Alfred Stieglitz and His European Heritage

Home , Dorothy Norman, Hermann Wilhelm Vogel, Stieglitz (surname)

Collaboration and Innovation:

Der Philosophischen Fakultä t der Friedrich-Alexander-Universitä t Erlangen-Nü rnberg zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades Dr. phil.

vorgelegt von Chiara Maria Pia Seidl aus Nü rnberg Als Dissertation genehmigt von der Philosophischen Fakult der Friedrich-Alexander-Universit Erlangen-N rnberg ät Tag der dlichen Prüfung: 22. Dezemberät 2020ü

mün Vorsitzende des Promotionsorgans: Prof. Dr. Thomas Demmelhuber

utachter: Prof.r Dr. Hans Dickel

Gutachter: Prof. Dr. Jason Weems

To my most beloved educators for their huge hearts and unconditional support.

Carmen and Antonio Linda and Horst Diana and Bernd

ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION

Collaboration and Innovation: Alfred Stieglitz and His European Heritage

Chiara Maria Pia Seidl

Doctor of Philosophy, Doctoral Program in Art History Friedrich-Alexander-University, Erlangen-Nürnberg, August 2020 Prof. Dr. Hans Dickel, Chairperson

Alfred Stieglitz is regarded as one of the pioneers in the history of photography and modernism in the United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. Through his numerous activities as a photographer, critic, gallery owner, publicist, and modern art promoter, he established and realized his vision of photography as a medium of fine art. In

1924, the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston was one of the first public institutions in the country to accession photographs donated by Stieglitz into its collection. Through this event, photography attained an official status of acceptance in the art world, the first true recognition since the invention of the camera almost a hundred years earlier.

While the voluminous existing research has focused extensively on Stieglitz’s achievements in the United States, including his founding of the Photo-Secession, the magazine Camera Work, and Gallery 291 and the galleries that followed, this dissertation is primarily devoted to the European influences that had a significant impact on his life and

early work. While Stieglitz’ connection to Europe is generally well known, there has not been an appropriate amount of scholarly attention paid to the impact on Stieglitz of his early career engagement with German turn-of-the-century art.

In order to rectify this neglect, two chapters of this dissertation focus on the 1880s and 1890s when Stieglitz embarked on his photographic career and paved the way for the medium’s accepted artistic status. The last chapter of this dissertation focuses on the period between 1900 and 1910 during which he tried to put his accumulated knowledge into practice. In all three of these chapters, it becomes clear that Europe, and especially the

German-speaking countries whose societies were in a period of upheaval at the time, played an enormously important role in Stieglitz’s artistic and professional development.

These discoveries have the potential to reshape the context and understanding of, not only

Stieglitz’work but, also the modernist trajectories of art and photography that he influenced.

Notably, this dissertation uncovers specific characters who provided a particularly strong influence on Stieglitz at the early stages of his career. In addition to his father and a photography professor at Berlin University, these protagonists include his boyhood friend

Frank S. Herrmann, his mentor Wilhelm Hasemann, and his comrade in photography

Heinrich Kühn.

Through his extensive collaborations with these men, Stieglitz began discovering the artistic side of photography and shaping his vision of what he believed photography could become. This vision and the artistic, publishing, promotional, and leadership

activities that Stieglitz participated in to support it ultimately led to the elevation of photography as a fine art medium.

What has become apparent as a result of the research is that Stieglitz is much more than just an artistic photographer. Many artists work in seclusion and produce works of art that are either determined later to be important or not.

While Stieglitz certainly spent some of his time working in seclusion, the vast majority of his works are a product of collaboration. In answering the question of how

Alfred Stieglitz was able to create such a profound influence on U.S. modernism it is critical to look much deeper than his photography. Accordingly, this dissertation focuses on the foundation of Stieglitz’ interest in art and photography and the influences that lead to his experiences with productive, collaborative enterprise. The combination of these factors is what created the legacy of Alfred Stieglitz.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES xiii

INTRODUCTION 1

CHAPTER 1: PREFACE 5 State of Research 5 Research Deficiencies 24 Research Question and Desiderata 27 Methodology 28 Execution and Realization 38

CHAPTER 2: DISCOVERING PHOTOGRAPHY—STIEGLITZ & HERRMANN 43 1. Genesis 45 1.1. Inception 46 1.2. Discovery 50 1.2.1. Europe 51 1.2.2. Berlin 53 1.2.3. Munich 63 2. Experimentation 66 2.1. Application 66 Relief of Queen Louise (1886) 67 From a Lenbach Sketch (1886) 68 The Card Players / Throwing Dice (1887) 70

viii

2.2. Exploration 73 2.2.1. Artistic Motifs 76 A Good Joke (1887) 76 On the Bridge (1887) 79 Stones of Venice, Chioggia (1887) 81 2.2.2. Portraits 82 Maria / Leone (1887) 83 Marina / The Wanderer’s Return (1887) 85 2.2.3. Collaboration 89 Sun Rays—Paula, Berlin (1889) 89 The Critic (1894) / November Days (1887) 93 2.3 Creation 97 2.3.1. France 104 Sketching in the Bois (1894) 105 On the Seine (or A Decorative Panel) (1894) 106 A Wet Day on the Boulevard (1894) 110 2.3.2. Italy 115 A Venetian Well / A Well, Venice (1894) 116 Reflections of Venice (1894) 120 2.3.3. Holland 128 Watching for the Return (1894) 130 Mending Nets (1894) 139 3. Separation 146 3.1. Between Continents 147 3.2. Different Paths 154

Conclusion 158

CHAPTER 3: SHAPING PHOTOGRAPHY—STIEGLITZ & HASEMANN 161 1. Social Preparation 163 1.1. Character Formation 164 1.2. Cultural Emersion 170 1.2.1. A Painter and a Sculptor 171 1.2.2. A Painter from the Black Forest 174 2. Development of a Vision 184 2.1. An Individual Approach 185 2.1.1. A Model of Collaboration 187 2.1.2. Incorporating Collaboration 189 2.2. A Collective Approach 192 2.2.1. A Vision for Heimatliebe 192 2.2.2. A Vision for Art Photography 206 3. Artistic Realization 213 3.1. Austria 217 Sunlight Effect (1890) 218 Weary (1890) 220 3.2. The Black Forest 223 Sunlight (1894) 224 A Gutach Peasant Girl (1894) / The Truant, 228 Mittenwald (1886) The Letter Box (1894) 231 Gutach Children / A Gutach Meeting (1894) 234 Early Morn (1894) 237 The Old Mill (1894) 242 Conclusion 249

CHAPTER 4: ELEVATING PHOTOGRAPHY—STIEGLITZ & KÜHN 253 1. Recognition of a Shared Mission 254 1.1. Commonality of Biography 255 1.1.1. Parallel Backgrounds 256 1.1.2. Formation of the Trifolium 261 1.2. A Perfect Match 271 1.2.1. An American Photographer in Vienna 272 1.2.2. Secession Movements in Austria 275 1.2.3. An International Alliance 281 2. Refinement of Vision 284 2.1. Artistic Implications 285 2.1.1. First Meeting 289 Portraits 292 Landscapes 294 Ploughing 296 Horses 303 2.1.2. Intervening Period 306 2.1.3. Second Meeting 312 Experimenting as a Collective 313 Embracing Technology 319 2.2. Attention Through International Collaboration 326 2.2.1. Trifolium in New York 326 2.2.2. Photo-Secession in Austria 336 3. Vision Realized 341 3.1. An International Association of Art Photographers 342 3.2. An Elite American Circle 354 Conclusion 361

CONCLUSION 367

BIBLIOGRAPHY 383

APPENDIX 399

FIGURES 416

xii

LIST OF FIGURES

INTRODUCTION

Fig. I.1. Alfred Stieglitz, Self-Portrait, 1894

Fig. I.2. Alfred Stieglitz, Frank Simon Herrmann, 1894

Fig. I.3. Unknown Artist, Wilhelm Hasemann, 1880s

Fig. I.4. Possibly Alfred Stieglitz, Heinrich Kühn, 1904

CHAPTER 2

Fig. 2.1. Alfred Stieglitz, My Father, 1894

Fig. 2.2. Frank S. Herrmann, Horse Head, n.d.

Fig. 2.3. Alfred Stieglitz, Professor Vogel, 1886

Fig. 2.4. Alfred Stieglitz, The Harvest, Mittenwald, 1886

Fig. 2.5. Joseph Obermeyer, Anticipation, before 1893

Fig. 2.6. Joseph Obermeyer, A Hot Day, before 1894

Fig. 2.7. Joseph Obermeyer, Delight in Disorder, before 1894

Fig. 2.8. Erdmann Encke, Cabinet Card Portrait with Louis Schubart and Joseph Obermeyer, 1887

Fig. 2.9. Alfred Stieglitz, Relief of Queen Louise, 1886

Fig. 2.10. Alfred Stieglitz, From a Lenbach Sketch, 1886

Fig. 2.11. Alfred Stieglitz, The Card Players, 1886

Fig. 2.12. Alfred Stieglitz, Throwing Dice, 1886

Fig. 2.13. Hermann Wilhelm Vogel, Musikalische Unterhaltung nach Terburg, n.d.

Fig. 2.14. Knoll Photography Studio, Alfred, Leo, and Julius with friends, n.d.

xiii

Fig. 2.15. Alfred Stieglitz, A Good Joke, 1887

Fig. 2.16. Ludwig Passini, A Tasso Reader, 1871

Fig. 2.17. Alfred Stieglitz, On the Bridge – Chioggia, 1887

Fig. 2.18. Alfred Stieglitz, Stones of Venice, Chioggia, 1887

Fig. 2.19. Alfred Stieglitz, Maria, Bellagio, 1887

Fig. 2.20. Alfred Stieglitz, Leone, 1887

Fig. 2.21. Alfred Stieglitz, Initial Leone, 1887

Fig. 2.22. Alfred Stieglitz, Marina, 1887

Fig. 2.23. Alfred Stieglitz, The Wanderer’s Return, 1887

Fig. 2.24. Alfred Stieglitz, Sun Rays—Paula, Berlin, 1889

Fig. 2.25. Alfred Stieglitz, A Study, n.d.

Fig. 2.26. Alfred Stieglitz, An Intermission, 1887

Fig. 2.27. William B. Post, The Critic, 1894

Fig. 2.28. William B. Post, Portrait of Alfred Stieglitz and Frank Herrmann, 1894

Fig. 2.29. Alfred Stieglitz, November Days, 1887

Fig. 2.30. Erdmann Encke, Edward, Alfred, Leo, and Julius Stieglitz, 1883

Fig. 2.31. Alfred Stieglitz, Sketching in the Bois, 1894

Fig. 2.32. Alfred Stieglitz, On the Seine, 1894

Fig. 2.33. Adolphe Braun, Lerolle – Au Bord de la Route – No. 1087, late 19th century

Fig. 2.34. Alfred Stieglitz, A Wet Day on the Boulevard, 1894

Fig. 2.35. William Thomas Smedley, A Wet Day on the Parisian Boulevard, n.d.

Fig. 2.36. Alfred Stieglitz, A Venetian Well, 1894

xiv

Fig. 2.37. John Singer Sargent, Venetian Water Carriers, 1880/82

Fig. 2.38. Ludwig Passini, Young Venetian Woman at the Fountain, 1891

Fig. 2.39. Frank Simon Herrmann, Gossips at the Well, 1893

Fig. 2.40. Alfred Stieglitz, Portrait of Frank “Sime” Herrmann, 1894

Fig. 2.41. Alfred Stieglitz, Reflections, 1894

Fig. 2.42. Alfred Stieglitz, Watching for the Return, 1894

Fig. 2.43. James Craig Annan, On a Dutch Shore, 1892

Fig. 2.44. Frank S. Herrmann, Diary with Sketches, 1894

Fig. 2.45. Frank S. Herrmann, Fisher folk in Katwijk, 1894

Fig. 2.46. Frank S. Herrmann, Fisher folk in Katwijk, 1894

Fig. 2.47. Frank S. Herrmann, Good Morning, before 1894

Fig. 2.48. Alfred Stieglitz, Mending Nets, 1894

Fig. 2.49. Frank S. Herrmann, Netmending Women in the Dunes, n.d.

Fig. 2.50. Frank S. Herrmann, Old Brownstone Rooftops and New Construction, 1920s–30s

Fig. 2.51. Alfred Stieglitz, Old and New New York, 1910

Fig. 2.52. Frank S. Herrmann, Skyscraper New York, n.d.

Fig. 2.53. Frank S. Herrmann, My Chimney, 1930s

Fig. 2.54. Alvin Langdon Coburn, Gables, printed 1904

Fig. 2.55. Alfred Stieglitz, Back of Little House, 1933

CHAPTER 3

Fig. 3.1. Alfred Stieglitz, My Room (Studio)14 East 60th Street, 1891

Fig. 3.2. Fedor Encke, Portrait of Alfred Stieglitz, Lake George, July 17, 1877

Fig. 3.3. Fedor Encke, Portrait of Alfred Stieglitz, Lake George, September 2, 1877

Fig. 3.4. Unknown Artist, Wilhelm Hasemann and Edward Stieglitz, n.d.

Fig. 3.5. Wilhelm Hasemann, Schwarzwälder Bauernhof (Gutach), n.d.

Fig. 3.6. Edward Stieglitz, Five drawings after Wilhelm Hasemann, November 8, 1882

Fig. 3.7. Wilhelm Hasemann, Der Oberbauernhof im Vorfrühling, n.d.

Fig. 3.8. Edward Stieglitz, Five drawings after Wilhelm Hasemann, November 25, 1882

Fig. 3.9. Wilhelm Hasemann, In der Dorfgasse, 1911

Fig. 3.10. Alfred Stieglitz, Black Forest Studio, 1894

Fig. 3.11. Alfred Stieglitz, Portrait of Edward Stieglitz – Lake George, 1888

Fig. 3.12. Fedor Encke, Woman’s Head, From Back, late 19th century

Fig. 3.13. Wilhelm Hasemann, Rückenansicht, n.d

Fig. 3.14. Fedor Encke, Wilhelm Hasemann, Portrait of Encke, Hasemann and Edward Stieglitz, 1882

Fig. 3.15. Wilhelm Hasemann, Mädchen am Spinnrad, n.d.

Fig. 3.16. Alfred Stieglitz, A Study, Gutach, 1894

Fig. 3.17. Wilhelm Hasemann, Edward Stieglitz playing cards, October 28, 1882 Fig. 3.18. Wilhelm Hasemann, Portrait of Alfred Stieglitz playing Mühle, August 3, 1883

Fig. 3.19. Wilhelm Hasemann, Portrait of Alfred Stieglitz lounging on the sofa, n.d.

Fig. 3.20. Alfred Stieglitz, The Flatiron, 1903

Fig. 3.21. Alfred Stieglitz, Two Towers – New York, 1911

xvi

Fig. 3.22. Alfred Stieglitz, Sunlight Effect, 1890

Fig. 3.23. Wilhelm Hasemann, Die Wallfahrtskirche, 1891

Fig. 3.24. Wilhelm Hasemann, Junges Mädchen, n.d.

Fig. 3.25. Wilhelm Hasemann, Erika, 1894

Fig. 3.26. Alfred Stieglitz, Weary, 1890

Fig. 3.27. Alfred Stieglitz, Self-Portrait, Cortina, 1890

Fig. 3.28. Alfred Stieglitz, Sunlight, 1894

Fig. 3.29. Wilhelm Hasemann, Wasserhäusle, n.d.

Fig. 3.30. Alfred Stieglitz, A Gutach Peasant Girl, 1894

Fig. 3.31. Wilhelm Hasemann, Vor der Haustür, 1876

Fig. 3.32. Alfred Stieglitz, The Truant, Mittenwald, 1886

Fig. 3.33. Wilhelm Hasemann, Geteilte Freude, doppelte Freude, 1884

Fig. 3.34. Alfred Stieglitz, The Letter Box, 1894

Fig. 3.35. Fritz Reiss, Am Briefkasten, before 1890

Fig. 3.36. Alfred Stieglitz, Gutach Children, 1894

Fig. 3.37. Alfred Stieglitz, Early Morn, 1894

Fig. 3.38. Alfred Stieglitz, The Old Mill, 1894

Fig. 3.39. Joseph Wilson Swan, Holy Street Mill, 1866

Fig. 3.40. Fritz Völlmy, Drawing of a Mill, 1883

Fig. 3.41. Wilhelm Hasemann, Eine Mühle in Gutach, before 1890

Fig. 3.42. Fritz Reiss, Hammerschmiede, before 1890

Fig. 3.43. Helene Lang (Fink), Die Dorfschmiede, 1890

xvii

CHAPTER 4

Fig. 4.1. Unknown artist, Wilde Bande, 1888/1889

Fig. 4.2. Unknown artist, section of a magazine page with handwritten remark by Heinrich Kühn, n.d.

Fig. 4.3. Unknown artist, Hans Watzek, Heinrich Kühn, and Hugo Henneberg on Lake Garda, 1897

Fig. 4.4. Unknown artist, section of a magazine page with handwritten remark by Heinrich Kühn, n.d.

Fig. 4.5. Alfred Stieglitz, Snapshot – From My Window, Berlin, 1904

Fig. 4.6. Alfred Stieglitz, Snapshot – From My Window, New York, 1902

Fig. 4.7. Heinrich Kühn, Alfred Stieglitz, 1904

Fig. 4.8. Heinrich Kühn, Alfred Stieglitz looking in Camera, 1904

Fig. 4.9. Hugo Henneberg, Landscape, before 1897

Fig. 4.10. Hans Watzek, Wiesenblumen, 1897

Fig. 4.11. Heinrich Kühn, Children on the Banks of a Creek, 1898

Fig. 4.12. Paul Pichier, Arkadien, n.d.

Fig. 4.13. Alfred Stieglitz, Landscape The Tyrol,1904

Fig. 4.14. Heinrich Kühn, Landscape, 1904

Fig. 4.15. Alfred Stieglitz, Ploughing, 1904

Fig. 4.16. Heinrich Kühn, Pflügender Bauer, 1904

Fig. 4.17. Heinrich Kühn, Alfred Stieglitz Photographing, Ploughing, n.d.

Fig. 4.18. Alfred Stieglitz, Horses, 1904

Fig. 4.19. Hans Watzek, Horses, 1903

Fig. 4.20. Gertrude Käsebier, My Neighbors, 1905

xviii

Fig. 4.21. Heinrich Kuhn, Walther and Lotte at the Easel, 1909

Fig. 4.22. Heinrich Kuhn, Study of Walther and Lotte at the Easel, 1909

Fig. 4.23. Heinrich Kuhn, Walther im Atelier, n.d.

Fig. 4.24. Heinrich Kuhn, Study of Walther im Atelier, n.d.

Fig. 4.25. Heinrich Kühn, Dutch Women on the Beach, 1898

Fig. 4.26. Heinrich Kühn, Dutch Women on the Dunes, 1901

Fig. 4.27. Heinrich Kühn, Women Repairing Nets on the Beach at Katwijk aan Zee, 1904

Fig. 4.28. Heinrich Kühn, Hikers in Front of a Cloud, 1912–13

Fig. 4.29. Alfred Stieglitz, The Last Load, 1890

Fig. 4.30. Frank Eugene Smith, Dr. Raab and Wife playing Chess, 1907

Fig. 4.31. Alfred Stieglitz, Miss S. R., 1904

Fig. 4.32. Alfred Stieglitz, Sophie Raab, 1907

Fig. 4.33. Alfred Stieglitz, section of a Camera Work page with handwritten remark by Alfred Stieglitz, 1905

Fig. 4.34. Alfred Stieglitz, Exhibition of Viennese Photographs – 291, 1906

Fig. 4.35. Section of a Camera Work page, “The ‘International Group’ at the Dresden Exposition,” 1909

Fig. 4.36. Heinrich Kühn, Alfred Stieglitz, 1907

Fig. 4.37. Alfred Stieglitz, Heinrich Kühn, 1907

xix

INTRODUCTION

The only advice is to study the best pictures in all media—from painting to photography— and to study them again and again, analyze them, steep yourself in them until they become a part of your esthetic being. Then, if there be any trace of originality within you, you will intuitively adapt what you have thus made a part of yourself, and tinctured by your personality you will evolve that which is called style.1 –Alfred Stieglitz

This quote by Alfred Stieglitz (1864–1946) testifies to a physicality when referring to an “esthetic being” or a “part of yourself” (fig. I.1). Stieglitz defined his view of the essential ingredients that must be adapted and then incorporated to create the DNA of an artist. DNA is, of course, the genetic code of replication and provides an astonishing metaphor for photography, which in its simplest form is about replicating a chosen subject.

Temporality, actors, and actions are the critical elements that combine to create a result that Stieglitz associated with the term “style.” Thus, style exists at the end of a temporal process and is uniquely created through the combination of the eye of the artist, the lens of the camera, the application of the development technology, and the certain actors and actions that comprise the subject.

Since Stieglitz’s quote does not refer to any specific protagonists, this dissertation seeks to discover the roots of his perspective and the people who influenced it.

Accordingly, the question of which European protagonists were important to Stieglitz’s work and the artistic progression he followed to arrive at his mature style will be investigated. Based on this, the dissertation is divided into chapters that explore the

1 Alfred Stieglitz, “Simplicity in Composition,” in The Modern Way in Picture Making, rev. ed. (1905; Rochester, NY: Eastman Kodak, 1907), 162, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112044941281&view=1up&seq=173.

processes of discovering, shaping, and elevating photography. Each chapter is assigned to a protagonist who played a special role in Stieglitz’s development as an artist and as an individual.

The opening quote comes from a four-page article that Stieglitz published in The

Modern Way in Picture Making in 1905. As the name of the book suggests, its contributors described themselves as photographers on the trail of a “modern” approach within the photographic discourse. In its subtitle, the book describes itself as an “aid to the amateur photographer,” thus creating a resource for a specific target group.

While the book that contains Stieglitz’s quote differentiates its articles by genre (for example, Animals, Flowers, Portrait, Street Photography, and Winter), techniques (for example, Color Photography, Dark Room Development, Exposure, and Gum-Bichromate

Process), and handling of different materials (for example, American Platinum Paper,

Bromide Paper, Ferro Prussiate Paper, and Salted Paper), Stieglitz’s article focuses on the structure and composition of a photograph, addressing less the technical side and more the aesthetic side of photography.

In his quote, Stieglitz advised the reader to look at the best artworks of the best artists—this is advice that Stieglitz clearly took to heart in his own artistic development.

Stieglitz deliberately surrounded himself with both photographer colleagues and fine artists.

As will be apparent in the many comparisons summarized in the following chapters, these interactions had a marked relevance and influence on his photographic and institutional work.

At the time this article was written, Stieglitz was at the peak of his career and was already a respected photographer in New York. Three years earlier he had founded his own group, the Photo-Secession, whose activities were published in the magazine Camera

Work. Stieglitz had also opened his own New York gallery, Gallery 291, and was committed to the goal of elevating photography to a recognized form of fine art.

By 1905 Stieglitz was already personally known to the three important European contacts who are the subjects of this dissertation: painter and school friend Frank Simon

Herrmann (1866–1942) (fig. I.2), painter and mentor Wilhelm Hasemann (1850–1913)

(fig. I.3), and photographer and comrade Heinrich Kühn (1866–1944) (fig. I.4). As described in detail in the following chapters, the impact of the relationship between

Stieglitz and each of these men was different in regard to Stieglitz’s photographic work and life. However, it is important to acknowledge that, in each case, the result of the specific interaction was an important and productive collaboration that would ultimately define Stieglitz’s life, career, and legacy. They studied and analyzed each other’s artistic work, and through this process, incorporated each other’s style into their own.

Stieglitz’s quotation serves as the starting point for this dissertation, which is dedicated to the study of his early work, with particular focus on the European influences that impacted his life. The examination and reappraisal of this phase of his life sheds new light on the Stieglitz research created to date. Although Stieglitz’s self-image is anchored in America, he had the opportunity to situationally locate himself in Europe, which invariably had profound impacts on his work and the ultimate success of his vision.

Accordingly, this dissertation seeks to expand the historical viewing frame on Alfred

Stieglitz with appropriate respect given to his American roots but with a balanced perspective on his European influences.

It is the premise of this dissertation that Stieglitz’ heritage and access to Europe, and especially Germany, was critical in creating the necessary nexus of collaborations that provided a material influence on not only the artist that Stieglitz would become but, perhaps more importantly, the leadership he would provide to change the future of the history of photography and U.S. modernism. While Stieglitz has received many appropriate accolades for his photographic art work, it is possible that his contributions as a founding curator and proponent of modern art in America were his greatest contributions to art history. It is precisely the identification and exploration of these early interpersonal artistic exchanges that provides the territory for understanding Stieglitz’ early experiences in shared enterprise. It was those experiences that came to shape Stieglitz as an artist in the first instance and then propelled Stieglitz to create his visionary conception of the place for the photographic medium in the art world. These European relationships, experiences and collaborations were critical in developing both the character and capability of Stieglitz and were the building blocks that ultimately led to his important legacy in U.S. modernism.

CHAPTER 1 PREFACE

State of Research

This dissertation is focused on the early work of the American photographer, collector, gallery owner, critic and author Alfred Stieglitz and his connections to the

European continent, especially German-speaking countries. Frank Simon Herrmann and

Wilhelm Hasemann are, but two examples of a number of important and influential

European contacts. As described in detail in this dissertation, these men worked intensively with Stieglitz in Europe between 1881 and 1894 and had a major influence on his artistic work. It is important to point out that these early artist contacts have not yet been given the appropriate recognition for the contributions they made to Stieglitz’s work. A third protagonist—Heinrich Kühn—was also an important factor in Stieglitz’s connection to

Europe of the first decade of the 20th century, when Stieglitz was already ambitiously pursuing artistic photography and working as a recognized and established figure in the art world of the United States. A closer examination of these specific influences on Stieglitz and their impact on what he became personally, artistically, and professionally constitutes the desideratum of this dissertation. From a scientific point of view, it is important to analyze not only the available secondary literature on Stieglitz’s early work but also to evaluate the source material upon which it is based in order to provide a perspective on its past interpretation and create a more complete historical record of Stieglitz’s legacy.

