1908):35--41.
"TheYounger
Arnerican
Painters'
andthePress,"
Camera
Work31 (july1910):43-51.