The number of monographs, articles, and dissertations written on Stieglitz is voluminous and, therefore, it is impossible to present the historical research in its entirety.

Accordingly, this introductory chapter provides an overview of the most important sources on Stieglitz in order to present what the main focus of the study of his work has been up to the present day. While Stieglitz lived and worked, he was constantly received and analyzed by his contemporaries.2 Many of Stieglitz’s followers, such as Joseph T. Keiley,3 John

Marin, Paul Strand, and Marsden Hartley, wrote about Stieglitz in single articles and— with the exception of Keiley—in a joint publication entitled America and Alfred Stieglitz:

A Collective Portrait (1934).4 Twenty-five authors portrayed the changes in photography in America through the work of Alfred Stieglitz, “whose life has been an incarnation,

2 See, for example, Allan Sidney [Sadakichi Hartmann], “Alfred Stieglitz and His Latest Work,” Photographic Times 28, no. 4 (April 1896): 161–69, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015016493754&view=1up&seq=217; Sadakichi Hartmann, “An Art Critic’s Estimate of Alfred Stieglitz,” Photographic Times 30, no. 6 (June 1898): 257–62, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433072165099&view=1up&seq=293; Marmaduke Humphrey, “Triumphs in Amateur Photography,” Godey’s Magazine 135, no. 810 (December 1897): 581–92, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034631435&view=1up&seq=295; and Joseph T. Keiley, Exhibition of Photographs by Alfred Stieglitz (New York: Camera Club, 1899). There is little literature about Stieglitz before the turn of the twentieth century.

3 Keiley, Exhibition of Photographs by Stieglitz; and Joseph T. Keiley, “American Pictorial Photographers—Alfred Stieglitz,” Photography 17, no. 20 (February 1904): 147–51.

4 John Marin, “The Man and the Place,” 233–36; Paul Strand, “Alfred Stieglitz and a Machine,” 281–85; and Marsden Hartley, “291 and the Brass Bowl,” 236–42, in America and Alfred Stieglitz: A Collective Portrait, ed. Frank Waldo, Lewis Mumford, Paul Rosenfeld, Dorothy Norman, and Harold Rudd (New York: Literary Guild, 1934).

singularly perfect, of the struggle toward truth, an incarnation indeed, in humble modern form, of Man . . . and in American terms and on American soil.”5

Another notable author during Stieglitz’s lifetime was the journalist and critic Paul

Rosenfeld (1890–1946). A portrait of Rosenfeld, which Stieglitz took in 1920, confirms the friendship and collegiality that the two men started to share four years earlier.6

Rosenfeld participated as a coauthor of America and Alfred Stieglitz with an article that presents a summarized overview of Stieglitz’s most important photographic compositions from the 1870s to the 1920s.7 In Port of New York: Essays on Fourteen American Moderns from 1924, Rosenfeld collected separate essays about certain American modernists into one publication, including a chapter about Stieglitz and his photographs.8 Clearly,

Rosenfeld was a supporter of Stieglitz as evidenced by the following quotes: “Through his machinery, Stieglitz has been able to produce a gamut more delicate than the hand can draw,” and “He has photographs thrustful like beaten steel and photographs tenderer than softest flower-petals.”9 These publications show that Stieglitz and his contemporaries saw themselves as modernists and revolutionaries who shaped New York at the beginning of

5 Waldo et al., America and Alfred Stieglitz, 5.

6 Alfred Stieglitz, Paul Rosenfeld, 1920, gelatin silver print, National Gallery of Art, Washington, DC (hereafter cited as NGA), acc. no. 1949.3.446, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35597.html.

7 Paul Rosenfeld, “The Boy in the Darkroom,” in Waldo et al., America and Alfred Stieglitz, 59–88.

8 Paul Rosenfeld, Port of New York: Essays on Fourteen American Moderns (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1924), 59–88.

9 Rosenfeld, 239.

the twentieth century. In Rosenfeld’s words, “Stieglitz’s photographs lie at that point where the objective world and the subjective world coincide.”10

Stieglitz also took a portrait of the Anglo-American critic Charles H. Caffin (1854–

1918) in 1915.11 Caffin wrote for the American magazine Harper’s Weekly and the New

York newspaper the Sun and published numerous articles in Stieglitz’s journal Camera

Work (for example, in numbers 18 and 25). Already in 1901, even before the founding of the Photo-Secession, Caffin wrote an article about Stieglitz’s photographic work by presenting key data from his biography underpinned by Stieglitz’s own photographs.12

Caffin moved Stieglitz into “the first place among American exponents of pictorial photography” and took on a defensive role when he wrote that “Mr. Stieglitz has received a full share of knocks from opponents, but I doubt if there is a single one of the latter who does not heartily respect him even while he thumps him.”13 Stieglitz biographer Sue

Davidson-Lowe appropriately stated that Caffin was “the only major critic sympathetic to

Alfred’s goals to last the full life of the magazine [Camera Work].”14

10 Rosenfeld, 270.

11 Alfred Stieglitz, Charles H. Caffin, 1915, platinum print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.316, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35467.html.

12 Charles H. Caffin, “Photography as a Fine Art: Alfred Stieglitz and His Work,” Everybody’s Magazine, April 1901, 359–71, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.319510009010982&view=1up&seq=369.

13 Caffin, 359, 363.

14 Sue Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: A Memoir/Biography (Boston, MFA Publications, 1983), 122.

On the other hand, the American art and photo critic Carl Sadakichi Hartmann

(1867–1944), who was also known under the pseudonym Sidney Allen and was called by contemporaries the “King of Bohemia,”15 offered critical scrutiny. He was born in Japan, grew up in Germany, and immigrated to the United States in the early 1880s at the age of fifteen. He wrote for numerous numbers of Camera Work (for example, 6, 21, 33, 34, and

35), but he repeatedly came into conflict with Stieglitz and the editors of other photography magazines. Hartmann was concerned that the authors of the reviews in Camera Work were themselves photographers and therefore did not offer objective criticism. As a result of this perceived conflict of interest, Hartmann felt critically constrained in writing for this journal and other magazines.16

John Fuller was correct in surmising that “supposedly Hartmann’s writing could wound, and he was both feared and revered by photographers.”17 This comment is confirmed by a 1904 article in which Hartmann strongly criticized the elitist circle that

15 John Fuller, “Sadakichi Hartmann: The Valiant Knights of Daguerre,” book review, ed. Harry W. Lawton and George Knox, Art Journal 38, no. 4 (Summer 1979): 296.

16 Ulrich F. Keller, “The Myth of Art Photography: A Sociological Analysis,” History of Photography: An International Quarterly 8, no. 4 (October 1984): 256. According to Keller, Hartmann was critical of the Photo-Secessionists in 1904, and quotes Hartmann as saying [they] “tried to dictate to me.” See Sadakichi Hartmann, The Valiant Knights of Daguerre: Selected Critical Essays on Photography and Profiles of Photographic Pioneers, ed. Harry W. Lawton and George Knox with the collaboration of Wistaria Hartmann Linton (Berkley: University of California Press, 1978), 68.

17 Fuller, “Sadakichi Hartmann,” 296.

Stieglitz had assembled in New York,18 which apparently deeply offended Stieglitz.19

Hartmann wrote that he was tired of always trying to please the dictators at the top of the hierarchy. He called Stieglitz and his followers “Little Tin Gods on Wheels” without mentioning Stieglitz by name and noted that “no page could be large enough to convey the dimensions of their swelled heads. They think they are giants, towering high above the rest of humanity, their mighty crops of hair overshadowing all other pictorial efforts.”20

Hartmann challenged the reader and all those who had not made it into the elitist circle to

“wheel away the little tiny gods to the place where they belong, and with them all their self-conceit, their ridiculous pose, their long hair, big ties and clerical collars, their sham estheticism, their dismal tonalities, their red tape, and, above all, their contemptible, un-

American policy.”21 Despite all this blustering, it was Hartmann who wrote most of the articles for Camera Work (after his 1904 attack in Photo-Beacon), making sure that his word was heard within the elite cliques.

Stieglitz died in 1946 in New York as one of the most important modern art photographers of his time. Despite the recognition of his artistic accomplishments, at the time of his death, very little had been written about the influences that had inspired his

18 Juvenal [Sadakichi Hartmann], “Little Tin Gods on Wheels,” Photo-Beacon 16 (September 1904): 282–86, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433060457904&view=up&seq=292.

19 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 122.

20 Juvenal, “Little Tin Gods,” 282.

21 Juvenal, 286.

significant artistic contributions. Even in the late 1940s and 1950s, the literature focuses more on his and his colleagues’ contributions. It was not until the 1970s and onward that

Stieglitz began to receive increased attention from a wider public. One possible reason why it took approximately twenty-four years for the first Stieglitz biography to appear is that it was not until the 1960s and 1970s that photography was recognized as a legitimate discipline of study within the visual arts.22 The increased attention on the medium of photography created an interest in developing a greater understanding of Stieglitz.

One of the first people to focus on Stieglitz was Dorothy Norman (1905–1997), who met Stieglitz in New York in 1927 and visited him regularly at his gallery. Norman and Stieglitz had a unique relationship that could be described as scholar and mentor.

Norman’s admiration for Stieglitz led to a romance that found visual expression in the numerous portraits they took of each other. Norman collected material until Stieglitz’s death that she used in her book Alfred Stieglitz: An American Seer, the first comprehensive biography, which was published many years later in 1973. In the journal Twice a Year

(1938–1948) and in other publications, Norman wrote about her experiences with

Stieglitz,23 which she felt were “born of a deep feeling: that those who are moved to write

22 Alexandra Puntigam, Der fotografische Blick. Analogien und Differenzen zwischen Malerei und Fotografie im amerikanischen Realismus des 20. Jahrhunderts (Saarbrücken, Germany: Suedwestdeutscher Verlag für Hochschulschriften, 2008), 6.

23 Dorothy Norman, “Writings and Conversations of Alfred Stieglitz,” Twice a Year 1 (Fall–Winter 1938): 77-110; Dorothy Norman, “Ten Stories,” Twice a Year 5–6 (1940– 1941): 158–60; Dorothy Norman, Stieglitz: A Memorial Portfolio 1864–1946 (New York: Twice a Year Press, 1947); Dorothy Norman, “An Introduction to an American Seer,” Aperture 8, no. 1 (1960): n.p.; Dorothy Norman, “Stieglitz’s Experiments in Life,” New York Times Magazine, December 29, 1963, 9; Dorothy Norman, Alfred Stieglitz: An

about him invariably do so from a desire to share a sense of wonder about him, rather than actually to ‘explain’ his meaning or importance.”24

Another contemporary of Stieglitz was Nancy Wynne Newhall (1908–1974), an

American photography critic who, in addition to her monographs on Ansel Adams and

Edward Weston, also studied Stieglitz intensively, met him personally, and included him in her publications.25 The chapter on Stieglitz in From Adams to Stieglitz: Pioneers of

Modern Photography is a sequence of notes and transcripts that Newhall collected during her visits to Stieglitz’s gallery over the years. These documents give the reader an impression of how Stieglitz thought about his accomplishments and how he judged himself in the last phase of his life. Newhall’s husband, Beaumont Newhall (1908–1993), was an art historian and curator of photography at the Museum of Modern Art in New York (1940–

1947) before he was appointed director of the George Eastman Museum in Rochester, New

York (1958–1971). Together, the couple published several books on photography in which

Stieglitz was cast as a central figure within the American photograph movement (for example, Masters of Photography, 1958).

Since the 1970s, authors and experts from various disciplines have been researching and reporting on the life and work of Alfred Stieglitz. The question seems quite obvious:

American Seer (New York: Millerton Aperture, 1973); Dorothy Norman, Alfred Stieglitz, Aperture History of Photography Series (New York: Millerton Aperture, 1976); and Dorothy Norman, Alfred Stieglitz (New York: Aperture Foundation, 1989).

24 Norman, Stieglitz: Memorial Portfolio, 7.

25 See, for example, the posthumous collection From Adams to Stieglitz: Pioneers of Modern Photography (New York: Aperture, Millerton, 1989).

Why is a further treatise on Stieglitz necessary to understand his photographic work and its place in the discourse of photography and art? The answer is relatively simple. When looking at the scholarship on Stieglitz over the last few decades, it is striking that it comes primarily from American scholars who studied him from an American point of view.

Stieglitz identified himself as an American. He was born in the United States, possessed

American citizenship, and spent most of his life there. His work was recognized around the globe, but it was in New York that he found the fame to which he aspired. In 1921 he told

Newhall, “I was born in Hoboken, I am an American. Photography is my passion. The search for truth my obsession.”26

In view of this, it is understandable that American scholars in particular were interested in their “hometown hero” and endeavored to study him as a person, as a photographer, and above all as an influential figure in the modern photography movement in America and to present him in that light to the public. This is particularly true of

Norman’s Alfred Stieglitz: An American Seer from 1970, Davidson-Lowe’s Stieglitz: A

Memoir/Biography from 1983, and Richard Whelan’s Alfred Stieglitz: A Biography from

1995. With this in mind, it is of particular importance to now explore and define the relevance of Europe’s contribution to Stieglitz’s achievements.

While the two female authors knew Stieglitz personally—Norman as Stieglitz’s pupil and supposed lover and Davidson-Lowe as his grandniece (she was the granddaughter of Leopold Stieglitz, one of Stieglitz’s twin brothers)—their biographies must be viewed critically. They contain a subjective narrative; for different reasons, the

26 Newhall, 69.

authors’ approaches were quite benevolent and less provocative toward Stieglitz. For example, in her characterization of the 1904 conflict with Hartmann, Davidson-Lowe portrayed Stieglitz as a victim of Hartmann’s criticism. She noted that Stieglitz was “deeply hurt” and reported that seven years later “against Keiley’s express advice,

Alfred . . . brought Hartmann back to writing regularly for Camera Work.”27 She decidedly portrayed Stieglitz as a man who, even if he had been unfairly treated, provided his critics with a second chance.

Davidson-Lowe spent seven years conducting research for her book, which was a combination of knowledge of other scholars (many of whom are also mentioned in this chapter—from Dorothy Norman and Nancy Newhall to William Innes Homer, Sarah

Greenough, and Weston Naef), her own studies, and, perhaps most importantly from a research standpoint, the memories of Stieglitz’s friends and family members. Her biography serves as a basis for the present work, since, as an all-encompassing work, it gives details of Stieglitz’s everyday life through her own experiences and by interviewing family members, which has been critical in understanding Stieglitz.

However, any truly unbiased research on Stieglitz must be accompanied by a critical evaluation of Davidson-Lowe’s perspective and inherent conflict of interest as a family member. Davidson-Lowe was clear that at least some of her work was based on her vivid memories of “uncle Al” and that she “probes the complexities of his character as only

27 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 122.

a family member could, and humanizes him with her modest and intimate account.”28

Davidson-Lowe’s approach and documentation is certainly helpful in providing one perspective on Stieglitz, but the purpose of this dissertation is to test that and other potentially conflicted perspectives and add breadth to the historical record on Stieglitz.

Richard Whelan, a cultural historian and author of countless photography books and articles on photography, wrote his biography with special emphasis on Stieglitz’s achievements in New York. In the coauthored publication Stieglitz on Photography: His

Selected Essays and Notes, Whelan collaborated with curator Sarah Greenough, who did not know Stieglitz personally but who did know his second wife, Georgia O’Keeffe (1887–

1986). Although both Whelan and Greenough obtained primary sources through their relationships with O’Keeffe, they appear to have attempted to maintain an objective perspective in their publications.

Another extremely important publication is Alfred Stieglitz: The Key Set published by Sarah Greenough in 2002. Greenough was brought to the National Gallery of Art in

Washington, DC, in the 1970s, where she still serves as the senior curator and head of the

Department of Photographs and is considered the American expert on Stieglitz. The two- volume book serves as a catalogue of the Alfred Stieglitz Collection of Photographs at the

National Gallery of Art, which, with its 1,642 photographs, is considered the most complete of all Stieglitz collections worldwide.29

28 Davidson-Lowe, xix.

29 Sarah Greenough, Alfred Stieglitz: The Key Set (Washington, DC: National Gallery of Art, 2002). This publication presents a catalogue with all of Stieglitz’s photographs, most

Although the Alfred Stieglitz Collection of Photographs covers almost the entire spectrum of his photographic legacy—from his early studies in Europe to his late works in

New York and intimate portraits of O’Keeffe—it must be remembered that this is a biased selection. O’Keeffe, who was in charge of Stieglitz’s legacy, assembled the largest coherent donation of Stieglitz’s work to a public institution after Stieglitz’s death. She donated a part of his collection in 1949, three years after his death, and then again in 1980, six years before she died in New Mexico.30 Greenough worked on the donated collection over many years and presented its results in The Key Set, which serves not only as a basis for the present dissertation but also as a general scholarly apparatus providing an overview of the chronology of Stieglitz’s photographic achievements.

Furthermore, other important authors who contributed to the body of Stieglitz research must be mentioned. First of all is the American photo historian Peter Bunnell, who, in addition to his position as director of the Princeton University Art Museums (1973–

1978), was the first endowed McAlpin Professor of the History of Photography and

Modern Art at Princeton University. He gave his first lectures and seminars on the history of photography as early as the 1970s, in which he examined the work of Stieglitz and embedded it in the artistic canon of the time. With his writings from the 1960s, 1970s, and

1980s (for example, “Alfred Stieglitz and Camera Work” in Camera [December 1969]: 8–

27), he institutionalized Stieglitz as a figure relevant to teach. Bunnell saw the importance

of which are owned by the National Gallery of Art. In addition to conventional metadata, such as title, year, size, and printing process, the entries include very detailed notes about exhibition and publication histories.

30 Earl A. Powell III, foreword to Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, viii.

of Stieglitz’s persona and work and felt it needed to be investigated, taught, and passed on to the following generations of scholars.

Weston J. Naef and William Innes Homer should be highlighted as well for their outstanding research on Stieglitz. Naef is a curator emeritus of the J. Paul Getty Museum.

In 1978 he wrote an important book, The Collection of Alfred Stieglitz: Fifty Pioneers of

Modern Photography, and described what Stieglitz himself collected as a patron of the arts.

Since his childhood, Stieglitz was driven by a passion for collecting, which developed from signatures and small drawings of his friends (see the collection in the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, Yale University) to photographs and fine art. In 1933 he donated part of his art collection to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York; the rest of his collection, as it existed at the time of his death, was donated to the museum in 1949. Naef provided a comprehensive presentation of Stieglitz’s networking and artistic expertise on the basis of his collection.

The American art historian William Innes Homer dealt in his writings primarily with the Photo-Secession group founded by Stieglitz, placing it in relation to other avant- garde movements of the time. For his first book on Stieglitz, Alfred Stieglitz and the

American Avant-Garde (1977), Homer conducted research for four years and was one of the first scholars to include other periodicals and newspapers apart from Camera Work in his study. The result relates primarily to the photographer’s role in the aesthetic development of art in America at the beginning of the twentieth century. Homer portrayed

Stieglitz and his group as some of the most active promoters and influencers of the

American avant-garde. In his book Alfred Stieglitz and the Photo-Secession (1983), which

was published six years later, he again focused on Stieglitz and his circle, as the title suggests. The illustrated publication describes the dynamics within the Photo-Secession from its beginnings to its end.

Countless publications have followed regarding what Stieglitz accomplished in

New York after his return from Europe: how he started out as an editor of Camera Notes, how his own group was founded and how he eventually led it, the criteria he used to select his fellow artists, and the relationships he maintained with individual characters. Scholars have examined every single page of the magazine Camera Work, analyzing the texts and images in relation to other artistic disciplines such as music and poetry or comparing it to other periodicals of the time such as the Austrian magazine Ver Sacrum (1898–1903) or the German magazine PAN (1895–1900). Scholars have examined all three galleries that

Stieglitz ran during his life,31 with particular interest in Stieglitz’s first gallery, 291. They have studied Stieglitz’s relationships with his followers and other Photo-Secessionists as well as his relationships with women, especially with Georgia O’Keeffe and Dorothy

Norman.

In short, American scholars have studied almost everything there is to study about

Stieglitz. They have acknowledged that he was a controversial person who was either hated or loved by his colleagues and friends. However, they have also described him and his work as an influencer of future generations with words of praise that show their pride in one of their own. Pamela Roberts, who published a book investigating Stieglitz and his

31 These included 291 or Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession (291 5th Avenue) from 1905–1917, the Intimate Gallery from 1925–1929, and An American Place from 1929– 1946.

magazine Camera Work (Camera Work: The Complete Photographs) in 1997, summed up what Stieglitz has meant to American scholars. In her very first paragraph, she wrote,

“Alfred Stieglitz had the multifold abilities of a Renaissance man. A visionary of enormously wide perspective, his accomplishments were remarkable, his dedication awe- inspiring. A photographer of genius, a publisher of inspiration, a writer of great ability, a gallery owner and exhibition organizer of both photographic and modern art exhibitions, a catalyst and a charismatic leader in the photographic and art worlds for over thirty years, he was, necessarily, a passionate, complex, driven and highly contradictory character, both prophet and martyr. The ultimate maverick, he inspired great love and great hatred in equal measure.”32

One of the few who took a critical stance as early as the 1980s on art photography after Stieglitz’s death was the German art historian and former professor of photography at the University of California, Santa Barbara, Ulrich F. Keller. He published two articles in History of Photography with the title “The Myth of Art Photography.”33 With this title he hinted at his critique. In his first article, a sociological investigation of art photography, he devoted himself to neglected aspects of the medium. He situated the development of art photography at the end of the nineteenth century in the social circumstances of industrialization. He described an elitist circle, which in his opinion was primarily prestige-

32 Pamela Roberts, Camera Work: The Complete Illustrations 1903–1917 (Cologne: Taschen, 1997), 7.

33 Keller, “Sociological Analysis,” 249–75; Ulrich F. Keller, “The Myth of Art Photography: An Iconographic Analysis,” History of Photography: An International Quarterly 9, no. 1 (January 1985): 1–28.

oriented and “strove for full possession of the supreme recognition commonly associated with ‘genius.’”34 Keller even went so far as to portray the resulting groups, such as the

British Linked Ring Brotherhood or Stieglitz’s American Photo-Secession, as “esoteric secessionist camp[s].”35 He attacked this elitist circle, which cannot be reduced to a geographical location due to its international scope in art metropolises (London, Paris,

Vienna, New York). Despite these different locations, Keller singled out Stieglitz with his

Photo-Secession, placed him at the forefront as a leader of the movement, and criticized him in several respects, which ultimately led Keller to a provocative conclusion:36 “[H]is main contribution to the history of photography was not the production of pictures, but the construction of an institutional framework which certified these pictures as ‘art.’”37

34 “Moreover, since the ‘high art’ establishment (academies, museums, critics) rejected photography as a legitimate art form, the elitist photo clubs had only one possibility of satisfying their hunger for artistic prestige: to fill the authority vacuum with institutions of their own making. Consequently, their basic project became the transformation of an informal amateur movement into a ‘high art’ enterprise complete with social rituals, exhibitions, publications and aesthetic doctrines molded after the example of the established media of painting and sculpture.” Keller, “Sociological Analysis,” 253.

35 “In spite of all imitative strategies, however, and in spite of tremendous promotional efforts, the newly-emerging art photography circuit remained a structurally anomalous project, one which lacked certain essentials of a genuine art world, and consequently was denied recognition by and integration into the institutional framework of painting and sculpture. The reasons are not far to seek.” Keller, “Sociological Analysis,” 254.

36 “[T]o travel an easy road to glory, was indeed the pictorialists’ primary desire, and consequently their best efforts were not directed toward actual picture production, but toward the construction of a complex support system of clubs, exhibitions and critical magazines, designed to legitimize the photographer’s claim to genius.” Keller, “Iconographic Analysis,” 1.

37 Keller, “Sociological Analysis,” 256.

According to Keller, in order for Stieglitz to be able to construct his institutional framework, he needed to first build the infrastructure necessary to provide credibility. First,

Stieglitz disseminated his ideas through the magazine Camera Work, which became the mouthpiece of the group. Secondly, Stieglitz anchored himself in New York with his own gallery, 291, where there “was the continued presence of a genius loci, personified in

Alfred Stieglitz, who ‘was always there talking, talking, talking; talking parables, arguing, explaining. He was a photographer, a preacher, a teacher, and a father-confessor.’”38

In his second article, Keller continued the discussion and went into more detail about the iconographic aspects of art photography. In several examples, he argued that the supposed originality of the choice of motif was, in his opinion, of a rather ordinary or

“monotonous” nature.39 In a very direct way, he showed the reader that the supposedly ideal world of art photography, which Stieglitz and his contemporaries constructed, must always be viewed in the context of Stieglitz’s surroundings.

Elizabeth Anne McCauley, David Hunter McAlpin Professor of the History of

Photography and Modern Art at Princeton University, took an equally critical stance toward Stieglitz approximately twenty-seven years later. Her relatively short book (roughly one hundred pages), The Steerage and Alfred Stieglitz (2012), was dedicated to Stieglitz’s controversial work The Steerage, which he photographed in 1907 on a ship crossing from

38 Keller, “Sociological Analysis,” 259–60. In this passage, Keller quoted Edward Steichen, Edward Steichen: A Life in Photography (New York: Doubleday, 1963), n.p.

39 “[I]t is safe to say that the pictorialists hardly ever seized upon a motif until it had proved to be a safe and popular one in other branches of the visual arts.” Keller, “Iconographic Analysis,” 3.

New York to Europe. It is commonly regarded as the masterpiece that marked the turning point in Stieglitz’s career, namely the transition from pictorial photography to straight photography, and as “a breakthrough photograph in both its metaphoric qualities and use of formal elements.”40 He first published it in the October 1911 issue of Camera Work, where it began its critical examination.41 In 1942 Stieglitz created a legend about how he produced the photograph that contributed to its fame. McCauley, together with coauthor

Jason Francisco, deconstructed the myth of The Steerage and managed to separate fiction and truth through a rational analysis of the circumstances. Their book is regarded as a showpiece that uncovers the fact that Stieglitz wove stories around himself and his works, which had been hinted at but given little consideration in previous literature. It is, therefore, essential not to continue to view and examine Stieglitz’s works with rose-colored glasses but rather with a critical attitude.

The topicality of Stieglitz research is reflected in the latest project by Bettina

Gockel of the University of Zurich in cooperation with the Heidelberg University Library, which took place between 2015 and 2018. During this three-year period, the group devoted itself to Stieglitz’s journal Camera Work (1903–1917). It was the first time the journal was examined using advanced methodological and technological approaches. In particular, they made a major contribution by digitizing all fifty regular issues and the three special issues, annotating them, and making them available to the public online. They concluded the

40 Katherine Hoffman, Alfred Stieglitz: A Beginning Light (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2004), 233.

41 Alfred Stieglitz, ed., Camera Work 36 (October 1911): 36, https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1911_36/0005/thumbs.

project with a three-day symposium, “Camera Work: History and Global Reach of an

International Art Magazine” (Zurich University, March 9–11, 2018), in which European and American scholars participated. They continued the path paved by the conference

“Rethinking ‘Pictorialism’: American Art and Photography from 1895 to 1925” (Princeton

University, October 20–21, 2017), organized six months earlier by McCauley.42

Liebhaberei der Millionäre: Der Wiener Camera-Club um 1900 (Millionaire’s

Hobby: The Viennese Camera Club around 1900, February 21–July 19, 2019) was an exhibition at the Viennese Photo-Institute Bonartes curated by Astrid Mahler (curator at the Albertina Museum in Vienna) that again pointed out the topicality of photography at the turn of the twentieth century.43 Even though Stieglitz himself had not been an active member of the Vienna Camera Club, he was well networked and familiar with their photographers, which was highlighted in a lecture I presented.44 These recent projects prove that the interest in Stieglitz is still of the highest topicality amongst scholars around the globe, and they also show that there are still opportunities to add context to Stieglitz’s legacy.

42 “Rethinking ‘Pictorialism’: American Art and Photography from 1895 to 1925,” Princeton University Art Museum, accessed on September 25, 2017, https://artmuseum.princeton.edu/calendar/2017-10/rethinking-pictorialism-american-art- and-photography-1895-1925.

43 “Liebhaberei der Millionäre. Der Wiener Camera-Club um 1900,” Photoinstitut Bonartes, accessed on February 15, 2019, https://www.bonartes.org/index.php/kalender- detail/liebhaberei-der-millionaere-der-wiener-camera-club-um-1900.html.

44 “Alfred Stieglitz’ Beziehungen zum Wiener Camera-Club,” Photoinstitut Bonartes, Vienna, April 25, 2019.

Research Deficiencies

As can be seen from this state of the research review, Stieglitz has been examined, portrayed, and evaluated extremely positively in the generally available literature.

Although Stieglitz was criticized by his contemporaries during his lifetime, these criticisms were only addressed in the 1980s by Ulrich Keller and in 2012 by Anne McCauley.

While the majority of the scholarship has been concerned with Stieglitz’s major work—the Photo-Secession, Camera Work, and his galleries—only a few scholars have shown interest in his early work. All of the biographies about Stieglitz deal with his childhood, youth, and the beginnings of his photographic career up to the turn of the twentieth century, but they mainly examine his first thirty years from a biographical perspective, and his photographic work is treated very selectively. It was only after Stieglitz returned to American soil and became involved in the photographic events of the time in

New York that writers considered Stieglitz an interesting subject and worthy of recognition for his work.

One reason why the literature contains gaps regarding his early work is because

Stieglitz himself discarded and destroyed many of his early works. It can never be truly known whether he did this because preservation was inconvenient or because he wanted to deceive posterity. It seems more likely that at some point in the course of his successful career Stieglitz may have realized what his legacy could become. This realization may have led him to attempt to shape his posthumous image with utmost perfectionism. This conclusion can be deduced from a letter he wrote to the photographer Paul Strand (1890–

1976) in 1919: “I finally made a print of one of the negatives made 3 years ago . . . It is a

wonder. I guess I’ve made 50 prints during the 3 years, always trying and trying over again.”45 In the same year, he wrote to the photographer Roger Child Bayley: “Nearly right is child’s play. . . . But I try and try and try until I get what I want . . . I reject all others— but what I am after is the A.1.—One from each negative.”46 Further letters to friends, such as one from 1924 to the critic Henry McBride, give evidence that Stieglitz destroyed a lot of his own works: “There is once more a moving ahead for me, and I am beginning to tear up prints—tore up over 400 a day or so ago.”47 Five years later Alfred Stieglitz wrote to

American artist and friend Arthur G. Dove (1880–1946): “(I spent) several weeks burning up books & paper—negatives & prints.”48 Apart from these statements, there is the fact that Georgia O’Keeffe gave a “waste basket collection” to the Beinecke Rare Book and

Manuscript Library of Yale University, which holds the most important collection of

Stieglitz’s personal and professional correspondence and ephemera. Thus, many of his early photographs have been willfully destroyed and are not available for research purposes anymore. Occasionally a reproduction is found in old magazine issues or exhibition lists.

It is uncertain how many photographs are not yet identified or may still be discovered in

45 Alfred Stieglitz to Paul Strand, August 11, 1919, quoted in Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, xii.

46 Alfred Stieglitz to R. Child Bayley, October 9, 1919, quoted in Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, xii.

47 Alfred Stieglitz to Henry McBride, “Correspondence,” New York Herald, February 10, 1924, Section 7, 13, quoted in Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, xii.

48 Ann Lee Morgan, ed., Dear Stieglitz, Dear Dove (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1988), 178; Alfred Stieglitz to Arthur Dove, September 9, 1929, quoted in Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, xii.

the future. Therefore, it is understandable that the scholarship has focused on addressing

Stieglitz-related topics with available material and sources.

Geraldine Woijno Kiefer’s 1991 Alfred Stieglitz: Scientist, Photographer, and

Avatar of Modernism, 1880–1913 and Katherine Hoffman’s 2004 A Beginning Light are among a small number of publications to shed more light on his early work. While Kiefer specifically addressed the scientific aspects of Stieglitz’s work and his technological background from his early education in Europe as an engineer, Hoffman focused on

Stieglitz’s early experiences in Europe traveling to numerous places, from the Netherlands,

France, and Switzerland to Austria and Italy. Kiefer and Hoffman both contributed to a deeper understanding of Stieglitz’s early work, but their studies cover his first thirty-three years (1880–1913) and his first fifty-three years (from 1864 until the closure of 291 in

1917) respectively. These time frames are too extended to be understood as early work phases. Whereas Hoffman delivered a rather biographically oriented monograph about

Stieglitz’s early years, the detailed survey of his early work from the perspective of understanding his collaboration as outlined in this dissertation allows for analysis of the external contributions to his influential position that brought him fame around the globe later on. Granted, Hoffman was the first to report on Stieglitz’s contact with the painter

Wilhelm Hasemann, but she only discussed this for nine out of 305 pages. Hoffman’s approach to revealing more insight into Stieglitz’s early career was clearly a well- intentioned one but ultimately only scratched the surface.

Research Question and Desiderata

This dissertation will, therefore, take the opportunity to address the research gaps in the study of Stieglitz’s early work from the perspective of a European and to examine the impact of his connections to Europe and the resulting collaborations in greater depth.

The fundamental questions to be explored are:

- Who are the important European protagonists in Stieglitz’s early life and

career?

- How did they impact Stieglitz artistically and professionally?

- What did Stieglitz extract from their collaborations?

The importance of Europe, and especially Germany, is already reflected in his biography; although Stieglitz was born in Hoboken, New Jersey, he was of German-Jewish descent. Both of his parents emigrated from Germany to the United States. He grew up in a German household where they spoke German at home and cultivated German traditions.

When Stieglitz was seventeen years old, the family moved to Germany. While his family stayed for nearly five years, Stieglitz remained for nine until he was twenty-seven years old. When he came back to New York in 1890, he did not want to leave Europe for good.

In fact, he was not fond of being in the American city that had changed so much since he was a young boy. Although Stieglitz lived in New York for the rest of his life, he regularly traveled back to Europe.

It is striking that throughout his entire career, Europe (and especially Germany) always played an enormously important role in his photographic and institutional work. In fact, Germany is where Stieglitz discovered his love for photography and Germany is

where everything began for him. In not paying appropriate attention to the European protagonists of his early years, past literature has not done justice to the complementary aspects of the European collaborations and influences that contributed significantly to

Stieglitz’s later fame and historical legacy. By broadening the analysis to include the many

European relationships and experiences that helped shape Stieglitz, it is possible to uncover the artistic and leadership impacts of the connections he had with the European—and especially the German—world.

This analysis initially covers a period of thirteen years between 1881 and 1894, during which Stieglitz lived in Germany from 1881 to 1890 and then had an extended stay in Germany and other parts of Europe in 1894. It then discusses his four journeys to Europe in 1904, 1907, 1909 and 1911, all of which took place before the outbreak of World War I and in three-year cycles. His travel record of frequent visits shows that Europe must have been exceedingly topical for him despite his already achieved status in America. Therefore, the early period of Stieglitz’s life and his relationship to Europe and his European contacts must not be underestimated in the history of art photography as well as U.S. modernism.

Methodology

The purpose of this dissertation is to evaluate the documented historical record on

Alfred Stieglitz to determine if it appropriately reflects the totality of the impact of the many European influences on Stieglitz’s early work and ultimately his legacy. In order to approach this question from an analytical perspective, the starting point was an evaluation of the voluminous available photographs created by Stieglitz during this time period. With

respect to Stieglitz’s early work, his photography can be divided into two broad groups: experimental photographs and artistic photographs. In his experimental photographs,

Stieglitz created documentary images that generally captured family reunions and various excursions, which he collated in loose form or in albums. The second, much more interesting grouping of Stieglitz’s early pictures are his artistic photographs, which he used to foster his artistic career by exhibiting and publishing them in photographic competitions and art magazines. Stieglitz’s early artistic photographic work is comprised of images that can be further classified in the following general categories: genre, landscape, portrait, and architecture. Stieglitz never treated the genre of still life particularly intensively and, therefore, those photographs are not considered. With respect to methodology, this dissertation is focused on the artistic photographs as the basis for answering the research questions.

A detailed analytical comparison of Stieglitz’s early work by category reveals numerous striking similarities to many nineteenth-century paintings. Furthermore, it is also evident that the motifs, compositions, and the handling of light and mood, especially in his genre and landscape photographs, appear to pay homage to the widespread European art movements of that time. This can be seen in the direct comparisons of Stieglitz’s photographic works to the paintings created by the students of the Barbizon school and the

Hague school. Important representatives of both schools, such as Jules Breton (1827–1906) and Jean-Francois Millet (1814–1875) in France and Jozef Izraël (1824–1911) in the

Netherlands, will be presented with selected works by other followers.

In this regard, the pictorial style in photography, which emerged at the end of the nineteenth century, was already established and led by famous photographers like Peter

Henry Emerson (1856–1936). Emerson’s book Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art (1889), which Stieglitz had access to, described his philosophy of the relationship between human perception and photography.49 Like Stieglitz came to espouse, Emerson believed that photography was a form of art that could only be expressed by someone with artistic sensibility.

Since photography is a medium that allows multiple exposures, Stieglitz typically made multiple versions of each motif. These versions are well represented in Sarah

Greenough’s Key Set, which contains metadata of when and where each individual work was exhibited and published. Based on this information, an assessment can be made as to which versions Stieglitz favored. Of course, it would be interesting to know what criteria

Stieglitz used to select his best works, but this would rely exclusively on hypothesis.

Stieglitz rejected retouching in the darkroom and guided his painterly effects solely through his choice of lenses, the weather and lighting conditions, composition, and the choice of printing processes, all of which he adapted individually for each photographic work.

In addition to examining the general art movements that clearly influenced

Stieglitz’s early artistic work, this dissertation analyzes the available historical record to uncover and define the impact of the relationships between Stieglitz and his network of

49 Peter Henry Emerson, Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art (London, 1889), https://archive.org/stream/naturalisticphot00emer#page/n7/mode/2up/search/Photography +art.

European artists. In the process of this research, it was determined that there were many protagonists who contributed to Stieglitz’s life and artistic progression. Important mentors, such as Stieglitz’s father and Hermann Wilhelm Vogel (1831–1898) among others, have been considered, as they played critical roles in Stieglitz’s early life from a personal and technical point of view. However, through research, it became quickly apparent that the influence on Stieglitz of Europeans Frank Simon Herrmann, Wilhelm Hasemann, and

Heinrich Kühn had the greatest effect on his early work. The selection of these individuals was based on the significant impact they had on Stieglitz both personally and professionally.

It is important to note that, unlike artists that work in seclusion, Stieglitz’s photographs are primarily the result of collaboration and shared enterprise. Accordingly, the contributions of these protagonists to the making of the artist and the man that Alfred

Stieglitz would become can not be underestimated. As a result of their influence each of these protagonists has been provided their own chapter for detailed review of their contributions to Stieglitz’s legacy. Notably, each had an artistic background; Herrmann and Hasemann were painters and Kühn was an art photographer. In addition, each protagonist had a deep connection to Europe and its art scene at the time. While Hasemann and Kühn were of German origin and lived and worked in German-speaking countries,

Herrmann was an American of German heritage who spent most of his life in Germany.

Lastly, the impact on Stieglitz’s early work that was the direct result of the power of their respective networks and joint collaborations was also a factor in the selection of each character.

In the preparation of each chapter, the following three-step approach was undertaken. Since the impact of Herrmann and Hasemann on Stieglitz’s work has not been the focus of the existing body of research, it was important to first investigate who these men were and where they came from. In the second step, it was critical to determine and assess exactly how each protagonist collaborated with Stieglitz. Once these aspects were understood, it was possible to move to the third step of the analysis, the determination of the impacts of these encounters on the work and life of Stieglitz. As outlined herein, each person fulfilled a critical function for Stieglitz at a critical time, which led to the chapters being distinguished as discovering, shaping, and elevating photography. However, it is the premise of this dissertation that it was those influences taken in the collective that ultimately made a substantial contribution to Stieglitz’s work at that time and later.

In order to approach this topic, the acquisition of basic literature in the form of secondary sources about Stieglitz and his work was a basic prerequisite. In addition, primary sources in archives and institutions in Germany and the United States were consulted in person; a large number of Stieglitz’s photographic works are not accessible in printed or online form. In America, a review of certain research was conducted at the

Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library at Yale University in New Haven,

Connecticut; the Museum of Modern Art, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Whitney

Museum of American Art, the Museum of the City of New York, the New-York Historical

Society, and the New York Public Library in New York City; the George Eastman Museum in Rochester, New York; the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston; the Art Institute of Chicago; and the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC, where Sarah Greenough provided

exclusive access to her research collection. Among the archives visited in Europe were the

Hasemann-Liebich Museum in Gutach; the Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte (Central

Institute for Art History) and the Stadtmuseum (City Museum) in Munich; the Deutsche

Kunstarchiv (German Art Archive) at the Germanisches Nationalmuseum in Nuremberg; and the Tyrolean State Archive in Innsbruck.

The research material examined included photographs and paintings, albums, certificates, official and private letters, honors in the form of medals, and publications such as Camera Work and other contemporary periodicals in which Stieglitz and his followers published their works and their opinions about art photography. The analysis of Stieglitz’s bilingual letters and postcards proved to be a particular challenge in working on the dissertation topic given the difficult access to his personal files and the language issues.

Significant information was obtained in collaboration with certain descendants of

Frank S. Herrmann including Sarah Tracey of Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Frank

Herrmann of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, and with the authors Peter Hastings Falk of

Madison, Connecticut, and Manfred Flügge of Berlin. For the chapter on Wilhelm

Hasemann, granddaughter Waltrud Heinemann of Kraichtal, near Karlsruhe, Germany, and the director of the Hasemann-Liebich-Museum in Gutach, Germany, Jean-Philippe Naudet, answered questions regarding the importance of Hasemann and the Black Forest in

Stieglitz’s early work. For the fourth chapter, movie director Markus Heltschl and Diether

Schönitzer of Birgitz, Austria, grandson of Heinrich Kühn, were particularly helpful in uncovering further insights into the connection between Kühn and Stieglitz. Through participation in the symposia in Princeton (2017) and Zurich (2018) revealed the most

relevant research on the topic of Alfred Stieglitz and highlighted the necessity of further investigation into Stieglitz’s early work and his European heritage. I obtained important perspectives and contexts for developing the conclusions of this dissertation from my experiences giving lectures at the University of California, Riverside in 2018, the

Photoinstitut Bonartes in Vienna in 2019, and at the Hasemann-Liebich-Museum in Gutach in 2019.

With regard to terminology, it is important to define the terms amateur photography, artistic photography, and pictorial photography used in the following text.

This is not an easy task, as terminology may often have a surface meaning that appears clear but, in reality, shields a complicated set of inconsistencies. In retrospect, historians can make assumptions about what was meant but they are influenced by the outcome that was produced. Accordingly, in defining each term it is critical to provide a perspective of what these terms meant to whom at what time.

The term amateur has to be understood in its historical context since “amateur was a word equal to artistic.”50 Amateur photographers, therefore, aimed toward “reinstating the creative integrity of photography as a medium of expression” and felt an aversion toward professional photography, which “concentrated more on technique and equipment than on the picture esthetics.”51 Accordingly, amateur photographers were equated with artistic photographers, who were defined by the artistic intention that they expressed in

50 Weston Naef, The Collection of Alfred Stieglitz: Fifty Pioneers of Modern Photography (New York: Studio, 1978), 16.

51 Naef, 16.

their works. Pictorial photography, or pictorialism, is a style of photography from the point of view of approaching photography for the recognition of photography as art.52 Henry

Peach Robinson (1830–1901) is one of the first photographers directly associated with pictorialism. His book Pictorial Effect in Photography (1869) called for realistic and artistic elements to be combined and composed according to the principles of painting.53

With his famous photograph Fading Away (1858), he wanted to prove that photographs were able to convey feelings and were not purely documentary in character.54

In clear opposition to Robinson’s view was the aforementioned Peter Henry

Emerson, whose artistic truth was based on nature and not on retouching in the darkroom.

This style of photography was considered straight photography and was established in contrast to pictorialism at the beginning of the twentieth century.55 Together with Paul

Strand, Stieglitz became enthusiastic about this style, which introduced a new aesthetic into his work. For Stieglitz, it promoted a more pure and direct form of photography of the

52 Jean-Claude Lemagny, and André Rouillé, eds., A History of Photography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988); Michel Frizot, ed., Neue Geschichte der Fotografie (Cologne: Koenemann, 1998).

53 Wolfgang Kemp, ed., Theorie der Fotografie, vol. 1, 1839–1912 (Munich: Schirmer/Mosel, 1980), 120.

54 Mike Weaver, “Kunstlerische Ambitionen: Die Versuchung der Schönen Kunste,” in Neue Geschichte der Fotografie, ed. Frizot Michel (Cologne: Koenemann, 1998), 190.

55 Dallett Fuguet, “The Evolution of Art from Writing to Photography,” Camera Work 12 (October 1905): 46, https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1905_12/0076/image.

here and now, “devoid of all flim-flam; devoid of trickery and of any ‘ism.’”56 However, in Stieglitz’s early issues of Camera Work, the term “straight photography” is mentioned and understood to be the opposite of “fake” photography. At the beginning, straight photography meant only direct photography that omitted subsequent manipulation in the darkroom.57

However, as this dissertation deals with Stieglitz’s early work, the nature of

Stieglitz’s definitions at that time will be investigated. In his writings, he used the terms amateur photography (“A Word or Two about Amateur Photography in Germany,” 1887), art photography (“A Plea for Art Photography in America,” 1892), and pictorial photography (“Pictorial Photography in the United States,” 1895) as equal terms to describe his approach to creating a photographic image from an artist’s perspective. For

Stieglitz, it was important to distinguish three classes of photographers, “the ignorant, the purely technical, and the artistic.”58 The latter he described in the words of Peter Henry

Emerson as photographers who undergo “very severe mental process(es)” that “[tax] all the artist’s energies even after he has mastered technique.”59

56 Alfred Stieglitz, “Our Illustrations,” Camera Work 49–50, (June 1917): 36, https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1917_49_50/0062/image.

57 Fuguet, “Evolution of Art,” 46.

58 Alfred Stieglitz, “Pictorial Photography,” Scribner’s Magazine, November 1899, 528, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miun.acd5969.0026.005&view=1up&seq=14.

59 Stieglitz, 528–29.

The distinction between the terms “photography” and “picture-making” should also be made, as it can lead to misunderstandings.60 Robin Kelsey investigated this phenomenon and among other things he found that photography was “both a physical object and an aesthetic experience.”61 In the present context of Alfred Stieglitz, the process of “picture- making” refers not only to a scientific photographic endeavor but also to an aesthetically and artistically motivated process. In his text “Modern Pictorial Photography,” Stieglitz was also concerned with the designation of the result of photographic production. He wrote: “It has been argued that the productions of the modern photographer are in the main not photography . . . The Photo-Secessionists call them pictorial photographs.”62 In the present work, the terms as defined by Stieglitz will be followed. Amateur photography, pictorial photography, and artistic photography are, therefore, used as synonyms and understood as works that are pursued and executed with artistic intentions. In this situation, the photograph and the picture do not differ in their artistic value and must be understood in context.

It is interesting how Stieglitz dealt with the vocabulary of artistic practice. Instead of describing his photography as such, he used pictorial terminology and described his

60 Alfred Stieglitz, “Modern Pictorial Photography,” Century Magazine, May–October 1902, 825, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015016779152&view=1up&seq=851.

61 Robin Kelsey, “Pictorialism as Theory,” in Picturing, ed. Rachael Z. DeLue, Terra Foundation Essays 1 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016), 200.

62 Alfred Stieglitz, “Modern Pictorial Photography,” Century Magazine, May–October 1902, 825, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015016779152&view=1up&seq=851.

activity as “picture-making.” It can be assumed that photography meant to him the simple execution that could be accomplished by anyone who has access to the appropriate equipment. “Picture-making,” on the other hand, required an aesthetic viewpoint and could only be executed by an artist. When Stieglitz referred to photography and elevating it to a form of fine art, he specifically referred to “picture-making” in order to validate his artistic value.

Execution and Realization

Chapter 2, “Discovering Photography,” deals with Stieglitz’s discovery and experimentation with photography. The artist Frank Simon Herrmann, whom Stieglitz knew from his childhood, played a particularly important role. They shared a similar biography since they both grew up in New York as Americans of German-Jewish descent but then spent their youths and studies together in Germany—one as a painter, the other as a photographer. Through many visits and travels together, a close friendship and collaborative relationship developed with regard to their artistic activities. Two journeys in 1887 and 1894 are decisive and analyzed in more detail through a series of pictorial examples. This analysis shows that art and photography cannot be seen separately but have always been in a tense relationship and have stimulated each other. Although both protagonists seriously pursued their disciplines, it becomes clear at the end of the chapter that Stieglitz, through his ambition of establishing photography as a recognized fine art discipline, continued to develop beyond Herrmann. As a result, Stieglitz achieved fame and Herrmann remained largely in the background as an undiscovered artist. Nevertheless,

Herrmann contributed greatly to Stieglitz’s phase of discovering and experimenting artistically with the camera.

Chapter 3, “Shaping Photography,” addresses Stieglitz’s photographic activity in the 1890s and sheds particular light on the original sources of his institutional work for photography. The Black Forest painter Wilhelm Hasemann is particularly important. He acted as a mentor to Stieglitz and, alongside Edward Stieglitz, played a fatherly role. His influence on Stieglitz must be seen from two perspectives, one artistic and one institutional.

Hasemann was connected on a national and international level and founded his own group, the Black Forest Colony, together with like-minded people. He exemplified to Stieglitz what it meant to have a vision. Whereas Hasemann fought for the preservation and dissemination of the traditions of the Black Forest, Stieglitz began to manifest his vision by shaping photography in his own way as a form of art. Realizing his goal with an individual and a collective approach, Hasemann’s activities within his Black Forest Colony served as an early operating model Stieglitz was directly connected with. In other words, this chapter examines the hypothesis that the founding of Stieglitz’s Photo-Secession did not only go back to the European Secession movements but also to Hasemann.

Furthermore, comparative examples are provided that show that the pictorial works of

Hasemann and those of other Black Forest artists influenced Stieglitz artistically. The photographs that Stieglitz took during his numerous visits to the Gutach area are among his most famous works. Stieglitz published and exhibited them in the 1930s and 1940s, although in his late artistic phase from 1917 onward, he was most interested in the new

avant-garde movement. In short, Hasemann was critical when Stieglitz shaped his vision of what photography could become.

Chapter 4, “Elevating Photography,” examines the period shortly after the turn of the twentieth century, when Stieglitz had already founded his Photo-Secession group in

New York. In contrast to the protagonists of the two previous chapters, Stieglitz did not network with a painter, but rather with a photographer. Heinrich Kühn, who had already enjoyed great success in Austria and Germany as a member of the Trifolium, took on the role of fellow campaigner for their shared vision of the elevation of photography as a form of fine art. Their artistic collaboration was expressed in two of Stieglitz’s trips to Europe in 1904 and 1907, which is supported by examples of pictures in this chapter. Stieglitz found himself drawn to Kühn, a like-minded person with whom he could share the same development process preferences. In addition, they could also work for the recognition and dissemination of artistic photography. On an administrative level, Kühn not only encouraged Stieglitz but also gave him concrete assistance in building his gallery. Through numerous exhibition projects in which both artists were involved—Kühn ensured that

Stieglitz was able to exhibit his Photo-Secession mainly in Europe, while Stieglitz included

Kühn and his Trifolium in Camera Work and exhibited him at 291—they understood that only through cooperation and cohesion could the bond between the two continents be strengthened and the ultimate goal be achieved. Although Stieglitz later moved in the direction of straight photography due to the influences of avant-garde movements in

Europe, Kühn owed his international popularity to Stieglitz’s exhibition activities.

The purpose of this dissertation is to present newly discovered facts about Alfred

Stieglitz’s early personal and professional life in Europe and to evaluate and document the sources of his inspiration that led to his significant impact on the modern art world. Stieglitz is without a doubt considered an American icon in artistic photography. After his death in

1947, he was recognized for his substantial contributions to the visual arts, not only as an artist but also as a visionary leader of his own (and the first American) artistic secession movement. Stieglitz has been exalted by American scholars as an American “Renaissance man,”63 and his legacy has been defined and categorized in the context of American research. However, one needs to look deeper than the nationality on his passport to truly understand and appreciate the contribution of his European heritage and the European relationships and experiences, which had such a profound impact on Stieglitz’s life and art.

While Stieglitz’s fame came about in New York, his technical education in photography and early experimentation with a camera were done in Europe. As a result of his father’s success in business and associated financial resources as well as his father’s interest in art and support of the art community, Stieglitz had a unique opportunity relative to most Americans at that time to develop his cultural and artistic interests. Stieglitz became connected in the art world in Europe and was inspired by many European artists. The perspectives he developed watching the leaders of the European secessions along with his personal contacts in Europe provided the groundwork for leading his own secessionist movement in America after he returned from Europe.

63 Roberts, Camera Work, 7.

This dissertation provides needed insight and analysis of the European influences that were essential to the creation of what Alfred Stieglitz ultimately became, not only as an artist but also as a leader. The following chapters provide:

- a historical perspective on Stieglitz’s early life

- documentation of the relevance of a number of Stieglitz’s European

relationships

- a comparative analysis of Stieglitz’s photographs relative to many European

artworks to prove their influence on him

It is the contention of this study that, while Stieglitz is certainly American and deserves his legacy as a visionary in the American art world, it was his heritage, relationships, and access in Europe that had the greatest impact on his early life and art. As shown in detail in this dissertation, in many ways Stieglitz absorbed the European photographic and art movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He then used his own lens within the nascent artistic photography world of the United States to form and manipulate what he believed art photography in New York was supposed to be.

What is evident is that Alfred Stieglitz could have never gained the recognition he received in America as a leader of the modern art movement, if he was simply just an art photographer. It was the combination of Stieglitz’s artistic capabilities but perhaps more importantly Stieglitz’s understanding of collaboration and shared enterprise that positioned him to have a powerful early influence on U.S. modernism.

CHAPTER 2 DISCOVERING PHOTOGRAPHY—STIEGLITZ & HERRMANN

The Camera was waiting for me by predestination, and I took it as a musician takes to the piano or a painter to canvas.64 –Alfred Stieglitz

Many unique circumstances led to the discovery of photography by Alfred Stieglitz

(1864–1946). His education in New York and Europe began with a focus on traditional science but soon morphed into the field of photography. In the process of unlocking his passion, a number of people provided important influences and support. One of the most distinctive early protagonists was his childhood friend Frank Simon Herrmann (1866–

1942).

The following chapter documents Stieglitz’s evolving relationship with Herrmann, who dedicated his life to the fine arts as a painter. Herrmann had an exceptionally productive impact on Stieglitz at the beginning of his photographic career. The common features of their backgrounds are highlighted in order to provide a context for understanding the genesis of their successful artistic collaboration in Europe during the

1880s and 1890s. In addition to serving as a travel companion, Herrmann functioned as a staffage figure in many of Stieglitz’s photographs that have been subsequently evaluated, analyzed, and criticized. The artistic effect of Stieglitz’s relationship with Herrmann can be seen in Stieglitz’s work. As documented herein, numerous comparisons between

64 Stieglitz quoted in Thomas Craven, “Stieglitz—Old Master of the Camera,” Saturday Evening Post, January 8, 1944, 14, https://ia800900.us.archive.org/33/items/the-saturday- evening-post-1944-01-08/the-saturday-evening-post-1944-01-08.pdf.

Stieglitz’s photographs and other works of art reveal how Stieglitz and Herrmann were influenced by the general art movements in Europe at that time and by each other’s artistic style. It appears that Herrmann’s art and his impact on Stieglitz’s life and legacy have both been historically underappreciated. It is not surprising that art historians have not focused on the importance of Herrmann, as his collaborations with Stieglitz were largely developmental and the analysis of their impact on Stieglitz is more complex and nuanced than analyzing the body of Stieglitz’s photographic art work.

Stieglitz’s progression as a pictorialist is also examined in this chapter. The stages that he went through can be summarized as application, exploration, and creation.

“Application” is defined as the act of putting something to special use or purpose. Stieglitz purposefully applied new camera technology and the photographic techniques taught to him by Hermann Wilhelm Vogel to the development of his artistic photography skills.

“Exploration” is defined as an act or instance of exploring or investigating. Stieglitz was fascinated with pushing the boundaries of the technical aspects of the development process and understood the impact it could have on his photography. His background in chemistry, coupled with his inquisitiveness and meticulousness, allowed him to optimize the results of trial and error and find new ways to personalize his photographs. “Creation” is defined as the act of producing or causing to exist. Once Stieglitz became facile with photographic techniques and more knowledgeable regarding the development process, he was ready to become a professional photographer. However, to achieve his goal of raising photography’s stature to a legitimate form of high art, he relied on the works of fine artists for inspiration with regard to genre and motif. Through the international acclaim he

received for his work, Stieglitz elevated his photography and created recognition that photography could be considered a form of fine art.

Lastly, a controversy regarding the relationship between Stieglitz and Herrmann is briefly explored. It is well established that the two men were friends and artistic collaborators. Interestingly, however, there is no documented evidence that Stieglitz publicly supported Herrmann’s art by presenting Herrmann’s paintings in his gallery or providing mention of his art in Camera Work. After Herrmann’s death in 1942, Stieglitz remarked that Herrmann probably never understood what he, Stieglitz, was really about.

The testimony that Stieglitz felt misunderstood by Herrmann, his closest friend, provides insight into Stieglitz’s personal struggles and perspectives. Stieglitz’s remark embodies the spirit of secessionism, which, at its very core, begins with a feeling of being misunderstood and a compulsion to seek freedom of expression and change. As described in Chapter 2, it is apparent that Stieglitz seemed to have fully embraced the spirit of secession and, as a result, orchestrated in his lifetime the many professional and personal secessions that define his legacy as both an artist and an individual.

1. Genesis

In general, secession movements were radical breaks with old conventions in the nineteenth and early twentieth century that were mainly aimed at the strict rules and hierarchic structures of academia. The main goal of an artistic secession movement was to provide more freedom of expression for artists. Similarly, at the beginning of the twentieth century, Alfred Stieglitz wanted to free himself from what photography had been.

However, Stieglitz did not create his own Photo-Secession without personal perspective.

His whole life was affected by transitional experiences. His childhood was radically changed due to his father’s incisive decisions for the Stieglitz family. Accepting these early changes in his life as normal prepared him well for the private and professional secessions he would encounter as an adult. Thus, he began to learn that every period of transition creates a break from something old but provides the opportunity to create something new.

This is a crucial feature of true personal development and certainly one of the basic elements of Stieglitz’s success and legacy. Importantly, he experienced these moments with the influential people in his life each providing a unique contribution to the form of each secession.

1.1. Inception

In contrast to that of his many other contacts, Stieglitz’s relationship with Frank S.

Herrmann was special. Their relationship was not motivated by family or business interests and can be traced back to their school days in the 1870s. Like Stieglitz, Herrmann was born in New York City. While Stieglitz was the first-born son of a total of six children,

Herrmann was the third of four children in a German-Jewish family that had made its fortune in the United States.65 His father, Uriah Herrmann (1832–1910), originally came

65 Manfred Flügge, Die Muse des Exils—Das Leben der Malerin Eva Herrmann (Berlin: Insel, 2012), 15. The oldest son was David (born 1860), then daughter Ruth (born 1866), then Frank Simon (born 1866), and lastly Arnold (born 1874).

from Oberdorf am Ipf, a small village in Württemberg in Germany, and had immigrated to

America in 1856 like many other European Jews in the middle of the nineteenth century.66

The individual circumstances that led to Uriah Herrmann’s immigration are not known, but his American dream soon came true as he became a successful businessman— similar to Stieglitz’s father, Edward Stieglitz (1833–1909) (fig. 2.1).

Edward Stieglitz was born on a farm in Hannoversch Münden (Southern Saxony) and grew up in the village of Gehaus in Thuringia, Germany.67 He immigrated to the United

States eight years before Uriah Herrmann, in 1848, when he was sixteen years old. Edward

Stieglitz took the opportunity to become a businessman in New York where he ran a prosperous business called Hahlo & Stieglitz “importing, vending and selling dry goods, merchandise and commodities.”68 As a direct result of Edward Stieglitz’s and Uriah

Herrmann’s financial success, their children Alfred Stieglitz and Frank enjoyed private incomes from their fathers’ estates that allowed them to devote their time almost entirely to their own interests. For Alfred Stieglitz it would be photography and for Frank painting.

Both grew up in a carefree environment and belonged to the upper class of

American society. The Herrmann family lived on the Upper East Side of Manhattan. For the first seven years of Alfred’s life, Edward Stieglitz and his wife Hedwig Stieglitz (1844–

1922) lived in an apartment building in Hoboken, New Jersey, before moving in the

66 Flügge, 15.

67 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 17; and Stefan Schäfer, Archive of the City of Hannoversch Münden, email to author, March 30, 2020.

68 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 19.

summer of 1871 into a brownstone home on the Upper East Side.69 While before 1870 the neighborhood was mostly surrounded by farms and farmland, the area had recently been transformed into a luxurious neighborhood not far from Central Park.70 The interior decoration of their house was opulent and reflected the contemporary taste of an upscale lifestyle.71 To be sure, Stieglitz and Herrmann grew up privileged, far away from the slums that had developed in the southern part of Manhattan.72

According to Sue Davidson-Lowe, Edward Stieglitz’s social circle was primarily characterized by business contacts, who, like him, were German Jews. While he tried to shake off strict conventions regarding religion, he—like many others—remained very attached to the German language and the familiar traditions that reminded him of home and also gave him a sense of solidarity within the immigrant community.73 In Edward

69 Davidson-Lowe, 30, 39, 42. Edward Stieglitz lived with his brother Siegmund in Hoboken and moved with Hedwig Stieglitz to a new house when they got married in 1862. They lived in that house for the first eight months of Alfred’s life before they moved to a bigger house on Garden Street in Hoboken, where they lived for seven years.

70 Davidson-Lowe, 42. Mrs. Mary Mason Jones had luxury apartments built on the block between 57th and 58th Streets, which became known as Marble Row.

71 Davidson-Lowe, 40. Edward Stieglitz changed the use of each room, which was set for regular brownstone houses, delaying construction. Special features, such as ice water piped to every floor and an expanded steam heating system as well as a wine cellar and billiard room, represent the prestigious life Edward Stieglitz wanted for his family.

72 Davidson-Lowe, 99. In 1890 the police reporter Jacob Riis published his book How the Other Half Lives, which captures New Yorkers in the slum district of Five Points. In 1891 Stieglitz joined the Society of Amateur Photographers, of which Riis was already a member.

73 Davidson-Lowe, 20.

Stieglitz’s house, it was common practice to invite and entertain a cross section of the upper class consisting of artists, actors, musicians, and politicians.74

Uriah Herrmann was an influential person as well, especially in the German-Jewish community in New York at that time. He was active as a benefactor and cofounder of the

Temple Emmanu-El synagogue and Beth Israel Hospital.75 Like the Stieglitzes, the

Herrmanns were in close contact with their relatives in Germany and even continued to speak German at home and follow German traditions.76 It is likely that Edward Stieglitz and Uriah Herrmann knew each other and that Alfred and Frank (who was only two years younger than Alfred) probably spent some of their free time together. Another thing the two families had in common was that they owned summer houses outside the city. The

Herrmanns spent summers in Orange, New Jersey, and the Stieglitzes vacationed on Lake

George at the foot of the Adirondack Mountains in upstate New York.77

In September 1871, Alfred changed schools and attended the private Charlier

Institute for Boys and Young Gentlemen.78 The cover of an autograph album at the

Beinecke Library shows the elegant educational facility of the Charlier Institute

74 Davidson-Lowe, 45.

75 Flügge, 15.

76 Flügge, 15.

77 Homer, introduction to Frank S. Herrmann, 8.

78 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 40. The Charlier Institute moved from 126 East 24th Street to 108 West 59th Street in 1872; see “Commencement of the Charlier Institute,” New York Times, June 24, 1865, https://www.nytimes.com/1865/06/24/archives/commencement-of-the-charlier- institute.html.

overlooking Central Park. The album has been dated 1876 on the first page by Alfred, but then he also noted that this is a second volume.79 On April 11, 1879, Frank S. Herrmann indicated himself as a friend with a small drawing of a horse’s head (fig. 2.2). This drawing is perhaps the first known written exchange between Stieglitz and Herrmann.

In 1877, after finishing at the Charlier Institute, Stieglitz attended grammar school and then enrolled, beginning in September 1879, for two years at the City College of New

York.80 Herrmann’s school history is largely unknown; however, it has been verified that he joined Stieglitz at CCNY as a fellow student.81 It is not known when or under what circumstances they met, but it is obvious that they knew each other since they were teenagers. In many letters, Stieglitz referred to Herrmann by his nickname Sime (short for

Simon). Herrmann in turn called him Al or All. This provides an additional indication that

Stieglitz, who normally kept a formal distance from his interlocutor in letters (he was always formally addressed in German), could be himself with his friend throughout their lifetimes.

1.2. Discovery

Stieglitz’s parents had ingrained a love of the arts in their son. Certain circumstances during Stieglitz’s teenage years would allow him the opportunity to explore his interests. His move to Europe and subsequent access to its educational system created

79 Davidson-Lowe, 380.

80 Davidson-Lowe, 380–81.

81 Homer, introduction to Frank S. Herrmann, 5.

permanent changes in the direction of his life. Interestingly, Herrmann followed Stieglitz to Germany, and they began their collaboration in, what for them, was a new world. During this period of time, Stieglitz discovered many things, including his passion for photography. With his friend Herrmann by his side, he traveled to places in Europe to capture and experiment with artistic motifs.

1.2.1. Europe

In 1881, Edward Stieglitz decided to sell his company for a significant amount of money, retire from business, and move with his family to Germany.82 His father’s decision to completely change his family’s life was a profound experience in Alfred’s childhood and one of his first moments of secession. It was not easy for Stieglitz to say goodbye to his friends, including Herrmann. It was also hard for Herrmann to see Stieglitz leave, as is evident from a poem that he wrote about the departure:

1. On the departure of my friend A.S. There floating on New Jersey’s waters, Was the beautiful steamer “Rhine”, While in the hinderportions or [sic] the quarters Was my “Alfred Stieglitz” crying. 2. Yes! I was standing on the dock, When the steamer slowly came, And people were feeling of the shock, Of “Farewells” sorrowful pain. 3. I jumped upon one of the posts, And waved my kerchief long, And as the steamer left the coast Recognized “Alfred” among the throng 4. It was then I felt most loath to part, While I felt a sudden pain, A quicker pulsation of the heart,

82 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 59–60.

A reeling of the brain. 5. Then I yelled with all my might That I nearly, stumbled and fell And as the steamer drew out of sight I waved my hand and called “Farewell” 6. But then the steamer was too far out And I could not yell anymore So I sorrowfully turned about And mended my way to the shore.

Amen83

During Stieglitz’s ten-day voyage by ship from New York to Bremen, he quickly became friends with two boys of the same age, Joseph Obermeyer (1862–1943) and Louis Howard

Schubart (1862–1927), whom he later introduced to Herrmann.84 They would all befriend each other and undertake journeys during which they were artistically active.

An important factor in Stieglitz’s initial well-being was the new home he shared with professor Karl Ludwig Bauer.85 Bauer was a well-regarded mathematician and teacher

83 Frank S. Herrmann to Alfred Stieglitz, June 23, 1881, YCAL MSS 85, Series III, Box 24, Folder 568, Yale Collection of American Literature, Beinecke Rare Book & Manuscript Library, Yale University (hereafter cited as YCAL).

84 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 62. Like Stieglitz, Joe and Lou were both American with German-Jewish heritage. They also both came from upper-middle- class families. Stieglitz and the two boys were first roommates in Berlin, then business partners in New York, and ultimately in-laws, since Schubart married Stieglitz’s sister Selma and Stieglitz married Obermeyer’s sister Emmeline.

85 Davidson-Lowe, 64–65.

at the realgymnasium in Karlsruhe.86 Davidson-Lowe described Bauer’s relationship with

Stieglitz as that of a father figure with less fear and more loving encouragement.87

It is highly probable that Stieglitz, who was given an appreciation of art by his father, visited the Kunsthalle of Karlsruhe in his spare time and studied its collection.

During his fifteen-minute daily walk to school (from Linkenheimerstrasse 5 in the west of the city to Englerstrasse 12 in the east of the city88), Stieglitz was exposed to an impressive ensemble of history, architecture, art, and culture. Edward Stieglitz was surely concerned about ensuring premium conditions for his son’s stay while at the same time maintaining a reasonable level of parental supervision. While the daily exchange of letters between father and son was a means of control, Alfred used this opportunity away from home and family to develop as an individual.

1.2.2. Berlin

In order to provide the full context for Herrmann’s contribution, it is important to acknowledge the importance of Stieglitz’s relationship with Herrmann in combination with

Stieglitz’s experiences in Europe and the network of people there that he shared with

Herrmann. In this light, it appears obvious that Stieglitz’s fortuitous decision to move to

86 Davidson-Lowe, 63.

87 Davidson-Lowe, 66–67.

88 Förster Katja, “Ludwig-Erhard-Schule (previously Handelslehranstalt II),” Karlsruhe.de, 2015, http://stadtlexikon.karlsruhe.de/index.php/De:Lexikon:ins-1447. The school building, completed in 1876 by the architect Heinrich Lang (1824–1893), still exists and now houses the Ludwig-Erhard-Gymnasium.

Berlin would unlock a chain of events and introduce numerous secondary players into the picture who would enhance the ultimate impact of Herrmann on Stieglitz. As described below, it was in Berlin where Stieglitz discovered his serious interest in the technical aspects of photography through Vogel, the Encke Brothers, Louis Schubart and Joseph

Obermeyer. These encounters set the stage for Stieglitz’s discovery of artistic photography, a revelation that was shared with and enhanced greatly by Herrmann.

By the end of the 1881–82 school year, Stieglitz’s family and Bauer agreed that

Alfred was ready to take the next step in his academic career and attend university. Stieglitz could have gone to University of Zurich, but his father opted for Berlin.89 The reasons why

Edward Stieglitz found Berlin more appealing for his son’s continued cultural advancement have been described by Emily Bilski: “In the decades before World War I, Berlin had become a mecca for aspiring writers, poets, artists, actors, and philosophers from throughout Europe and beyond. Emerging as a metropolis in the nineteenth century and expanding at an unyielding pace, it was more akin to an American immigrant city, with a steady stream of ambitious foreigners—and an endless array of social and intellectual outsiders—flocking through its open gates. The burgeoning amalgam of populations lent the city a restless rhythm, an uninhibited vitality decidedly oriented to the present, and the future, rather than to the past.”90

89 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 67.

90 Emily Bilski, Berlin Metropolis: Jews and the New Culture 1890–1918 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 28.

Berlin’s population exploded in its first decades as the capital of the new German empire. Peter Adam Nash has given numbers like “865,000 inhabitants in 1871” (the year of the empire’s unification) and nearly two million by the end of the century.91 It could be compared “with one of America’s dynamic urban centers”92 and was consequently liberal toward American Jews. Hence Zurich, with its more Calvinistic culture, could not compare with the opportunities available to Alfred in Berlin from Edward Stieglitz’s perspective.

According to matriculation records, Stieglitz was registered at the Technische

Hochschule (also called the Polytechnikum) in Berlin during the winter term of 1882–83.

He was registered in Section III, which contained engine construction, engineering, naval architecture, and electro-technics.93 Later he changed his studies to chemistry, before ultimately turning his attention to photography courses lead by the acclaimed photochemist and photographer Hermann Wilhelm Vogel (fig. 2.3).94 Vogel advocated for the institutionalization of photography and co-founded the chair of photography position at the

Gewerbeakademie zu Berlin.95 Vogel’s research covered many areas of photography,

91 Peter Adam Nash, The Life and Times of Moses Jacob Ezekiel: American Sculptor, Arcadian Knight (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 2014), 36, 38.

92 Bilski, Berlin Metropolis, 28.

93 Dagmar Spies, Technische University Berlin, email to author, December 8, 2017.

94 Richard Whelan, Alfred Stieglitz: A Biography (New York: Little Brown & Co., 1995), 43.

95 Josef Maria Eder, “Dr. Hermann Wilhelm Vogel, Nachruf,” in Photographische Correspondenz, ed. Ludwig Schrank (Vienna/Leipzig, 1899), 36:69, https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_jOkWAAAAYAAJ#page/n93/mode/2up.

which must have been known to Stieglitz through the available English translations.96 His numerous essays led to the founding of the journal Photographische Mitteilungen in 1864 and the publication of textbooks such as Lehrbuch der Photographie.97 In 1864, Vogel founded the Verein zur Förderung der Photographie in Berlin, which “had a positive influence on photographic life not only in Berlin and Germany.”98 By February 1885,

Stieglitz was a member of Vogel’s club. In 1887, Stieglitz became a member of another club founded by Vogel—Verein Deutsche Gesellschaft von Freunden der Photographie

(German Society of Friends of Photography).99

Exactly when Stieglitz began to take photographs is not determinable with precision due to a number of conflicting statements made, not only by colleagues and researchers, but also by Stieglitz himself. Richard Whelan summarized the historical record of written statements on this topic in his book. First, he quoted Stieglitz’s friend Theodore Dreiser, who wrote in 1899 that “it was Berlin that Mr. Stieglitz first studied photography. There, in 1885, he was studying mechanical engineering at the Polytechnic School.”100 Whelan then quoted statements by Stieglitz himself: “The date of Stieglitz’s first course with Vogel

96 Geraldine W. Kiefer, Alfred Stieglitz: Scientist, Photographer, and Avatar of Modernism, 1880–1913 (New York: CRC Press Inc., 1991), 84. In 1873 Prof. Vogel managed to make photographic plates sensitive to green and yellow rays by adding silver bromide.

97 Eder, “Hermann Wilhelm Vogel,” 70.

98 Eder, 71. For original quote, see Appendix.

99 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 82.

100 Theodore Dreiser, “A Master of Photography,” Success, June 10, 1899, 471, quoted in Whelan, 73.

got successively earlier as he told his story over the years. In his “Who’s Who” entry in the

1910s, he stated that he studied ‘photo-chemistry and photography’ at the Berlin

Polytechnic from 1884 to 1888.101 And in 1938 he wrote, ‘My career in photography might be said to date from 1883 when I took up photography as a course in the Berlin Polytechnic with Professor Vogel.’”102

Based on the available records, it can be concluded that Stieglitz began taking photographs in Germany in the early 1880s. He even admitted in a 1944 interview that photography “fascinated me, first as a toy, then as a passion, then as an obsession”103 and most likely owned and experimented with a camera before he studied photography professionally under Vogel from 1883 onward. A letter from Hedwig Stieglitz, dated May

17, 1882, indicates that Stieglitz already took photographs and sent them to family members who admired his work.104

The earliest known evidence we have today are thirty-one photographs from 1886 that are included in Sarah Greenough’s Key Set. Most of the photographs were taken in

101 Alfred Stieglitz, “Pictorial Photographers,” Practical Photographer 10 (1899): 117. He said himself that he “became practically interested in the year 1884, receiving his first lessons in the process of the day, collodion, from the late Professor Vogel” and realized “its possibilities as an art in 1886.”

102 Alfred Stieglitz, “Pictorial Photographers,” Practical Photographer 10 (1899): 117, quoted in Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 73. Stieglitz said himself that he “became practically interested in the year 1884, receiving his first lessons in the process of the day, collodion, from the late Professor Vogel” and realized “its possibilities as an art in 1886.”

103 Craven, “Stieglitz—Old Master of the Camera,” 14.

104 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 72.

Germany during his travels, including The Harvest, Mittenwald, which is inscribed as “one of my earliest attempts at picture-making”105 (fig. 2.4).

During Stieglitz’s period of discovery, Vogel, as his mentor, exerted a particularly strong influence on him with regard to the science of photography. Stieglitz said about

Vogel, “I looked upon that man as a perfect god”106 and called him “the father of scientific photography.”107 Stieglitz also claimed that he began fighting for photography in Berlin in

1883.108 This would not have happened without the influence and training of Vogel.

Stieglitz would later comment on his early attraction to photography: “I had found something that released my best energies and decided the whole course of my life.”109

Some scholars, like Weston Naef, have argued that “what Vogel taught, however, did not have direct influence on Stieglitz as an artist or as a collector.”110 The extent to which

Vogel supported Stieglitz’s artistic ambitions cannot be demonstrated in an exemplary manner, but it was only through his guidance and references that Stieglitz was exposed to

105 Inscription on Alfred Stieglitz, The Harvest, Mittenwald, 1886, platinum print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.24, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object- page.205705.html#inscription.

106 Stieglitz quoted in Unsigned [Agnes Ernst], “The New School of the Camera,” New York Morning Sun, April 26, 1908, quoted in Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 72.

107 Alfred Stieglitz, TAY, no. 1 (1938): 93, quoted in Whelan, 75.

108 Alfred Stieglitz, “From the Origin of the Photo-Secession and How It Became 291 (II),” Twice a Year 8–9 (1942), quoted in Sarah Greenough and Richard Whelan, eds., Stieglitz on Photography: His Selected Essays and Notes (New York: Aperture, 2000), 117.

109 Stieglitz quoted in Craven, “Stieglitz—Old Master of the Camera,” 14.

110 Naef, Collection of Alfred Stieglitz, 13.

the photographic environment of the time. Without question, Vogel was an important early influence on Stieglitz and contributed to his technical understanding of photography.

In Berlin, Stieglitz continued to benefit from his father’s international network.

Edward Stieglitz’s protégé and painter friend Fedor Encke (1851–1926) lived in Berlin and provided Alfred a support system. Alfred knew Encke from his childhood as a result of

Fedor spending long periods with the Stieglitz family in New York. Stieglitz lived with

Fedor’s brother Erdmann Encke (1843–1896), a well-known artist and sculptor, in his apartment in the center of Berlin.111 The relationship between the Encke brothers and the

Stieglitz family is explained in detail in Chapter 3. Here it is important to discuss briefly how Erdmann Encke contributed to Stieglitz’s early interest and progression in artistic photography.

Erdmann Encke was twenty-one years older than Stieglitz and filled the role of a mentor to Alfred. Encke had devoted his life to the arts as a professional sculptor and also had a photography studio. Although Sue Davidson-Lowe alleged that Encke had little time for Stieglitz,112 Encke took a large number of portraits of him in his studio at 125

Potsdamerstrasse. Among the photographs, held at the Beinecke Library, are classical portraits (some of which Stieglitz gave away to his friends),113 and portraits that show

111 Adreßbuch für Berlin mit Einschluß der näheren Umgegend und Charlottenburg (Berlin, 1882), 200, https://digital.zlb.de/viewer/image/10089470_1882/296/.

112 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 72.

113 Cabinet card portrait by Encke, Berlin, ca. 1884, YCAL MSS 85, Series IV, Box 133, Folder 2535. Verso side of one portrait inscribed by Stieglitz “To his dear friend Joe the ‘original’ Al Berlin, Oct 16/84” and “To my dear beloved Papa from his affect[ed] son Alfred Berlin, Oct 16/84.”

Stieglitz dressed in costumes (for example, as an Arab man), perhaps suggesting the experimental character of their photo sessions.

The artistic intentions of the photo sessions between Encke and Stieglitz are not known. A painted portrait by Fedor Encke of an Arab man suggests that the photographs were used as preliminary studies and that Stieglitz may have sat as a model. Stieglitz in turn photographed a collage of his collected portraits by Erdmann Encke, including the ones as an Arab man.114 Erdmann Encke also made sure that Stieglitz visited museums in the area “to study what Alfred called dead art.”115 Rather, Stieglitz was inspired by the work of Encke himself, which he captured in early photographs of Erdmann Encke’s sculptures in Berlin’s Tiergarten.

An example of Stieglitz’s early appetite for exchange and collaboration was experienced in Berlin. While Stieglitz lived with Erdmann Encke, Joseph Obermeyer and

Louis Schubart lived nearby. Starting in 1885, Stieglitz and Obermeyer roomed together in a residential community, which Schubart joined in 1886 and Julius Stieglitz in 1887.116

All four of them attended chemistry courses at the Royal Friedrich-Wilhelm University.

114 Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 58.

115 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 72.

116 Sabrina Rübisch, University Archive of the HU-Berlin, email to author, February 27, 2018. While Stieglitz lived with Encke on Von-der-Heydt-Straße in 1883, Obermeyer lived at Kanonierstraße 31, according to the certificate of enrollment of the Royal Friedrich-Wilhelm University, and it was not until 1885 that he moved to Behrenstraße 1, where Stieglitz also lived, as shown in a photograph of his room taken in February 1885. At that time, Schubart lived at Kanonierstraße 9. Finally, during 1886 all three lived at Leipzigerstraße 136 and during 1887, together with Julius Stieglitz at Kronenstraße 54. Stieglitz lived at this address until his return to New York in 1890, while his friends and brother moved to another address, Kaiser-Wilhelm-Straße 44, in 1888.

Julius Stieglitz, Joseph Obermeyer, and Louis Schubart completed their studies with a doctorate, while Alfred left the university without a final degree.117 Clearly, Stieglitz viewed photography as a potential career choice and more important than achieving a degree associated with a traditional career path. His lack of degree may have motivated him to succeed in his chosen field as he quickly tried to establish himself in the community as a professional by participating in competitions and writing articles.

In addition to their leisure time together, filled with visits to the theater and museums, Stieglitz inspired his friends to experiment with photography.118 It can be assumed that at least Obermeyer had also taken classes with Vogel, since he participated in a competition held in 1889 by the Deutsche Gesellschaft von Freunden der

Photographie—the club Vogel had founded.119 While no known photographs by Schubart exist, several photographs by Obermeyer were published in contemporary magazines.120

For example, in 1893 a writer in The American Amateur Photographer commented that his photograph Anticipation “was made . . . at a place near Venice, Italy, and we are informed

117 Sabrina Rübisch, University Archive of the HU-Berlin, email to author, January 16, 2018. Stieglitz left the university on November 4, 1886, with a certificate of departure (which is not equivalent to a final degree) that gives no information on attendance of specific courses. A notice of study extension until September 1887 may indicate a second try, but again without a final degree.

118 Seen in the photographs taken by Obermeyer, Herrmann, and Hasemann.

119 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 97.

120 Whelan, 97n4; Joseph Obermeyer, Anticipation, The American Amateur Photographer (October 1893): opposite 468; Joseph Obermeyer, Delight in Disorder, The American Amateur Photographer 6, no. 1 (January 1894): 5, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024235858&view=1up&seq=19.

has been successful in winning several prizes at photographic exhibitions in foreign societies. The gracefulness of the pose and the lighting we are sure will be appreciated by those interested in artistic work”121 (fig. 2.5). One year later, in 1894, he published another two photographs, A Hot Day (fig. 2.6) and Delight in Disorder (fig. 2.7), which were most likely taken during journeys together with Stieglitz. In the January 1894 issue of The

American Amateur Photographer, Stieglitz commented about Obermeyer’s Delight in

Disorder that “it is probably the most interesting piece of work done by him.”122

The relationship between Stieglitz, Obermeyer and Schubart is documented in an early photograph by the Berlin studio Loescher & Petsch (fig. 2.8) in which the three boys intensely view photographs. Stieglitz is shown sitting with the photographs in his hand, while Obermeyer and Schubart are standing. All three look critically at the photographs, but it seems as if Obermeyer and Schubart are waiting for Stieglitz, who was considered the master of photography among the three, to react. Later, in 1893, Stieglitz married

Obermeyer’s sister Emmeline, while Obermeyer himself never married.123 Schubart married Stieglitz’s younger sister Selma.124

121 Joseph Obermeyer, A Hot Day, The American Amateur Photographer 5, no. 10 (October 1893): 478, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015020054527&view=1up&seq=7.

122 Alfred Stieglitz, “Editorial Comment,” The American Amateur Photographer 6, no. 1 (January 1894): 25, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024235858&view=1up&seq=39.

123 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 100, 249.

124 Davidson-Lowe, 455.

When all three men moved back to New York from Berlin in 1890, they worked and invested in a company of which they later became the owners.125

While Stieglitz was clearly a social person and able to make new acquaintances, his friendship with Herrmann was different. When Herrmann came to Germany in 1883,

Stieglitz introduced him to Schubart and Obermeyer and they all became friends. Herrmann was interested in art as well as he wanted to become a painter. Additionally, he used the photography skills that he likely learned from Stieglitz in the development of his own art.

While Obermeyer and Schubart, with their technical degrees, later pursued the technical approach to photography by running a printing business, Herrmann was always interested in photography from an artistic point of view. Stieglitz, who pursued both approaches to photography, technical and artistic, gained greater artistic inspiration from his continued collaboration with Herrmann.

1.2.3. Munich

Although Stieglitz made two new friends in Obermeyer and Schubart, they could not replace his boyhood friend Frank Herrmann. Stieglitz and Herrmann remained in frequent correspondence until Herrmann decided to move to Germany in 1883.126 At that time, Stieglitz had completed his education in Karlsruhe and was living in Berlin. While he was still undecided about his professional career, seventeen-year-old Herrmann knew

125 Davidson-Lowe, 93.

126 Peter Hastings Falk, Frank S. Herrmann: A Separate Reality (White Plains, NY: Museum Gallery of the White Plains Public Library, 1988), 8.

exactly what he wanted to do. Instead of continuing in the enterprises of his father, he was focused on becoming a painter.127 Herrmann announced his decision to his father after he won a prize in a drawing competition at the City College of New York.128 Years later,

Stieglitz came to a similar career decision when he left his engineering studies to follow his passion for photography.

Interestingly, when Herrmann came to Germany in 1883, he did not follow Stieglitz to Berlin. In a letter dated October 8, 1882, he informed Stieglitz of his arrival and his initial decision to live with his aunt and uncle in Munich. A letter predicted a meeting shortly after Herrmann’s arrival, and it is probable that the two visited each other regularly.129

For the first time after Herrmann’s arrival in December 1883, the resident’s registry of Munich recorded Herrmann as a tenant at Maximiliansplatz.130 One advantage of living in Munich was that Herrmann could learn from his talented uncle Louis Neustätter (1829–

127 Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 15.

128 Ralph Flint, Frank Herrmann—American Painter, pamphlet accompanying exhibition Frank S. Herrmann, Paintings in Gouache 1866–1942 (Los Angeles: Stendahl Art Galleries, 1944), 2.

129 Frank Simon Herrmann to Alfred Stieglitz, October 18, 1883, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 24, Folder 568.

130 Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 21. Under King Maximilian, the architectural style of Munich changed fundamentally. Many of the city’s most magnificent buildings were built in the Maximilian style, which was influenced by the historicizing neo-Gothic style. This included the Maximilianstraße under the direction of the architect Friedrich Bürklein.

1899), a famous genre and portrait painter.131 Besides having the advantage of his painter uncle, Munich’s popularity as a location for American artists to study made it the perfect place for Herrmann to live.

The Munich Academy holds three volumes of matriculation records from the second half of the nineteenth century that show that the institution had enrolled over four hundred American students.132 Hollis Clayson has noted that “whether residing abroad as a student for a time or as an expatriate, United States painters uprooted themselves to travel to a European art center for two primary reasons: 1.) to gain a superlative art skill set unavailable at home in a world headquarters of contemporary art and prestigious art instruction; and 2.) to acquire cultural distinction . . . in a comparatively stylish and international setting. After all, American socio-cultural formation was understood as unfinished and rough by definition, and could only be completed by hewing to a European model of sophistication and cosmopolitanism.”133 European-trained artists and professors returning to the United States in the 1870s played an important role in providing legitimacy

131 He is mistakenly often referred to as Louis Neustatter. In the register books of the University of Munich, he can be found under the name Ludwig Neustätter (see https://matrikel.adbk.de//matrikel/mb_1841-1884/jahr_1847/matrikel-00476). In contemporary newspaper articles, he is also referred to as Ludwig Neustädter (see https://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/Vta2/bsb10614971/bsb:4099178?page=8). According to Homer, introduction to Frank S. Herrmann, 8, Louis Neustätter was the brother of Frank’s mother, Pauline Neustätter (1836–1906).

132 Christian Fuhrmeister and Veerle Thielemans, introduction to American Artists in Munich: Artistic Migration and Cultural Exchange Processes, ed. Christian Fuhrmeister, Hubertus Kohle, and Veerle Thielemans (Munich: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2009), 7.

133 Hollis Clayson, “Voluntary Exile and Cosmopolitanism in the Transatlantic Art Community, 1870–1914,” in Fuhrmeister, Kohle, and Thielemans, 16.

to the American art world.134 In their American homeland, they were especially recognized by critics and art audiences. Munich would soon become very attractive place for Stieglitz to experiment with both Herrmann and photography.

2. Experimentation

A scientific experiment is a methodically designed investigation for the empirical acquisition of information. Stieglitz received his technical training from Vogel, who taught him the technical procedures necessary to execute effective photography. More informally but equally important, Stieglitz received much of his early training in artistic expression under the influence of Frank S. Herrmann. It is the combination of his interactions with

Vogel and Herrmann that quickly catapulted Stieglitz from a novice photographer into an artistic photographer.

2.1. Application

In his transition to an artistic photographer, Stieglitz needed to first master basic photography techniques and apply and implement tasks and theories he learned from

Vogel. The following three photographs taken by Stieglitz as early as 1886 exemplify his early involvement with and implementation of academic teaching.

134 Susanne Böller, “American Artists at the Academy of Fine Arts in Munich 1850– 1920,” in Fuhrmeister, Kohle, and Thielemans, 54.

Relief of Queen Louise (1886)

One of the first tasks in Vogel’s seminars was to take a photograph of a reproductive bust of the Apollo Belvedere. This sculpture was partly draped with dark velvet so that the extreme contrast between the white marble and the textile was a challenge within the exposure process. Stieglitz probably practiced not only on the Apollo Belvedere bust but also on the Luisendenkmal, a white, life-size marble sculpture of Queen Louise that stood in the Tiergarten in Berlin. It was created in 1880 by Erdmann Encke, who showed the queen in contemporary attire. For Encke, it was an important commission at that time that brought him fame from his fellow citizens.135

Stieglitz’s photograph shows only a portion of the sculpture, which makes up the light part of the composition, while the background of leaves makes up the dark part (fig.

2.9). Instead of depicting the beautiful woman standing on top, he zoomed in on the pedestal. The circumferential relief addresses the topics of the departing and returning of warriors as well as female care for the wounded. The photograph focuses on a sitting woman holding two little boys on her lap and looking up to her husband, who is embracing a third child. It is not clear if it is a situation of homecoming or farewell. The male is represented as a warrior with helmet and sword. The garments of the people together with the landscape, adumbrated in the background by trees and plants, distinctly refer to classical antiquity, which is also reflected by the egg-and-dart and acanthus leaf ornaments of the pedestal. Stieglitz could have photographed many sculptures in Berlin, but he chose

135 Helmut Caspar, “Restauriertes Luisendenkmal zuruckgekehrt,” Berliner Woche, July 8, 2013, http://www.berliner-woche.de/tiergarten/sonstiges/restauriertes-luisendenkmal- zurueckgekehrt-d31244.html.

that of his friend Erdmann Encke. The war-themed image of the relief, which he concentrated on in his photograph, reflects his own struggle with the technical possibilities of photography, which he mastered with this image.

From a Lenbach Sketch (1886)

Another photograph Stieglitz took in 1886 shows a sketch made by the Munich artist Franz von Lenbach (1836–1904), including his signature on the lower right (fig.

2.10). While in Germany, Stieglitz received commissions to photograph the paintings and drawings of other artists.136 The photograph captures an unfinished profile portrait of an unknown young lady with soft features glancing downward. The drawing of her upswept hairstyle is partially finished at the hairline, trailing off upward in swinging charcoal streaks.

It is widely accepted that Herrmann was active in introducing Stieglitz to the local painters’ circles in Munich. Sarah Greenough wrote that Herrmann “introduced him to the popular artists Franz von Defregger, Eduard Grützner, Franz von Lenbach and Ludwig

Passini.”137 From this statement, it is not clear if Herrmann introduced Stieglitz just to their art or if Stieglitz was in actual contact with these artists. Stieglitz’s collection of autographs and letters would appear to show that he had met the individuals. He owned a letter by the

136 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 17.

137 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, xv. The Mack Collection, which Greenough mentioned, includes ten Stieglitz photographs of works of art, including examples by the painters named in this text and several examples that cannot be identified. (The painters are Fedor Encke, Wilhelm Hasemann, Friedrich von Kaulbach, Pierre Cot, and Tito Conti).

Austrian artist Ludwig Passini (1832–1903), a note by the German genre painter Eduard von Grützner, and a letter by the Austrian painter Franz von Defregger that are held at the

Beinecke Library. It is important to note that these notes and letters were not personally addressed to Stieglitz but to other people. Without any proof of a direct exchange between these artists and Stieglitz, it can only be proven that Herrmann made Stieglitz acquainted with their art. Herrmann’s introduction of these artists’ works would have a profound impact on Stieglitz and the way in which he approached photography as art.

However, it is possible that Stieglitz knew some or all of these artists, as seen in the contradictions to the above point reported by Nancy Newhall: “[W]hen Stieglitz heard that the German painter Franz von Lenbach had admired the artistry of some photographs he had exhibited in Munich, he denied having any knowledge of the laws of composition.

Apparently, the young photographer felt that he had little to learn from the official art world and generally held contemporary German painting in low esteem.”138 This is corroborated by a personal statement from Stieglitz quoted by Newhall: “Artists in Germany, in Berlin and Munich, saw prints of mine and offered to give me paintings and etchings in exchange for prints. I didn’t want etching or paintings. I gave the prints away.”139 According to an unpublished manuscript by Newhall, Stieglitz later admitted that the Munich school strongly influenced his approach to his own work but did not go into more detail.140

138 Nancy Newhall, “Alfred Stieglitz: The Formative Years,” in Homer, Stieglitz: American Avant-Garde, 15.

139 Newhall, 15. Newhall takes this statement from Norman, “Writings and Conversations,” 95.

140 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, xv.

When photographing the art works of other artists, it actually helped Stieglitz to further develop his own artistic ideas. Therefore, the Lenbach sketch (which was more a technical and documentary exercise than an artistic photograph) marks another step in

Stieglitz’s early artistic career that allowed him to extend his experimentation, which ultimately lead him to continue to morph into an artistic photographer.

The Card Players / Throwing Dice (1887)

One year later, in 1887, Stieglitz produced a series of photographs while visiting

Herrmann in Munich, two versions of which are still extant. They show Stieglitz’s transition from photographing other artists’ work to producing his own artwork based on already established motifs from art history. Both versions show the gamblers motif, which

Stieglitz staged in collaboration with Herrmann and their mutual friend Louis Krummel.

The Card Players (fig. 2.11) is in portrait format and shows the corner of a room, which is decorated with two dark tapestries—one with a figurative subject, showing David with his sling (probably a representation of David and Goliath), the other apparently plain

(but looking more closely one can detect a slight pattern in the weave). Given the prevalent historicism and romanticism in art and design during the nineteenth century, one can assume that these tapestries were contemporary replicas. A bright carpet covers the floor in the lower third of the composition. The center of the photograph is commanded by the scene of the three men playing cards. They sit around a wooden table on elaborately carved chairs, while accessories, like a drum on the right side, complete the decor of the room.

The men’s costumes seem to imitate garments from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries;

tight leggings and peaked shoes were typical attire of the upper classes at that time. The garments are presented in different styles. The person on the right (Herrmann) wears striped trousers or gaiters, whereas those of the person on the left (Stieglitz) are of rather plain fabric, with just a little embroidery trimming the sides. Their upper garments look like leather jackets with pleats in front and behind, apparently meant to represent historical doublets but lacking the typical padding and colorful patterns. At his hip, the person on the right carries a pouch and a traditional German scabbard with a set of hunting knives, the so-called Waidbesteck. Even in details such as hairstyle and headdress, Stieglitz and his friends sought to adapt themselves to their historical costumes.

There is also a variation of The Card Players called Throwing Dice (fig. 2.12), which Stieglitz and Herrmann probably took the same day. In Throwing Dice, Stieglitz has changed only a few components, but with great effect on the picture’s composition. This time he chose a landscape format and rearranged the postures of the three men. All legs are bent and a straight line is formed by Stieglitz’s arm. The drum, which was just an accessory in the former picture, is now standing upright and held by Stieglitz’s outstretched arm. The resulting diagonal continues upward, culminating in the third person (Louis Krummel), from where it descends to the head of Herrmann, thus making a triangle.

The Card Players and Throwing Dice are distinct examples of how Stieglitz experimented in his early photographic work through variations in the position of accessories or the postures of figures as well as composition and format. To ascertain where this experimental influence might have come from, one could reference the handbook of his teacher Hermann Wilhelm Vogel. In it, Vogel published a drawing called Musikalische

Unterhaltung nach Terburg (Musical Entertainment to Terburg) (fig. 2.13). Likewise, it shows a group of three, not at a game of cards but at a musical session. A woman playing a mandolin-like instrument and two men, one leaning on a table, the other standing upright, form a harmonious group in an interior setting. Explaining the image in a chapter about composition as an artistic medium, Vogel wrote that:

The less the artist needs such things (aids), the better he is at it. . . . It shows the symmetrical arrangement with all freedom of movement, without the use of draperies and props. But there is one thing to keep in mind with all arrangements: they must be informal. As soon as one notices that the artist has laboriously plucked clothes and folds, draperies and furniture together to do justice to the balance of the lines, as soon as the limbs and fabrics have been squeezed by force into a position that they could never have assumed by nature, the arrangement appears only artificial, not artistic.141

In comparing Vogel’s words to Stieglitz’s photographs, it becomes evident that Stieglitz followed these rules exactly, rearranging only a very few accessories like the tapestries and the drum. In his following statements, Vogel discussed the effects of different structures in image composition. In numerous artworks, he wrote, pyramidal forms were to be found for a special reason—they would provide a feeling of standing on solid ground to the observer, thus being of great importance in the composition of group images.142 In Stieglitz’s experiments with rectangular (The Card Players) and pyramidal (Throwing Dice) compositions, he appears to be trying out the practical applications of Vogel’s theoretical rules. While the question of a direct or indirect influence is difficult to determine, it appears

141 Hermann W. Vogel, Lehrbuch der Photographie (Berlin, 1870), 423, https://books.google.de/books?id=rjYaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f=false. For original quote, see Appendix.

142 Vogel, Lehrbuch der Photographie, 423–24.

likely that Prof. Vogel had a great impact on Stieglitz. Herrmann, however, was more responsible for the realization than for the instructions. He helped Stieglitz set up the arrangement and then served as a staffage figure.

From the composition of his photographs, it seems highly probable that Stieglitz was influenced by the remarks in Prof. Vogel’s handbook because he used the same basic forms—oblong and pyramid—to determine the structure. These early photographic works of Stieglitz, aided by Herrmann, are rare specimens and are two of the very few of his photographs showing an arranged group and that include Herrmann and himself. The Card

Players and Throwing Dice not only document the continued collaboration of Stieglitz and

Herrmann but also serve as another example of the early progression of Stieglitz as an artistic photographer.

2.2. Exploration

From the previous three examples, it appears that Stieglitz began his first photography experiments by implementing academic principles he discovered through

Prof. Vogel. As he became more comfortable with the camera, he progressed beyond these basic academic principles and began to explore the breadth of his newfound photography skills in different environments. In this context, a journey in Europe with Herrmann in 1887 would yield some of Stieglitz’s most important early work.

From the titles of Stieglitz’s photographs A Good Joke and On the Bridge, it becomes clear that Stieglitz must have considered these kinds of motifs worthy of photographic depiction. It is important to recognize that similar motifs had previously been

explored by many other artists, especially painters of the nineteenth century. During this time, Stieglitz also focused his energy on portraiture, which is reflected in his numerous photographs, including Maria, Leone, and Marina. Stieglitz’s selection of titles for these portraits is particularly insightful as they emphasize his desire to portray the figures more distinctly as individuals by using their names. In collaboration with Herrmann, Stieglitz also produced a series of photographs in which the famous Sun Rays—Paula, Berlin from

1889 plays a role. Subsequent mutual reflection on and criticism of their works—both painterly and photographic—seems to have been a kind of collaborative exchange between

Stieglitz and Herrmann. They even photographed and published this exchange (The Critic), which makes it clear that the two men considered their artistic approach to be meaningful and presented it to the outside world as a role model for other artists.

Ongoing industrialization, with increasingly fast and comfortable transportation, made transatlantic exchange more and more possible. The circulation of artists between the

United States and Europe could not have occurred without the industries of travel and tourism. It is interesting to note, however, that Stieglitz and Herrmann, like most artists, did not want to be seen as tourists, but rather travelers. James Buzard explained the differences between the two at that time: “The tourist is the dupe of fashion, following blindly where authentic travelers have gone with open eyes and free spirits.”143

Furthermore, Stieglitz and Herrmann would have probably agreed with the statement that

“[tourism] is not self-directed but externally directed. You go not where you want to go

143 James Buzard, The Beaten Track: European Tourism, Literature, And the Ways to “Culture,” 1800-1918 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993), I, note 26, quoted in Clayson, “Voluntary Exile and Cosmopolitanism,” 19.

but where the industry has decreed you shall go. . . . Tourism requires that you see conventional things, and that you see them in a conventional way.”144

Stieglitz and Herrmann of course did go on their trips open-minded and with free spirits. They did choose where they wanted to go with the goal of producing their artwork.

However, it cannot be minimized that Stieglitz and Herrmann strategically selected their travel destinations in homage to the locations frequented by the famous participants in their chosen industry—art. Accordingly, they traveled to places like Venice, Barbizon, Paris, and Katwijk where the art scene flourished and their artist-ancestors and idols were influenced and inspired as well. Thus, although it is likely that they had their own individual artistic goals in mind, they were also seeking direction from the artistic conventions of their time. This is the broader impact of Europe on Stieglitz at his artistic inception and was arguably, significantly fortified by his relationship with his friend, the painter Herrmann.

In August of 1887, Stieglitz traveled to Italy, joined by his twin brothers Julius and

Leopold Stieglitz (1867–1956) and his friends Joseph Obermeyer, Frank S. Herrmann, and

Louis Krummel. They all met in Munich, where they took an arranged group photograph in a studio in front of a painted background (fig. 2.14). They were photographed in the tradition of hiking portraits, which many people took as souvenirs on their excursions in the emerging mass tourism of the nineteenth century.145 Equipped with hiking sticks, bags,

144 Paul Fussel quoted in Buzard, 3, quoted in Clayson, 19.

145 Timm Starl, “Wandern und Fotografie,” in Wanderland. Eine Reise durch die Geschichte des Wanderns, ed. Thomas Brehm, Frank Matthias Kammel, and Claudia Selheim (Nürnberg: Germanisches Nationalmuseum Nürnberg, 2018), 199.

umbrellas, and field glasses, Stieglitz and his friends are ready for their adventure south of the Alps.

2.1.1. Artistic Motifs

In analyzing the pictures preserved from this trip, it seems reasonable to assume that Stieglitz and his group headed first toward Pallanza at the Lago Maggiore, then turned eastward, passing Lake Como and the town of Bellagio, before proceeding on to Lake

Garda, and then finally traveling into the Veneto region to Venice and Chioggia at the

Adria. Thus, they traveled from one stretch of water to another until they reached the

Mediterranean Sea on the east coast of Italy. In all the locations they visited, they searched determinedly for artistic motifs that they could capture photographically and artistically.

The following three photographs show Stieglitz’s artistic ambitions and also reveal his orientation to models from paintings.

A Good Joke (1887)

One of the most noteworthy photographs Stieglitz took during this trip to Italy is A

Good Joke, also known as The Last Joke—Bellagio (fig. 2.15). It shows a group of twelve children accompanying a woman who is emptying a bucket of water into the river. Boys and girls of different ages are gathered around one young girl in a white dress. It indeed appears that the young girl has said something that makes the other kids and even the woman laugh. It also seems as if the “spontaneous” position of the group of people has

resulted from a coincidence, as Emerson noted when he appraised the photograph in

1887.146

In terms of composition, the harmony of this picture seems suspiciously perfect.

The majority of the children are clustered on the left side with two little girls in bright and dark garments on the right. Not all of the figures are facing the viewer as some are shown from the back or side with some of the girls discerned only partially.

Stieglitz kept the balance of the landscape format, producing additional tension by the uneven distribution of his subjects. Whereas the children on the left are dressed in markedly darker clothing, one girl on the right, placed only slightly off-center, is accentuated by her white gown. With the faces of the other children all turned to her, she attracts the observer’s attention.

This photograph turned out to be a great success for Stieglitz. Not only was he himself satisfied with the outcome of this staged scene but so were the reviewers of the photograph. It won first prize at the 1887 Photographic Holiday Work Competition organized by the British magazine The Amateur Photographer and judged by Peter Henry

Emerson.147 After that success, Stieglitz continued to exhibit and publish this work in 1888,

1889, and also in the 1890s. Later on, after a long period of focusing on other work, he

146 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, xvi.

147 Greenough, 18.

decided to show it again in 1921 in an exhibition in New York as My First-Prize Winner, a certain indication of how proud he was of the photograph.148

It is plausible that Stieglitz received the idea of arranging a group for a picture like

A Good Joke from a painting by Ludwig Passini. A Tasso Reader, painted by Passini in

1871, shows a group of people gathered around a man in the center (fig. 2.16). This man is sitting on a chair with his arms held up in the air, obviously emphasizing something in the story he is reading aloud to the group. Most of the surrounding men, dressed in very plain clothes, give him their full attention. Laughter does not appear to be the result; instead, the reaction seems more like astonishment, since one person in the back holds his hands in front of his mouth as if he cannot believe what he is hearing. A Tasso Reader was celebrated by contemporaries as Passini’s masterpiece and compared to the precision of a photograph as early as 1887 due to its realistic detail.149 The background contains a series of arches, which gives the image a stagelike impression; this also characterizes A Good Joke.

Stieglitz’s photograph is far from being a copy of Passini’s painting, but the general idea of such a group focused on a vocal utterance in the middle of an old city with southern architecture could certainly have been derived from it. Stieglitz was introduced to Passini and his art by Herrmann, which is confirmed by the possession of a letter from Passini in

Stieglitz’s collection.150

148 Greenough, 18.

149 Wilfrid Meynell, ed., The Modern School of Art, vol. 4 (London, 1886–1888), https://archive.org/details/modernschoolofar04meynuoft/page/188.

150 YCAL MSS 85, Series III, Box 120, Folder 2428.

On the Bridge (1887)

Passini is mentioned by Stieglitz specifically in an article he wrote for The Amateur

Photographer in June 1889 about his photograph of a bridge that he took in Chioggia (fig.

2.17).151 The portrait-format work shows a view of the Ponte Cucagna, a bridge with a semicircular vault stretching over a river.152 In the foreground on the right, there float two fishing boats, the one to the right carrying a mast with a white sail. In the background, a row of houses line the riverside. The attention of the spectator is caught by the bridge, where over twenty young men and boys have come together for a chat. While three of them on the left side of the bridge have realized that they are being photographed and look into

Stieglitz’s camera, the others are engaged in animated talk. Stieglitz described the situation as follows: “Passing out of these dark alleys, we came to the chief canal of the place, and as we approached a bridge to cross it, we noticed a crowd of people who seemed unusually excited. Imagine our surprise to see our Munich friend in the midst of the crowd, vociferously gesticulating. . . . He tried to . . . offer us an opportunity to photograph the bridge after the style of Passini. We had a good hearty laugh at him, but took the picture, the idea having been an excellent one.”153 With that information in mind, we can indeed identify Herrmann in the midst of the crowd. He is clearly taller than the rest of the group, and he stands in front with his white shirt and beard.

151 Alfred Stieglitz, “A Day in Chioggia,” The Amateur Photographer, no. 9 (June 1889): 7–9.

152 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 22.

153 Stieglitz, “Day in Chioggia,” 7–9, quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 15.

In his statement, Stieglitz reveals the influence of Passini’s work that inspired him to take the photograph as well as Herrmann’s role in encouraging him. In two artworks

Passini focused on similar bridges.154 One of them, a painting dated 1885 entitled Curiosity, shows the bridge much closer to the viewer than Stieglitz’s photograph.155 While Stieglitz took his photograph from an angle to the right, Passini portrayed his bridge from the left.

The opening under Passini’s bridge is shown only in part and the spectator cannot fully look through it as in Stieglitz’s photograph. On the bridge, citizens have gathered, bending deeply over the balustrade. An engraving after Passini’s painting was reproduced in The

Art Journal (London) of 1887, and Sarah Greenough has mentioned that it “had recently been exhibited in Berlin to great acclaim.”156 The reproduction in the journal or the exhibition that Stieglitz might have visited could have been the source of his reference in his article “A Day in Chioggia.”157

Stieglitz seems to have been aware that he belonged to an artistic tradition of visiting the same places and producing similar works, which he mentioned in his writings.

In his article “Cortina and Sterzing,” he wrote that “the pumps are surrounded by sketchers

154 See Ludwig Passini, Figures on a Venetian Canal, 1893, watercolor on paper laid down on card, Christie’s London, October 27, 2000, lot 100, https://www.christies.com/lotfinder/Lot/ludwig-johann-passini-austrian-1832-1903- figures-1894914-details.aspx.

155 See Ludwig Passini, Curiosity, 1885. Engraving after painting. https://www.mapandmaps.com/de/sold/581- venice-canals-italy-antique-print-ludwig- passini.html

156 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, xv–xvi.

157 Greenough, lii.

and painters, who find a gold mine in them for their sketch-books and canvases.”158 In addition, Stieglitz also lectured to two artists by saying that “the interiors would be a real

‘strike’ for painters like Defregger and Grutzner.”159

Stones of Venice, Chioggia (1887)

With Passini being identified in the last two cases as a direct source for Stieglitz’s photographic inspiration during his travel in Italy, the question arises: does this type of inspiration apply to more of Stieglitz’s works from the same journey? Indeed, similarities can be found, for instance, between a photograph of a flight of stone stairs from 1887 that he called Stones of Venice, Chioggia (fig. 2.18) and a scene that incorporates stone stairs

Passini painted in 1876 that he called A Busy Bridge in Venice.160 Whereas Passini placed his spectator’s position directly on the stairs, Stieglitz took his photograph from some distance. Obviously, Stieglitz intended to emphasize the beauty of the flight of stairs with its protruding increments as an architectural masterpiece. Passini focused less on the architectural structure and more on what is happening. On the left, a little boy is selling fruit at a stall while an elderly man places fish into a linen cloth for a female shopper. Other smartly dressed women are coming back from shopping while men are passing over the

158 Alfred Stieglitz, “Cortina and Sterzing,” in Sun Pictures from Many Lands (London, 1892), 60–61, quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 20.

159 Stieglitz, 60–61, quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 20.

160 See Ludwig Passini, A Busy Bridge in Venice, 1876. Watercolor on paper, 18 x 2 1/2 in. Private Collection. https://kunkelfineart.de/en/artwork/passini-ludwig-a- busy-bridge-in-venice/.

bridge and are looking down from it and smoking pipes. Whereas Passini’s work is a genre scene, Stieglitz’s highlights the architecture with a new look at its aesthetical qualities.

The work of Stieglitz does not exactly correspond in motif and composition with the work of Passini—if Stieglitz wanted that, he would have just photographed a Passini painting. What one can obviously see when comparing a Stieglitz photograph to a Passini painting is the intention of Stieglitz to capture the style of the famous painter with a camera instead of a brush. This shows an example of Stieglitz’ early experiment in pictorialism. In this regard, Herrmann must have been an invaluable resource for Stieglitz in his development of an understanding of how a painter captures a subject. In this and many other ways, Herrmann’s continual influence on Stieglitz played a crucial role in transforming Stieglitz’s work from photography focused on technique into photography as art.

2.2.2. Portraits

Stieglitz’s artistic experimentation is also reflected in the portraits he made during his trip in 1887. First, it must be made clear that all of the photographs are posed. It is also noticeable that he was concerned about the relationship between title and picture. Some of the portraits are titled with the names of the people photographed which shows that he chose a very direct path and perceived the portrayed figures as individuals. In other portraits, he chose a more indirect way, not using the subjects’ names as titles, but bestowing a title that indicates to the viewer their occupation or story.

Maria / Leone (1887)

Stieglitz told Nancy Newhal in 1942 that during just one morning he took photographs of Maria Billette and her brother Leone setting up their stall to sell fruit.161

The portraits of Maria (fig. 2.19) and Leone (fig. 2.20) focus only on the subjects he placed directly in the center of the images.

Stieglitz showed Maria in a full-length portrait within her workspace, the fruit stall.

She is depicted sitting, looking directly at the viewer with her hands in her lap. In a second photograph of Leone (fig. 2.21), Stieglitz showed him as a shoeshine boy sitting on a stool in front of a house entrance. In contrast, Stieglitz placed Leone in front of a plain wall. This isolation of Leone’s figure, outside the more narrative surroundings of the fruit stall, appears as an element of enhanced abstraction. Stieglitz framed the photograph so that the entire figure appears in the middle of the picture. It is obvious that Stieglitz placed Leone in front of this wall of all places because his artistic eye saw a connection between the wall

(background) and the figure (foreground). The two zones of the wall—upper light half and lower dark half—correspond to Leone’s light shirt and dark trousers. The horizontal line dividing the wall into the two zones is continued in the figure’s dark waistband.

Stieglitz’s inspiration for Leone may have come from the painter John Singer

Sargent (1856–1925), who had practiced this same technique of isolating a figure in front of a wall to explore the effects of light, mood, and posture in A Parisian Beggar Girl from

161 Newhall, From Adams to Stieglitz, 126.

1880.162 Sargent painted the picture during one of his trips between 1879 and 1880. He placed the young girl in an empty room, hinted at by the window in the upper left corner.

In Sargent’s painting, the room dissolves. Stieglitz played with the room in Leone by letting the background interact with the foreground. Sargent focused on the figure and experimented with light effects. Stieglitz also played with tonality and light but applied these effects to both the foreground and background. Not surprisingly, there is also a similar painting that was done in 1867 by Ludwig Passini, who placed his Girl with Basket of Flowers against an isolated wall.

Each of the pictures of Maria and Leone share the way they are titled. Stieglitz expressed their individual personalities and made them tangible to the viewer as real people. The design of his portraits, however, is different. Maria is portrayed in her working environment, as is Leone in the second photograph as a shoeshine boy. In the portrait of

Leone in front of the house wall, Stieglitz went a step further and isolated the figure from a narrative context by locating him in a space independent of time and place, experimenting alone with composition—without abandoning the subject as an individual.

162 See John Singer Sargent, A Parisian Beggar Girl, 1880. Oil on canvas, 25 3/8 x 17 3/16 in. Terra Foundation for American Art, Chicago, acc. no.: 1994.14. https://collection.terraamericanart.org/ view/objects/asitem/People$0040339/ 0?t:state:flow=d52cbd1d-fb08-4db9- 9f6c-32bda9e15527.

Marina / The Wanderer’s Return (1887)

Stieglitz was very detailed about his arrival in Chioggia in an article for The

Amateur Photographer, noting that “the first impression was not that we had struck paradise. We stood on the dock surrounded by our paraphernalia in a rather helpless condition, when a little chap, Leone by name, presented himself and offered to act as guide, which offer was gladly accepted. . . . We were soon aware that we had after all struck a rich field, and so our cameras were immediately unpacked and shouldered, our little guide and porter carrying the slides.”163 Stieglitz went on, “Chioggia is inhabited only by fishermen and their families, a picturesque but rough and unsociable set of people. The architecture of the city offers no great attraction—the only charm of the place lies in the characteristic appearance of its people.”164 It is notable that the “We” that Stieglitz is referring to in this quote was Stieglitz, Herrmann, his brothers and others.

With this statement, Stieglitz made it clear that the appeal of Chioggia for him was primarily its population. Two important photographs from this excursion are two portraits taken of the same person. In the first portrait, Stieglitz showed a close-up (bust portrait) of a young woman standing in front of a wall and looking directly at the viewer. A dark scarf is draped around her shoulders and her wavy hair is tied back. No surroundings are depicted and no pose is recognizable, so that the focus is only on the face of the woman. Stieglitz

163 Stieglitz, “Day in Chioggia,” 7–9, quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 12.

164 Stieglitz quoted in Greenough and Whelan, 12.

was obviously concerned here with the individual features of one of Chioggia’s inhabitants.

Her individuality is reflected in the title—her first name, Marina (fig. 2.22).

The second portrait, The Wanderer’s Return, shows Marina as a full-length figure

(fig. 2.23). She leans the right side of her body against a wall, setting her right foot on a step and raising her right arm to touch the front of the building. Her head, in profile, is inclined toward her arm, and she looks downward with lowered eyes. With her left arm she holds a dark scarf that covers her hair. Her long frock with brightly patterned apron reaches down to her ankles.

The title of this photograph refers back to a tale that Stieglitz mentioned in “A Day in Chioggia.” Stieglitz described his experience as follows: “It was now approaching the hour for our departure, so we started to return to our host and settle up accounts. As we approached the house, a very striking picture met our eyes. Upon inquiry, the landlord told us that the girl whose picture we had just taken was his youngest daughter, who had been enticed away from home, and had but shortly returned, filled with remorse, yet still carrying in her heart the picture of her lover, and dreaming over again the only romance of her life.”165

Whether the story corresponds to the truth or whether Stieglitz had only invented it—which would correspond to him—in order to make his photograph more appealing, cannot be known. But what can be established from his use of “we” in the story is that his friends must have been present and must have staged the scene of The Wanderer’s Return together with him. In other words, Stieglitz collaborated. Moreover, he obviously tried to

165 Stieglitz, “Day in Chioggia,” 9.

send a message to the viewer through composition and by giving the photograph a descriptive title. In the case of Marina in Chioggia, he experimented with how the goal of narrative photography could be achieved with the three factors of motif, composition, and title.

In regard to the correlation of title and content, it is interesting to note how Stieglitz showed in these photographs not just the landscape and architecture but also the people who were living therein and how he specified the motif in the title. In “A Day in Chioggia,” he mentioned that during his journey he met with an Englishman in Venice who advised him and Louis Schubart to visit the small town. Stieglitz commented that he “told him that we were tired of landscape and architecture, and that we were hunting around for genre pictures and studies from life.”166 Stieglitz’s friend Mabel Cooke advised him two years earlier, in 1885, to devote himself not only to landscapes and architecture but also to people, especially portraits and faces.167 Cooke thus put the individual in the foreground, which

Stieglitz tried to realize in his 1887 work with Maria, Leone, and Marina. It seems he took her advice to heart and intentionally looked for subjects that would show the inhabitants of

Italian villages and their particular daily lifestyle (other examples are Italian Mason,168

166 Stieglitz, 7.

167 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 84.

168 Alfred Stieglitz, Italian Mason, Bellagio, 1887, platinum print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.34, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205708.html.

Italian Children,169 and Studie aus Italien170). He then reflected in his titles this direct approach to the depicted protagonists.

Stieglitz also experimented with motif, composition, and title by including a narrative component, using the title of the picture as an additional dimension. For example, he could have called The Wanderer’s Return more simply Woman in Chioggia, or even his photograph A Good Joke more simply Children in Bellagio, corresponding to the actual content. But by adding a narrative element, he referred to a broader context in the depicted scene, enhancing the artificial pretension of the picture and building up some kind of suspense between title and content. This duality echoed the sentimental storytelling of genre paintings that were popular in European academic traditions. The interface between title and content is a means to intensify the interest of the spectator in the case of a competition or exhibition. Stieglitz was obviously aware of this effect and strove carefully for its realization, more proof of his all-encompassing goal for perfection in his work that he developed with the help of his friends. Later on, in the course of his further development, he abstained from composing narrative titles for his pictures. In these works, we find photographs named, for example, Equivalent 1, 2, and 3. From this numbering, one could assume an approach to serialization, but it is rather a pragmatic way to differentiate between pictures (Equivalent 1 does not resemble Equivalent 2). It should be pointed out that in the works of his earlier period portraits are individually named only in cases where

169 Alfred Stieglitz, Italian Children, 1887. Reproduction in: Photographic Times 23, August 18 1893, 451.

170 Alfred Stieglitz, Studie aus Italien 1887. Reproduction in: Wiener Photographische Blätter 3, June 1896, 123.

the people are depicted in a distinctly individual manner. When they appear in a broader context or otherwise in suitable surroundings, the title is phrased with an element of narration. These examples clearly show that Stieglitz looked at his early photographs as artwork and not as documentary evidence of a journey. Perhaps it can be said that

Herrmann’s influence as a painter is also reflected in the way Stieglitz titled his photographic works, more akin to a painter than a photographer.

2.2.3. Collaboration

The next two picture comparisons present further artistic collaboration between

Stieglitz and Herrmann, who not only experimented with the camera and the brush during their travels but also “at home” in Germany. Exchange in the form of mutual criticism of their work played an important role, as will be presented in the following discussion.

Sun Rays—Paula, Berlin (1889)

One of Stieglitz’s most prominent photographs during his early period in Berlin is

Sun Rays—Paula, Berlin from 1889 (fig. 2.24). In the literature to date, this work has been treated as a singular photograph, which in the following will be placed in the context of its creation. On the right-hand side of the photograph, a young woman in an interior sits at a table and writes a letter. On the left side of the photograph, her gaze is directed downward at the sheet and pencil with her body directed in a lateral perspective toward the open window. “Paula models in her Sundays best—a voluminous, multilayered dark dress trimmed with lace at the collar and cuffs. She wears a large, dark, extravagantly feathered

hat, and her hair is done up in a bun at the back.”171 Through the window, whose Venetian blinds are only slightly open, sunlight shines in and throws a play of narrow stripes of light and shadow over the interior of the room. The woman has been identified as Paula

Bauschmied, who also lived in Berlin (on Paulsstraße) at the time.172 A series of pictures hanging on the wall and framed at the table are prints of Stieglitz’s photographs.173

Coincidentally, some researchers have suggested that Bauschmied was not only his lover but also a prostitute to whom Stieglitz lost his virginity.174 Davidson-Lowe adds that, at the time, he fathered a child with whom he had no contact throughout his life but to whom he fulfilled his financial responsibilities.175 Regardless of her actual profession,

Paula Bauchschmied is depicted by Stieglitz as a bourgeois lady of his social class. It should be noted that the arrangement in the interior is reminiscent of the paintings of Dutch artist Johannes Vermeer (1632–1675).

This was not the first time Bauschmied was presented in a photograph to the public.

The previously unidentified woman in a portrait called A Study, published by Stieglitz in

171 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 97–98.

172 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 35.

173 On the table, there is one framed picture of Paula Bauchschmied.

174 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 78–79.

175 “After their parting in 1890, Alfred would send Paula Bauchschmied $150 out of his allowance every year ‘so that he could feel she was not on the streets.’ Sometimes he implied, or even stated, that he had had a son by her and that the money was to support this child.” Newhall, From Adams to Stieglitz, 124. Davidson-Lowe referred to the child, but even she did not identify him or her; in the recorded family tree Kitty is the only known child of Stieglitz.

an edition of The American Amateur Photographer in 1893, is also Bauschmied (fig. 2.25).

Richard Whelan believed that the woman in A Study was an actress or a model but could not identify her as Paula Bauschmied.176 Stieglitz portrayed her with long, wavy hair, a light, transparent nightgown, and an insinuating look. Most likely this picture was also taken during the photo series of 1889, but Stieglitz must not have wanted to name her, so he made the photograph an anonymous portrait. Most likely he did not want to present

Paula Bauchschmied in his 1893 publication because two months later, in February, he was engaged to Emmeline Obermeyer. The photograph Sun Rays—Paula, Berlin was first published under this title in 1940.177

A lantern slide held at the Beinecke Library can be seen in this context, which gives the viewer new insights (fig. 2.26). It shows a nude woman who could probably be the same figure as the model in A Study. She lies on a bed and crosses both arms behind her head. On the right side of the bed sits Herrmann with a beer mug in his right hand and a cigar in his left. He looks down at the woman who, perhaps, offers herself to him. While other scholars have so far assumed that Sun Rays—Paula, Berlin was taken by Stieglitz alone, it is more likely that Stieglitz staged these scenes—which are obviously posed— together with Herrmann. The purpose of these pictures is unknown, but due to Stieglitz’s

176 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 123.

177 Sarah Greenough, “NGA Online Editions: Alfred Stieglitz Key Set,” National Gallery of Art, accessed on February 2 2019, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object- page.35206.html. Stieglitz exhibited the photograph under the title Study in Light and Shade or Sun Rays. He published it under the same titles until 1940. In the magazine Popular Photography 6 (April 1940), he published it for the first time mentioning her name, Paula Bauchschmied.

intimate connection with Paula Bauchschmied, they likely were taken as private memorabilia and were part of an early experimental phase for both Stieglitz and Herrmann.

Incidentally, Herrmann would later go on and study the figure by painting nudes in

Munich.178

While his first experience in photographic eroticism occurred in collaboration with

Herrmann in 1887, years laters in 1907, Stieglitz once again engaged in provocative subject matter. On this famous project, Stieglitz collaborated with fellow photographer Clarence

Hudson White (1871–1925) to produce two series of photographs of female nudes.179 With

White, however, Stieglitz worked with professional models like Mabel Cramer180 and Miss

Thompson181. Stieglitz’s and White’s photographs clearly show their mutual interest in the artistic realization of the female form with the aim of publishing them—for example, in

Camera Work.

178 Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 17.

179 Anne McCauley, ed. Clarence H. White and His World: The Art & Craft of Photography, 1895–1925 (New Haven: Yale University, 2017), 210.

180 See Alfred Stieglitz, Clarence H. White, Torso, 1907. Platinum print, 9 7/16 x 7 7/16 in. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no.: 33.43.391. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/ collection/search/267805.

181 Alfred Stieglitz, Clarence H. White, Untitled (Miss Thompson), 1907. Platinum print, 14 1/4 x 11 1/4 in. Princeton Art Museum, Princeton, acc. no.: x1983-698. https://artmuseum.princeton.edu/collections/objects/50426.

The Critic (1894) / November Days (1887)

Stieglitz and Herrmann’s collaboration and artistic exchange involved not only undertaking joint expeditions and creating works of art together but also reflection and discussion about what they created or were in the process of creating. A photograph by their mutual friend and fellow photographer William B. Post (1857–1921) from 1894 that was staged in Herrmann’s studio in Paris is a prime example of this type of collaborative exchange. At that time, Post was, like Stieglitz, a member of the Camera Club of New

York. From this meeting there exist two pictures, one of which was published as The Critic one year later on May 7, 1895, in The American Amateur Photographer (fig. 2.27). In this photograph, Post captured Stieglitz sitting down on a chair and looking at a painting that

Herrmann has created. Herrmann is standing behind Stieglitz with a cigarette in his right hand and a color palette with brushes in his left. His view is also directed toward the painting but, unlike Stieglitz, who is shown just from behind, Herrmann is in profile.

The other picture shows the same situation but is staged in a different way (fig.

2.28). Here, Post chose a portrait instead of a landscape format. In this photo, Herrmann is sitting down in the chair. He does not lean forward, as Stieglitz did to get a closer look. He instead leans backward as if to let the overall impression of the painting sink in. Herrmann is still holding his palette and brushes in his left hand and his right leg casually crosses over his left. Now Stieglitz is standing on the left behind Herrmann, touching the backrest of the chair with his right hand and bending slightly forward to take a closer look at the painting. From these two photographs, it is evident that both men, Stieglitz and Herrmann,

worked together, shared their ideas, and criticized each other’s work as indicated by Post’s picture title.

The painting in front of both men that is to be criticized is apparently a still unfinished work by Herrmann. The similarity of this painting to Stieglitz’s November Days from just a few years earlier is evident (fig. 2.29). According to its title, Stieglitz’s photograph captures a landscape outside the city of Munich on a November day.182 The photographer has taken his position in the middle of a broad road. On the left and right an alley of large, dark trees recedes into the deep background. The trees have already shed their leaves, so the bare branches are looming upward to the heavens like many long arms and fingers. Fields appear to the left and right of the alley. Stieglitz has focused on a coach in front of him, which is driving into the background away from the spectator. The wheels of the coach cut deep furrows into the gravel road, leaving vertical stripes in the lower third of the image. In general, the picture contains a very balanced composition with an emphasis on the vertical. To the right and left of the central vertical axis extend depth contours, which center in a point, the carriage. To avoid an overly symmetrical impression, Stieglitz has placed the coach slightly off-center in the lower third of the image. Starting from the coach, diagonal lines spread over the crowns of the trees upward to the left and right edges and also over the roadside toward the lower corners of the image. This cross-like pattern gives a sense of dynamism and liveliness to the otherwise rather plain landscape. Bright and dark areas are distributed evenly over the left and right as well as the upper and lower half of

182 The American Amateur Photographer 3, no. 12 (December 1891): 469, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015063770468;view=1up;seq=525.

the image, supporting the composition and contributing to a pleasant overall impression for the spectator.

The painted version of November Days by Herrmann, seen in The Critic, shows a perspectively narrowing road in the center of a horizontally oriented canvas. At this stage of the work in progress, there is not yet a complete alley of trees to the left and right of the roadside; only a row of trees bordering the left side extends into the background. The right side seems yet to be finished. Similarly to those in Stieglitz’s photograph, the trees are depicted with leafless branches stretching to the sky, and to the left of them empty fields are depicted. On the right side of the painting, fields are indicated by colored furrows without recognizable details. The whole upper-right part of the image is yet untreated.

Based on the motific and compositional similarities of both works, it seems plausible that they refer to each other. Stieglitz clearly takes on the role of a critic in Post’s photograph, while Herrmann has the advantage as a painter to create an image at his own discretion and to be free to make changes whenever and however he wished. Since painters at that time often used photographs as preparatory works for practical reasons, it may well have been the case that he did not use his own photograph but that of Stieglitz. November

Days could also have been created as a joint work of Stieglitz and Herrmann after seeing a

Munich landscape.

Quite apart from the creation of the two works of art (November Days as a photograph by Stieglitz and as a painting by Herrmann), the meaning and purpose of Post’s photograph needs to be further investigated as it contains multiple significances. First, it is visual proof of the collaboration between Stieglitz and Herrmann and its publication made

this connection publicly known. Second, both the motif and the title make it clear that

Stieglitz and Herrmann believed that collaboration between artists is an essential part of the process of artistic creativity.

Stieglitz takes on the role of the critic, a role he already played in the photograph of 1887 with Joseph Obermeyer and Louis Schubart (fig. 2.8). In this earlier photograph, too, Stieglitz is the one who holds the works of art in his hand, examining them, while the other two stand next to him, looking at the works and waiting for his reaction. Another even earlier photograph, from 1883, shows Alfred Stieglitz’s father, Edward Stieglitz, with his three sons in a similar pose (fig. 2.30). While Edward Stieglitz sits in the middle with an opened art or photo book, his sons surround him. Stieglitz seemed to imitate his father in the 1887 and 1894 photographs. In Post’s composition, Stieglitz shows the public that he sees himself confidently in his role as a critic of artworks. A quote from The American

Amateur Photographer emphasizes this position in the photographic community: “Mr.

Stieglitz’s valuable experience in this line of picture judging, we think, will give value to the criticism, and will be appreciated by the contributors.”183

Taking this interpretation one step further, it can be argued that in Post’s photograph Stieglitz, as an assessor of a painting, puts himself as a photographer—whose goal it was to establish photography as a medium of fine art—on equal footing with the fine arts. Usually, it was artists who reviewed and evaluated photographic works at

183 Alfred Stieglitz, “Editorial Comment,” The American Amateur Photographer 6, no. 9 (September 1894), 421, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024235858&view=1up&seq=445.

competitions. In The Critic, he, Stieglitz, presents himself as the art expert and examines and evaluates painting. It should not be left unnoticed that this vision Stieglitz had for himself would ultimately be realized through his roles as a gallery owner, critic and publisher in America.

2.3. Creation

With Edward Stieglitz’s retirement capital decreasing, he could no longer comfortably support the lavish lifestyle to which his son Alfred Stieglitz had grown accustom.184 In addition, in February 1890, Stieglitz’s sister Flora Stieglitz died in childbirth at the age of twenty-five. As a result of these family difficulties, in the fall of

1890, Stieglitz returned to New York with Louis Schubart and Joe Obermeyer. Soon after their return to America all three started working for John Foord’s Heliochrome Engraving

Company.185 Although Stieglitz left the company after only four years, his intensive involvement with printing techniques left impressions that were reflected in the meticulous perfectionism of the print quality of his magazines (Camera Notes, Camera Work, etc.).186

Stieglitz’s later description of his first two years in New York after his return from

Europe was less than complimentary. He reacted quite negatively to the effects of continued industrialization on New York as stated by Davidson-Lowe: “Everything

184 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 382.

185 Davidson-Lowe, 93.

186 Kiefer, Stieglitz: Scientist, Photographer, 121.

seemed crass, greedy, filthy, abrasive, selfish. Instead of life, he found a diseased and directionless kinetics, in which the only energizing force was money, its possession and its lack. A regard for quality was scorned, a feel for beauty laughed at. . . . What was there to photograph? Where in this value-starved city was there a spirit he could possibly want to capture? He went dutifully to work every day; at night he wept.”187

In 1891, Stieglitz became a member of the Society of Amateur Photographers,188 which in 1896 merged with a second photography association, the New York Camera Club, to form the Camera Club of New York City, in which Stieglitz eventually held the role of editor of Camera Notes (beginning in 1897).189 During these years, Stieglitz joined exhibitions,190 became coeditor of The American Amateur Photographer in 1893,191 and published articles in which he expressed his frustration with what he viewed as the

187 Stieglitz quoted in Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 94.

188 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 107. Obermeyer was a member as well. The SAP was located at the Telephone Building at 113 West 38th Street.

189 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 107–8. He joined the group after he gave a demonstration of his lantern slide work.

190 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 108. He participated in the joint exhibitions that were held every year since 1887 and even won medals.

191 Kiefer, Stieglitz: Scientist, Photographer, 121. Stieglitz resigned from his unpaid position in 1896 due to many differences within the group. While he was jointly responsible for the publication, he incorporated many works of his own, some of which appear as small images in the form of initials in the issues.

appalling state of American photography.192 For him, Europe remained his artistically progressive source of inspiration.

In 1893, Stieglitz experienced several events that would alter his life both personally and professionally. In June of 1893, Stieglitz and Emmeline Obermeyer announced their engagement and in November they were married in New York.193

Emmeline was Joseph Obermeyer’s younger sister whom Stieglitz had met in 1889 in

Berlin194 when she was almost sixteen. In addition to the excitement of starting his own family, the release of the first handheld camera in 1893 provided a positive impact on his professional life. As Davidson-Lowe noted, the lightweight camera was “convenient, mechanically precise, and capable of producing prints of quality”; “he began to experiment again, testing its capabilities”; and “with it, he could walk and photograph at will throughout the city.”195

There are discrepancies in the literature to date regarding Herrmann’s biography.

Manfred Flügge has asserted that after traveling with Stieglitz to Italy in 1887, Herrmann went back to the United States to finish school at New York City College. For Herrmann, painting was more than a hobby—it was “everything.” After his return, he set up his own studio at his family’s summer cottage in Orange, New Jersey, to further realize his painting

192 Alfred Stieglitz, “A Plea for Art Photography in America,” Photographic Mosaics 28 (1892).

193 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 101–2.

194 Davidson-Lowe, 382.

195 Davidson-Lowe, 99–100.

and to improve his capabilities.196 Conversely, Peter Hastings Falk believed that Herrmann graduated around 1887 and returned to Munich while Stieglitz was still studying at the

Technische Hochschule in Berlin. He dated the setup of Herrmann’s studio on the top floor of the summerhouse to the fall of 1893 when he returned to the United States.197 Both authors agreed that Herrmann traveled to Italy with Stieglitz in the summer of 1887.

According to Falk’s description, Herrmann settled down in Paris in the beginning of 1890 before he had a studio in America. There he lived and worked in a studio at 68

Avenue de Villiers in the art district Montmartre. He was enrolled at the École des Beaux-

Arts in Paris, studying under the French painters William Adolphe Bouguereau (1825–

1905) and Gabriel Joseph Marie Augustin Ferrier (1847–1914).198 Bouguereau and Ferrier worked in a very traditional academic style that influenced Herrmann’s early work.

Herrmann, whose art primarily remained figurative, was interested in portraying genre scenes and landscape in the manner of his teachers. His opinion of contemporary art movements in France, such as Impressionism, was rather negative as evidenced by his comment: “Nowadays to cover our inability to draw we call ourselves

‘impressionists’ . . . it’s so much easier to paint an impression than an honest study.”199

196 Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 17.

197 Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 8, 10.

198 Falk, 8–9.

199 Falk, 9.

100

In the fall of 1893, Herrmann returned to America200 and in May 1894, Herrmann joined Stieglitz and his new wife on their honeymoon in Europe.201 They took the SS

Bourgogne to Le Havre, as indicated by a photograph of a party of passengers, among them

Herrmann and Emmeline.202 The three started with visiting picturesque places in France, such as Paris, Longchamp, Barbizon, and Fontainebleau.203 Falk also noted visits to St.

Cloud and Chaumont.204

Together with Herrmann and Fedor Encke (also in France at that time), Stieglitz enjoyed doing what he liked most—photographing picturesque spots and attending performances, the theater,205 and of course, horse races.206 From France, the Stieglitzes went on to Switzerland, Italy, Austria, and Germany while Herrmann remained in Paris and continued his studies at the Ècole des Beaux-Arts. In Germany, Stieglitz and his wife visited Stuttgart and Stieglitz’s friend Wilhelm Hasemann in Gutach. Traveling back up north, they decided to visit The Hague and the Dutch fishing village of Katwijk aan Zee, located on the North Sea coast in the midwestern Netherlands, where they were rejoined

200 Falk, 10.

201 Flügge, 17.

202 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 67.

203 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 103.

204 Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 12.

205 Davidson-Lowe, 103.

206 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 130.

101

by Herrmann.207 Their last destination was Rotterdam, and then they finished their trip in

London.208

This journey, lasting several months, is particularly significant for a number of reasons. Stieglitz chose many destinations (Gutach, Paris, London) that were part of his study visit in the 1880s. Certainly he wanted to introduce his new wife to his acquaintances, bring her closer to his past, and maintain his contacts. It is striking that, in addition to the towns and villages with which he had a personal relationship, he also chose to visit locations that were sites of important European art centers (Katwijk, The Hague, Barbizon).

With his wife and artist friends (including Herrmann), he visited these places in order to pursue exactly one goal—to be artistically and photographically engaged.

Between 1891 and 1893, through his work as the head of the laboratory at the

Photochrome Engraving Company, Stieglitz’s technical interest and expertise in photography had continued to grow exponentially. In addition, he had written dozens of articles aimed at amateur photographers on a wide variety of photographic subjects. These articles provided a vehicle for Stieglitz to not only educate the public on the process of producing quality photographs but also to begin to express his developing philosophy. As previously mentioned, at that time, Stieglitz was highly critical of and frustrated with the way photography was being executed and perceived in America. His articles were certainly meant to help amateur photographers understand and improve their pictures, but they were also focused on elevating the public’s view of photography as a legitimate form of fine art.

207 Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 13.

208 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 67.

102

As new technology became available, Stieglitz used his laboratory to position himself as a technical expert and critic, thereby increasing his confidence and cementing his position of authority in a rapidly evolving industry. It was from this pulpit that

Stieglitz’s vision of photography as a form of fine art was disseminated to the public. As

Stieglitz used the technology of the time to perfectly capture the “realism” of his scenes and subjects, he used the developing process to “romanticize” the final product. Stieglitz’s philosophy of creating pictures that were a collaboration between the “technical” and the

“aesthetic” was one of his most important contributions to the art world.

As can be seen in the photographs selected in this subchapter, when Stieglitz went back to Europe in 1894, he was no longer reacting artistically to his surroundings. On this trip, Stieglitz worked proactively, with a better understanding of technology and process, and came to create photographs that would be worthy of artistic praise internationally. In this way, Stieglitz was able to enhance his authority and influence in both the industry and the art world and continue to shape and drive his artistic philosophy and agenda. The following picture comparisons are arranged in chronological order according to their travel itinerary, focusing exclusively on locations in France, Switzerland, Italy, and Holland.

Stieglitz’s journey through Germany will be explored in detail in Chapter 3.

For genre painters of the nineteenth century, the depiction of daily labor in a picturesque setting offered an appealing contrast, and Stieglitz followed their lead, using photographic techniques instead of brush and palette. In France the artists’ colony of

Barbizon was established, and in The Hague the Dutch Impressionists found their subjects in the domestic coastal landscape. In their work, they all told tales about the labor, the way

103

of life, and the mentality of their subjects. Here Stieglitz followed suit in subject and image composition, but with an extremely ambitious photographic technique.

2.3.1. France

Stieglitz must have seen an opportunity and, perhaps, felt a great personal responsibility to elevate America’s reputation to the same level as Europe’s with respect to photographic art. He knew that creating photographs that could be acclaimed internationally was necessary to obtaining America’s international recognition and legitimacy. It was with this in mind that he returned to Europe in 1894. Interestingly, at his first stop, Paris, Stieglitz was not focused on taking pictures of the impressive Eiffel

Tower,209 inaugurated five years earlier, but rather sought out artistic motifs inside and outside the city. Of course, he was familiar with the French painting tradition of the

Barbizon school, which was founded in the 1830s.

Overall, it is striking that in comparing the small number of Stieglitz’s masterpieces taken in New York between 1890 and 1893 (Winter Fifth Avenue [1891], The Terminal

[1893]210) with the multitude of those taken during his four-month stay in Europe in 1894,

209 Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 30. One picture of the Eiffel Tower from Stieglitz’s 1894 trip is known and reproduced in Hoffman. It is a lantern slide that is held in the photograph collection of the Museum of Modern Art in New York.

210 Alfred Stieglitz, Winter Fifth Avenue, 1893, photogravure on cream moderately thick slightly textured wove paper, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.92, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35241.html; and Alfred Stieglitz, The Terminal, 1893, carbon print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.73, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35222.html.

104

it is apparent that Europe provided much greater inspiration to Stieglitz. One of the principle reasons why this may have occurred is that even when in New York, Stieglitz was mainly exposed to European artists and European motifs. As a result, he continued to develop the pictures he took in Europe throughout the rest of his life.

Sketching in the Bois (1894)

Sketching in the Bois is one of three photographs preserved in the Key Set that

Stieglitz took during his day trips out of the city of Paris (fig. 2.31). The landscape-format picture shows an idyllic scene with a group of trees on the left side and the Seine river on the right. Herrmann, who was also interested in the landscape and included it in his sketchbook, sits against the thick trunks of the trees, whose leaves hang down like a protective shield. Since Herrmann had posed before for Stieglitz, it is likely that this shot was also posed and directed by Stieglitz. It is an example of how the men, even seven years later, still discovered places together where one sketched while the other captured almost the same image with the camera. Both profited from a mutually stimulating artistic activity while executing their works in two different techniques.

Looking at this photograph, one cannot help but think that it could have originated from one of the members of the Barbizon school in the first half of the nineteenth century.

The painters’ colony, founded in 1830 by the French landscape painter Etienne Pierre

Théodore Rousseau (1812–1867), turned away from idealized academic classicism to create realistic depictions of nature. These idyllic scenes subsequently provided a significant influence on landscape painting throughout Europe. Stieglitz was already

105

familiar with the landscapes of the Barbizon school, which were favored at the time by

New York audiences. He was also familiar with the view of the paysage intime, which was already moving toward Impressionism.211 For this reason, Stieglitz visited the village of

Barbizon, which was situated on the edge of the Forest of Fontainebleau, to see with his own eyes the surroundings that inspired his predecessors. In contrast to classical academic painting, the artists of the Barbizon school first made sketches in the open air and later completed their works in the studio. Stieglitz photographed this moment, with Herrmann portraying the artist who is inspired to artistic creativity directly by nature in nature.

On the Seine (or A Decorative Panel) (1894)

Probably on the same day he took Sketching in the Bois, Stieglitz made a photograph he called On the Seine (fig. 2.32). In The Key Set by Sarah Greenough, many different variations of this shot are presented. They show how Stieglitz played with the cropping of the negative when he later exposed the photographs. Stieglitz sometimes printed photographs in landscape and sometimes in portrait format or even in a panoramic format. He flipped the negative and experimented with different effects on the composition or printed it using different techniques to produce carbon prints, platinum prints, or photogravures on different papers, such as smooth Japan paper or thick textured paper.212

This varied way of dealing with his photographs shows that he wanted to maintain control

211 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 102.

212 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 72–77.

106

over his images. With the introduction of the Kodak camera in 1888, anyone could attempt to become a photographer. Because Kodak took over the development, printing, and reloading of the camera, it recruited its customers with the world-famous slogan “You press the button, we do the rest.”213 No knowledge of working in a darkroom was required. In this situation, it was particularly important for amateurs—among whom Stieglitz saw himself—to prove that photography is indeed work that requires talent and artistic creativity. After trying out different options, he must have decided that the print featured in Figure 2.32 was his “A1” version, according to the many times that he exhibited and published this particular image.214

The vertically oriented landscape shows a long path in the center of the image. On the left side, there is a row of trees perspectively reduced in size as the depth of the image increases. Beside the trees there is a parallel street with some houses, while the shore of the Seine borders the right side of the central path. In the background, we see the silhouette of a distant, blurry city that is probably Paris. In the foreground, goats are lying in the grass and on the path; these more than eighteen animals are set apart like black spots from the bright ground or unobtrusively embedded in the dark meadow. For the spectator, it is like playing hide-and-seek to detect every single goat in the picture. Only one goat, in the middle of the street, is standing up, and Stieglitz has positioned it as the center point of the entire image. Stieglitz was very conscious of composition and execution of tonal values—

213 The American Amateur Photographer 1, no. 6 (December 1889): advertisement, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015023169272&view=1up&seq=372.

214 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 73.

107

in an article of September 1894, he remarked that he took the picture on a rainy day, praising his Ross-Zeiss lens for doing an excellent job.215

Taking a closer look at On the Seine and the painting by Herrmann done in his studio in Paris in 1894 and featured in The Critic, one could also assume a relationship between these two works. Up to now, this has only been discussed in the context of

Herrmann’s unfinished painting and Stieglitz’s November Days of 1887. But perhaps a relationship with On the Seine might be equally possible. In fact, the photograph by Post was taken when both artists were in Paris in 1894. It is also known that, while in Paris,

Herrmann was engaged with Stieglitz in preparative work for paintings that he apparently executed in his studio. Since the painting shown in The Critic is still unfinished and

Herrmann seems to involve his friend as an advisor, it is conceivable that they both intended to execute the scene they had jointly perceived at the Seine, each one in his own technique and style.

The painting supposedly created by Herrmann that is featured in The Critic is not known. Stieglitz, on the other hand, gained acknowledgement for On the Seine at numerous exhibitions. For example, the English photographer George Davison (1854–1930) praised

Stieglitz’s photograph at the 1895 London Photographic Salon: “The best of the remainder of Mr. Stieglitz’s exhibits we think, is that entitled ‘On the Banks of the Seine,’ where a very decorative effect has been judiciously secured by the composition and trimming.”216

215 Alfred Stieglitz, “Editorial Table,” The American Amateur Photographer 6, no. 9 (1894): 432, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024235858&view=1up&seq=456.

108

Interestingly, Stieglitz published or exhibited the same photograph after 1895 with the title

A Decorative Landscape or A Decorative Panel, possibly influenced by Davison’s comment.217

Sarah Greenough has also mentioned that Stieglitz owned a cabinet reproduction by the French textile designer and photographer Jean Adolphe Braun (1812–1877), who reproduced artistic works such as Au Bord de la Route by French painter Henri Lerolle

(1848–1929) (fig. 2.33).218 In his painting, Lerolle depicted a path bordered by several trees, but instead of focusing on the road or any goats, he showed farmland in the background with a farmer and his horse, while in the foreground a woman and goat walk along the path and a boy sits next to a tree watching the scene and possibly resting before he has to go back to work. Overall, Lerolle’s motif of the road and trees is very similar to

Stieglitz’s On the Seine, yet the composition is very different. Indeed, this work that

Stieglitz had in his possession could possibly have served as the inspiration for the photograph he took in Paris. Nevertheless, Stieglitz did create his own version with a different take on composition and exposure. There is no written document proving a reference to Lerolle’s painting, but it is strongly reminiscent of Stieglitz’s past practice of

216 George Davison, “The London Exhibition,” The American Amateur Photographer 7, no. 11 (November 1895): 491, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015067096589;view=1up;seq=525.

217 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 73.

218 Greenough, liii, n65. For Braun, see Ulrich Pohlmann and Paul Mellenthin, eds., Ein Europäisches Photographie-Unternehmen und die Bildkünste im 19. Jahrhundert (Munich: Schirmer, 2017).

109

using other artists’ work as a source, as he did with Passini during his trip in 1887.

A Wet Day on the Boulevard (1894)

Even more well-known among Stieglitz’s works from Paris is A Wet Day on the

Boulevard (fig. 2.34). This photograph depicts the intersection of the Rue Scribe and the

Boulevard des Italiens in Paris, which he captured in many different variations.219 From three different motifs of the intersection, only one stuck out to Stieglitz as the best. He exhibited it many times from 1894 (the same year he took the photograph) until 1944, and he published it in numerous magazines and articles.220

The compositional structure of this landscape-format photograph is marked by a horizontal division made by the curb of the sidewalk, with a group of figures in the middle ground. All five people are crossing a broad street and walking toward the spectator. In the center of the group there is a couple—a man in dark dress and hat links arms with a woman who is clad more brightly and carries an umbrella due to the rainy weather. Two darkly dressed boys with an umbrella are walking on the right side of the woman. To the left, another a man is also crossing in the same direction. Further to the right, a man crosses the street in the opposite direction and is viewed only from behind. The feet of the people extend the horizontal line made by the curb. Unlike the upper half of the image, the space below this line is completely void. There is only the pavement of the broad street, which is wet from the rain. Due to the unevenness of the street’s surface, puddles of different sizes

219 Greenough, 68–71.

220 Greenough, 69.

110

appear. The water therein forms, according to the lighting, light and dark patches. This pattern covers the whole lower half of the image and produces an irregular texture.

In contrast to these natural traces of a rainy day, the upper half of the image is marked by humans and urban architecture. It is vertically divided by the foremost tree of an alley that recedes perspectively into the background; this tree appears as a vertical elongation of the woman’s umbrella. A rounded building with a marquee, obviously a department store, protrudes into the image from the left. The wide sidewalk in front of the store changes into a crowded walkway. On the right half of the image, a major street flanked by trees and full of horse carts runs parallel to this walkway. Still farther behind, multistoried townhouses seem to dissolve in the grey, rainy mist with increasing distance, giving perspective depth to the image.

Stieglitz worked with strong light and dark contrasts in this photograph, which are somewhat attenuated by the rain. As indicated by the title, he obviously aimed to capture the atmosphere of a rainy day and all its optical features. In the background, the contrasts are reduced to a minimum. The foliage of the alley trees and the facades of the buildings merge as they recede and can hardly be distinguished. The details become blurred in the upper right part of the image. In comparison with that effect, the wet street in the foreground appears mainly dark but is speckled with contrasting water spots. The bright accents of the background are mirrored in the foreground but do not dominate it. The patterns of the puddles and the trees’ foliage appear like impressionistic brushstrokes. Here also the whole image is in pictorialist soft focus, an effect that increases toward the background.

111

The June 1894 edition of The American Amateur Photographer cites a letter from

Stieglitz that he must have sent while still in Europe on his honeymoon. He described his experience of Paris as follows: “The great city is full of fascination and beauty. I am particularly pleased in studying the different phases of life here, have done some photographing and secured several good things. Photographs I have seen here are rather mediocre, nothing worth speaking of. It is rather odd that no better work is done here, as the city simply is ‘chuck’ full of motives of all descriptions.”221 While he was not impressed by the photographic work that Paris had to offer at that time, he did study life in Paris and surely also viewed its paintings.

Thus, Stieglitz’s A Wet Day on the Boulevard could be interpreted as a late response to the famous painting Paris Street; Rainy Day (1877) by the French painter Gustave

Caillebotte (1848–1894).222 Caillebotte’s work also features a threefold partition of the image space, though turned to the left by ninety degrees—the right half of the image is vertically structured, the left half horizontally divided. In the right half, a couple is advancing toward the viewer, similarly to Stieglitz’s photograph. However, Caillebotte has placed his couple quite near the foreground. The two boys are missing, but the figure of the gentleman who advances toward the couple is cropped at the right edge of the painting.

221 Alfred Stieglitz, “The Editorial Comments,” The American Amateur Photographer 6, no. 6 (June 1894): 274, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024235858;view=1up;seq=306.

222 See Gustave Caillebotte, Paris Street; Rainy Day, 1877. Oil on canvas, 83 1/2 x 108 3/4 in. Art Institute of Chicago, acc. no.: 1964.336. https://www.artic.edu/artworks/20684/paris-street-rainy-day.

112

Instead of a tree, Caillebotte chose a green streetlight for a vertical central partition, which corresponds to the umbrella of the couple on the right side. Like Stieglitz’s, the left half of the image is structured horizontally. In the lower part, the cobblestone pavement, also wet from the rain and mostly vacant, dominates, emphasizing the reflection of the water between the cobblestones. Just further behind in the middle ground people are crossing the street. A carriage is also in partial view on the left. The faces and umbrellas of the passersby, including those of the main couple, are confined to the lower half of the image.

Similarly to Stieglitz’s photograph, the architecture of multistoried Parisian city buildings marks the upper space but without the natural element of the trees. A wedge-shaped building pointing directly toward the viewer, together with two streets left and right, gives an outstanding effect of spatial recession. More pedestrians farther behind disappear in the grey mist of the rain.

Caillebotte had explored this subject seventeen years before Stieglitz, showing in his painting the wet streets of Paris populated by pedestrians. The similarities are obvious in the structure of the image space, the grouping of the figures, and especially in the effects of the wet street surface. Due to the unevenness of the street pavement in Stieglitz’s photograph, there are, quite naturally, various-sized puddles of different light and dark hues. Caillebotte, on the other hand, created a textural effect by highlighting the water- filled gaps between the cobblestones, which mirror the bright skies and the shadows of pedestrians. Here the pattern is distinctly more regular because of the technique of the street paving. The relatively monochromatic coloring of the painting coincides quite well with

Stieglitz’s black-and-white photograph, and in both works the contours become blurred in

113

the deep parts of the image so that details can be recognized only dimly.

A written document linking Stieglitz and Caillebotte in any way is not available.

However, Stieglitz must have been aware of the existence of Caillebotte’s celebrated painting, which was exhibited during the time Stieglitz was in Paris in 1894. From June 4 to June 16, it was on display at the Durand-Ruel Galleries in the Exposition rétrospective d’oeuvres de Gustave Caillebotte, a show that was arranged as a memorial to the painter, who had died four months before in February 1894.223

In his article on the demystification of pictorialistic photography, Ulrich Keller compared A Wet Day on the Boulevard with an illustration by another contemporary of

Caillebotte and Stieglitz, the American artist William Thomas Smedley (1858–1920).224

Smedley published his picture A Wet Day on the Parisian Boulevard, probably a watercolor, in 1889 in Harper’s Weekly (fig. 2.35), a popular American magazine it is assumed Stieglitz read. Again, a couple with an umbrella appear in the center of the image, this time apparently seeking shelter from the rain. Unlike in the pictures of Caillebotte and

Stieglitz, they are shown in profile and from behind, respectively. To the left, more people with umbrellas are walking in front of a bistro that corresponds to Stieglitz’s corner store.

Even the marquee is there, sheltering the bistro patrons from the rain, as is the street with carriage on the right, which runs diagonally into the background.

Smedley’s emphasis is on the figures and their actions but also on the effects of the

223 Paris, Durand-Ruel, Exposition rétrospective d’oeuvres de G. Caillebotte, June 4– 16, 1894, cat. 47. “Paris Street; Rainy Day Exhibition History,” Chicago Art Institute, accessed on June 22 2019, https://www.artic.edu/artworks/20684/paris-street-rainy-day.

224 Keller, “Iconographic Analysis,” 6.

114

rain. Everything seems wet, with the water reflecting the light on the umbrellas and also on the sidewalk. In this work, objects and people create a speckled, high-contrast pattern on the reflecting surface of the ground. A play of light and shadow occurs in the foreground, while the heavy rain dissolves the receding townhouses in the background into a monotonous grey.

The broad alleys of the Parisian boulevards with their planted sidewalks were a favorite subject of the French Impressionists, especially when rainy weather produced mirroring and reflection effects. In his pictorial photography practice, Stieglitz explored a similar topic and executed it in a similar way in terms of motif, composition, and perspective. Obviously, it was his ambition to reproduce this popular subject of fine artists by capturing it with photographic techniques and altering it through the development process, thereby reproducing the aesthetic characteristics of paintings of the same theme.

2.3.2. Italy

Continuing their journey in Europe, Stieglitz and his wife finally traveled to Italy.

On the previous trip with his friends in 1887, Stieglitz had been inspired to create many of what became important photographs within his early oeuvre. On this trip, Stieglitz appeared to be truly fascinated by Venice, capturing some of his most famous European pictures that he would reproduce, publish, and exhibit in his lifetime. He mainly photographed genre scenes and architecture, the latter with a special emphasis on the reflections on the water surfaces in the canals, which were inspired by Impressionism. In addition, doors of sacred and secular buildings seem to have been a repetitive subject.

115

A Venetian Well / A Well, Venice (1894)

The genre scenes Stieglitz was interested in capturing in Venice were often in the center of a piazza. These piazze usually had a well that served as a water supply for the citizens of Venice. One scene in The Key Set called A Venetian Well was published as three differently cropped prints. Stieglitz took the picture in a vertical orientation (fig. 2.36). The location can be identified as the Campiello Santa Marina.225 In the center of the image is a hexagonal well with large, cross-shaped reliefs on each side. For practical purposes, a hook is mounted sideways on the well to hang a bucket. On the right-hand side of the image, a woman is busy turning the crank of a tackle, apparently to draw water from the well’s bottom. The woman is visible only in profile, with her arms extended forward to operate the crank. The slight blurring of her head lends her the very authentic appearance of a woman at work. She has her hair bound up in a bun and is wearing plain, functional clothing with a dark apron.

In accordance with the title of the picture, Stieglitz did not focus on the individuality of the woman, who cannot be clearly recognized. His emphasis was on the well, which he put in sharp focus in the center of the image. The posture and activity of the woman also lead the viewer’s gaze to the well. In the background, there is one of the houses that surrounds the piazza; it features a bright facade and two passageways which lead to two different portals. Both doors are open, but what is behind them is hidden in darkness.

Nearly centrally above the well a column looms in front of the left entrance, supporting the

225 “Sestiere di Castello, Campiello Santa Marina,” Venezia Ti Amo, accessed on February 19 2017, http://www.veneziatiamo.eu/CampielloSantaMarina_CASTELLO.html.

116

porch of the corner house. Thus, the spectator’s view is guided from the well along the column to an upper window that is cut off near the middle. Further to the right, another woman comes into view, looking out of a second window and observing in silence what is going on below. In her bright blouse, she is set in marked contrast to the dark background of the inner room behind her. One hand is resting on the balustrade, with the other one supporting her head. It seems that Stieglitz, in the course of his experimenting with the cropping of the image, was in some doubt about including the second woman in the picture’s narrative.

A very similar subject of a Venetian well was depicted by John Singer Sargent. His professional home was Europe, as he was born in Florence, trained in Paris, and lived in

London for nearly forty years. In the early 1880s, he visited Venice twice, and like Stieglitz, he had a special interest in working-class subjects like the task of drawing water from a well. In one of Sargent’s paintings entitled Venetian Water Carriers (fig. 2.37) from 1880–

82, he depicted two women busy at a well. While the woman in the middle of the image is bending over the well and drawing up water by means of a rope, the other carries a heavy bucket into a house. Sargent placed the round well centrally in the image. It stands on a square pedestal and is simply decorated at its upper edge. With exact brushstrokes, Sargent defined individual rectangular pavement stones scattered at the bottom right corner. In the background, he built up layers to simulate the peeling wall. The predominant rectangular forms of the pedestal and the pavement stones are repeated in the open door in the background. It leads the spectator’s gaze into the mysterious inner space of the house. The dark clothing of the woman who pulls up water merges with the darkness of the interior.

117

Only her bright skin and the lace of her white blouse stand out against the dark background.

Sargent captured the woman on the left balancing the weight of the bucket on one foot, leaning to her left side. The motion of the women’s shawls and skirts reflects the authenticity of her task, thus the artist avoids a staged atmosphere. Like Stieglitz, Sargent was apparently fascinated by Venetian wells. Again, Ludwig Passini also depicted the same subject of a young Venetian woman at the well in 1891 (fig. 2.38).

One year before Stieglitz took his photographs of the Venetian wells, Herrmann traveled to the Italian city as well. From the many impressions he collected throughout his

1893 trip, there is one painting still preserved that shows a similar scene. Herrmann called his painting Gossips at the Well (fig. 2.39). It features a round well with details similar to those seen in Stieglitz’s photographs.

In his landscape-format painting, Herrmann placed the well on the left side of the image. Three women are standing around the well, with one leaning over it with a bucket on her right side. All three women look at a fourth one Herrmann placed in the foreground on the right side. This woman carries two buckets filled with water, turning her head to her right side and apparently listening to what the other women talk about. A fifth woman sits in front of one of the house entrances in the background and also turns her head toward the woman in the front.

According to the title, Gossips at the Well, this is a scene about the simple life of

Italian women who during their daily duties take the opportunity to gossip when they gather in public places. The similarities between all of these artworks made at the same locations

118

is uncanny. Given their close relationship, it is likely that Stieglitz knew Herrmann’s painting.

In a photograph, Stieglitz captured Herrmann in his studio painting a large work of a Venetian scene with gondolas (fig. 2.40). Greenough has dated the photograph to 1894 due to the inscription “Sime Herrmann, / 1894” on the interleaving tissue at the upper right.226 Peter Hastings Falk, on the other hand, dated the same photograph to 1893, describing it as Herrmann sitting in his Paris studio in front of the painting Canal in

Venice.227 Herrmann was also in his Paris studio in 1894 when Post and Stieglitz visited him and staged The Critic. In comparing The Critic with the photograph of Herrmann in front of his Venice painting, it clearly shows that he wears the same jacket, has the same haircut, and holds the same color palette with brushes in his hand. Therefore, before

Stieglitz and his wife continued their journey to Switzerland and Italy, the three friends

(Herrmann, Post, and Stieglitz) must have met at Herrmann’s studio where they staged these photographs. In fact, taking a very close look at The Critic, one can see the painting

Gossips at the Well on the floor right behind the easel in Herrmann’s studio (fig. 2.27).

This is proof that Herrmann painted his scene at the well before Stieglitz traveled to Venice and photographed his version, and it seems highly plausible that Stieglitz was aware of Herrmann’s painting and that it inspired him to create his own photographic version. Stieglitz was not the only one interested in depicting the everyday life of working- class Venetians. For years, many other artists captured similar genre scenes. In this way,

226 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 66.

227 Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 5.

119

Stieglitz and Herrmann collaborated and followed the tradition of Italian genre scenes that had been created before.

Reflections of Venice (1894)

Stieglitz’s fascination with the theme of reflection that began in Paris continued in

Venice. While in Paris puddles of water that produced reflections were like an alien element of nature on big city streets, water was an integral part of the urban atmosphere of

Venice. The surface of the channels reflects the compacted architecture and the city’s numerous bridges. Stieglitz got inspired by these effects on his photographic journey. Quite a number of pictures from this time still exist and represent the diversity of his concepts regarding reflections and show the importance of the subject.

For example, in The Key Set there are five pictures with the same motif. Stieglitz called these photographs A Venetian Canal, A Bit of Venice, or A Venetian Street. He experimented with the formats, changing between landscape and portrait, and composed the pictures in such a way that as much architecture as possible was mirrored on the water surface. At least the lower halves and up to two-thirds of the images contain the blurry contours of bordering houses with quasi-impressionistic effects.

Stieglitz announced his preoccupation quite literally with a series from the same negative that he called Reflections (fig. 2.41). With this work, Stieglitz followed in the footsteps of many artists who were inspired by the architecture and ambience of Venice.

However, unlike his many predecessors and Herrmann as well (fig. 2.40), he did not

120

concern himself in capturing the unique historical vedute of this city, as they were well- known from the famous works of Giovanni Antonio Canal (1697–1768).

As indicated already by the title Reflections, Stieglitz viewed Venice from an impressionistic perspective. He was not keen for touristic discoveries but was instead interested in the natural scenery of the water in the canals of the lagoon city with all its optical effects. He oriented the image in landscape format and divided it into two halves separated by a slightly perspectival diagonal from below left to above right. The upper half shows facades of buildings, the lower one the water surface of the bordering channel. The buildings are presumably two residential houses, separated by a narrow alleyway. In choosing how to crop his image, Stieglitz took into account similarities and differences in the structures of the facades in the upper section in order to achieve a balanced composition.

This is quite explicit with regard to the surface texture and also the position of openings in the walls.

The left facade shows bare brickwork above a masonry foundation and two rectangular windows with metal lattice balconies and opened shutters. The left window is masked by a bright curtain whereas the one on the right reveals the dark inner room behind it. Below both of these windows, the flat bow of a barge lacking the well-known, typical form of a Venetian gondola protrudes into the photograph from the left. The texture of the right facade is marked, in contrast to the left, by crumbling plaster. The distinctly brighter bottom layer is visible in part, and together with the painted top layer of plaster, creates an irregular, spotty pattern. Also on the right Stieglitz captured two large wall apertures—not windows here but doors. The left door is crowned by a rounded arch and flanked by two

121

small round windows; the door on the right is about equal in height but is rectangular in shape. The metalwork at the bottom of the windows of the left building is also found on this house in both round windows and, as a kind of tympanum, on top of both doors as well. Whereas the high windows on the left facade are open, the doors on the right are closed. Their cassette casing forms a rectangular pattern that mirrors the brick texture of the left facade and contrasts with the surrounding spotty plastering.

The narrow passage between both buildings leads down six steps to the canal bank.

These steps correspond with the two-step stoops of the two doors at right. The slightly agitated surface of the canal water below reflects the buildings’ facades. This reflection does not show the details of the facade texture; it merely duplicates the compositional arrangement of the windows, the doors, and the passage between the houses. The passage, together with its reflection in the water, forms a dark stripe that divides the image vertically, only interrupted in the middle by a bright triangle formed by the steps. This vertical is gradually repeated at both sides, less by the windows and more by the doors on the right and a pole in front of the farthest door, which probably serves to moor boats. The landscape format with the horizontal division between facade and water, the vertical repetitions in the architecture, the balanced distribution of the structural elements in the upper half of the image, and their mirroring in the water reflections below add up to an overall effect of a placid, extremely harmonious composition.

Unlike A Wet Day on the Boulevard, human activity is merely indicated by buildings and objects. People are left out because they would have disturbed the balance of the composition. Stieglitz’s concern is not the characteristic veduta of the lagoon city

122

with its high, looming historical buildings on cramped confines but composition, pictorial structure, and the view of nature that is represented here by the reflections in the water.

Whereas the upper half of the picture is claimed by the human-made city buildings, their image is mirrored below in the natural water to which Stieglitz assigns the same amount of space.

Reflections are also the subject in a work of the Scottish photographer James Craig

Annan (1864–1946). In 1892—two years earlier than Stieglitz’s photograph—he made his version of Reflections, Amsterdam.228 The titles of both photographs are identical, but the locations are different; Stieglitz captured his water reflections in Venice, whereas Annan chose Amsterdam in the Netherlands. Unlike remote places such as Gutach and Katwijk, which artists did not explore before the nineteenth century, Amsterdam had a long-standing reputation as a prominent metropolis for fine art, culture, and commerce. In a way similar to what Stieglitz did later, Annan emphasized the reflections on the water not only in the title but also in the composition of the image. The landscape format is horizontally divided into an upper and a lower half. Likewise, the upper half shows the fronts of buildings, the lower half the water of an Amsterdam canal. The dividing line is not marked by the foundations of buildings but by the high quay wall.

Annan captured the buildings from a distance, so there are a total of seven aligned facades. The very narrow fronts of the houses are typical for the architecture of Amsterdam.

228 See James Craig Annan, Reflections, Amsterdam, 1892. Pigment print, 6 x 8 in. Kunstbibliothek Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, acc. no.: 1915,242. http://piktorialismus.smb.museum/zoom.php?object_id=1415149.

123

They are also relatively high due to the scarcity of land suitable for building, but this is not shown in the cut that was chosen for this print. Like Stieglitz, Annan focused on other features. The individual houses do not differ in the hue of their facades or the arrangement of their windows. Between the canal bank and the buildings there must be a road because behind the quay wall a horse carriage is driving to the left out of the center of the image.

Some distance behind it a person in dark dress is walking in the same direction.

The lower half of the picture is, for the most part, dedicated to the reflecting water surface of the Amsterdam canal. The bow of a barge glides into the image foreground, this time from the right. The front is similarly pointed like that of the barge in Stieglitz’s photograph, but here it appears, due to its dark hue and position closer to the foreground, much more massive and prominent. The canal water is calmer and reflects the house fronts in the upper half very distinctly so that individual buildings can be identified quite clearly without blurring into each other. The mirror image even allows the viewer to ascertain their height. The reflection in the water also captures the detailed texture of the buildings’ facades clearly. Thus, this patterning occurs over the whole image, with the exception of the barge bow, which looks like a mountain in the picture. Annan granted more space to the water reflections, about two-thirds of the whole picture, making the mirror images of the houses’ fronts visible up to the tops. In Stieglitz’s photograph, the water takes up only one-half of the composition and its agitation obscures the architecture reflected in the waters. Apparently, Stieglitz was more concerned with the abstraction effect of the blurring reflection patterns.

124

The similarity of the pictures, in terms of motif and composition, cannot be denied.

Both show urban house fronts at the water in similar perspective and with a particular view on the “image within the image” that is produced by the reflection in the water. Stieglitz and Annan were contemporaries and fellow photographers. Annan was, like Stieglitz, a member of the Royal Photographic Society and the London Linked Ring Brotherhood

(Stieglitz would join this club by the end of his trip in fall 1894).229

In May 1894, Stieglitz published a review entitled “The Seventh Annual Joint

Exhibition” praising the work of Annan. For Stieglitz, among the six photographs that

Annan exhibited, Reflections—Amsterdam was the true highlight of the exhibition.

Stieglitz’s respect for Annan was immense, and he wrote: “Here we deal with a true artist, and a decidedly poetical one at that. . . . Very interesting and remarkably clever is his

‘Reflections—Amsterdam’. In all probability not one in a hundred of the visitors to the exhibition noticed this picture. Popular taste runs in the channels of the ordinary and favors mediocrity. Mr. Annan was not honored by the judges; this casts no slur upon his work.”230

229 John Hannavy, ed., Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography (London: Taylor & Francis, 2008), 1:76.

230 Alfred Stieglitz, “The Seventh Annual Joint Exhibition,” The American Amateur Photographer 6, no. 5 (May 1894): 213. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024235858;view=1up;seq=245.

125

Stieglitz certainly knew his colleague’s photograph and also owned an 1894 photograph by Annan called A Black Canal in which Annan focused again on the reflections of the water in front of a sailboat.231

One year later, in 1895, a critic of Stieglitz’s photography noted in an article entitled

“Holidays with the Camera” that “surely Mr. Stieglitz is acting too much under the influence of that well-known and deservedly much-admired worker, Mr. Craig Annan. It may be mere coincidence; we have known such. It may be unconscious influence, but the general critic would call it by the less kind word, plagiarism. . . . Mr. Stieglitz has an admirable study of Reflections in a (Venetian) canal entirely in the same vein as Mr. Craig

Annan’s singular picture of the same subject.”232 Sarah Greenough has reported that

Stieglitz quoted extensively from Annan’s article “Picture-Making with the Hand-Camera” in his own essay “The Hand-Camera—Its Present Importance,” which he wrote in the same year.233 Stieglitz referred to Annan quite obviously in his photographic as well as

231 See James Craig Annan, A Black Canal, 1894. Photogravure, 3 9/16 x 4 15/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 2009.66.3.9. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.152267.html.

232 Quoted in Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, liii.

233 Alfred Stieglitz, “The Hand-Camera—Its Present Importance,” 19–27, quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 67. See James Craig Annan, “Picture- Making with the Hand-Camera,” The Amateur Photographer 23 (March 27, 1896): 275– 77; and Alfred Stieglitz, “The Hand Camera—Its Present Importance,” in The American Annual of Photography and Photographic Times Almanac for 1897 (New York, 1896), 19–27.

126

journalistic work. For him, Annan was an honored photography artist, so much so that

Stieglitz added many of Annan’s works to his collection.234

Later on, this penchant for water reflections was adopted by many other photographers in Stieglitz’s circle; see, for example, Edward Steichen’s (1879–1973) Late

Afternoon—Venice from 1907,235 Alvin Langdon Coburn’s (1882–1966) Spider Webs from

1907236, and Adolf de Meyer’s (1868–1946) Windows on the Bosphorus from 1912.237

Famous Impressionist painters also took up the theme; Claude Monet (1840–1926) painted

Venice—Palazzo Dario and Palazzo da Mula in 1908.238

234 Naef, Collection of Alfred Stieglitz, 259–70.

235 Naef, 460. The photograph was in Stieglitz’s collection and was also reproduced in Camera Work nos. 42–43 and 44 of 1913.

See Edward Steichen, Late Afternoon – Venice, 1907. Direct carbon print, 11 1/16 x 13 3/16 in. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no.: 33.43.50. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/267847.

236 See Alvin Langdon Coburn, Spider Webs, 1907. Halftone, 9 5/8 x 6 11/16 in. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no.: 33.43.210. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/267617.

237 See Adolf de Meyer, Windows on the Bosphorus, 1912. Photogravure, 6 x 9 in. National Gallery of Victoria, Melbourne, acc. no.: PH163–1979. http://www.ngv.vic.gov.au/explore/collection/work/8746/.

238 See Claude Monet, Venice – Palazzo Dario, 1908. Oil on canvas, 26 1/16 x 32 3/16 in. Art Institute of Chicago, acc. no.: 1933.446. https://www.artic.edu/artworks/14630/venice-palazzo-dario and Claude Monet, Palazzo da Mula, 1908. Oil on canvas, 24 3/16 x 21 11/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1963.10.182. https://www.nga.gov/Collection/art-object- page.46657.html.

127

2.3.3. Holland

Leaving Italy, Stieglitz and his wife Emmeline were rejoined along the way by

Herrmann, and the group traveled to Holland, staying at The Hague. When Stieglitz later recalled his experience at Katwijk, he described his impressions as follows:

An hour distant from Amsterdam, the spires of the Casino at Scheveningen within sight, yet as far off as if hundreds of miles separated Katwyk from the capital of Holland and its most famous watering place. As Gutach lives off its land, Katwyk lives off the ocean. Fishermen and their boats, and the houses built to resist the rude storms, are the themes here on which artists frame their poems, and the people are like the phase of nature that surrounds them. Immense in stature, hardy, brave beyond belief, stoical from long habit, seeing brother, father, son and husband leave on their perilous fishing trips far out in the North Sea, not knowing when or whether at all they will return, welcoming them with a simple handshake, no embrace, no tender kiss for the returning hero, for hero he is. The homecoming is saddened by the shadow of the next departure with all its risks and all its uncertainties.239

Stieglitz’s sentiments explain his growing fascination with the Dutch landscape, the simple lifestyle of the inhabitants, and the art that was produced by the so-called Hague school. This group of artists was active between 1870 and 1920; they operated as a self- contained community that had already gained an international reputation by the late nineteenth century as the counterpart of French Impressionism.240 They supported open-air painting, chose motifs of everyday life, and advocated a technique characterized by loose brushstrokes, with a special focus on atmospheric painting. Their works could be seen in

239 Alfred Stieglitz, “Two Artists’ Haunts,” Photographic Times 26 (January 1895): 11, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101040483057&view=1up&seq=27.

240 John Sillevis, “Die Haager Schule,” in Die Haager Schule in München. Meisterwerke der holländischen Malerei des 19. Jahrhunderts aus dem Haager Gemeentemuseum und den Bayerischen Staatsgemäldesammlungen (Heidelberg: Braus, 1989), 17. The Hague became a meeting point for artists who formed the base for the later Hague school.

128

the salons of the art centers of Europe as well as in the United States.241 Jozef Israels (1824–

1911) was regarded as the best-known Dutch painter of his time and, according to German artist Max Liebermann (1847–1935), created the modern Dutch school.242 In the beginning, the group closed ranks around their leader Israels, and later on they called themselves the

Hague school.243 During their artistic development, most of the members visited France and oriented themselves to the paradigm of the Barbizon school and its principal, Jean-

Francois Millet.244 A substantial element of their artistic conception was—as for the

Barbizon school—the romanticization and idealization of the rural population.245

In Germany, Dutch fine art was brought to people’s attention especially through the

International Art-Exhibition in the Glass Palace in Munich where, in 1869, the masters of the so-called Dutch Golden Age were exhibited with spectacular response.246

Consequently, artists from the Hague school participated in the exhibitions of 1879,

1883, and 1888—the same years Stieglitz and Herrmann spent in Germany. At the World

Columbian Exposition of 1893 in Chicago, the Hague school participated as well and

241 Sillevis, 32. These included Paris, London, Glasgow, Berlin, Munich, Venice, Vienna, Chicago, and Montreal.

242 Sillevis, 14.

243 Sillevis, 32.

244 Sillevis, 18–19.

245 “Like Millet, he was interested in the representation of peasant life. Like the school of Barbizon, the Hague school was not a landscape school on its own.” Sillevis, 20. For original quote, see Appendix.

246 Sillevis, 35.

129

presented art by Mesdag, Blommers, and Mauve.247 Surely, Stieglitz and Herrmann became aware of this group of artists,248 and on their journey in 1894 they took the opportunity to go to Katwijk in order to capture with sketchbook and camera, in the tradition of these famous artists, those picturesque places for themselves.

Watching for the Return (1894)

In Katwijk, Stieglitz predominantly took pictures of genre scenes and beach landscapes, including Gossip—Katwyk, Hour of Prayer, Landing of the Boats, The

Incoming Boat, At Anchor, and Watching for the Return.249 Only a few photos are portraits of women, such as The Net Mender, Wash Day, Katwyk, and Dutch Study (the only indoor

247 Mary Anne Goley, ed., The Hague School and Its American Legacy (Washington, DC: Board of Governors, 1982), 26.

248 Sillevis, “Die Haager Schule,” 35.

249 See Alfred Stieglitz Gossip—Katwyk, 1894, carbon print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.194, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35345.html; Alfred Stieglitz Hour of Prayer, 1894, photogravure on cream moderately thick smooth wove Japanese paper, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.203, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35354.html; Alfred Stieglitz Scurrying Home, 1894, platinum print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.205, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205683.html; Alfred Stieglitz Landing of the Boats, 1894, platinum print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.210, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205770.html; Alfred Stieglitz The Incoming Boat, 1894, photogravure on cream moderately thick slightly textured wove paper, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.215, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object- page.35366.html; Alfred Stieglitz At Anchor, 1894, gelatin silver print mounted on paperboard, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.213, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object- page.35364.html, and Alfred Stieglitz Watching for the Return, 1894, carbon print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.208, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35359.html.

130

scene portraying a Dutch woman, also known as Indoors, Katwyk).250

In Watching for the Return, Stieglitz presented a coastal landscape with a broad strand extending on the left half of the image deep into the background (fig. 2.42). The sandy beach, flat toward the right margin, slopes slightly to the water at the lower left. On the right half of the image, high buildings border the strand in the background, discernible just by their contours. The sky is covered in a dense blanket of clouds; viewing the picture one senses the cold wind from the sea. In the far background, cabins, masts, and small figures can be seen. Stieglitz focused on a split group of women in the foreground: two stand in the center with a child to the left of them and a larger group with some children on the right huddle together for shelter from the wind. They are dressed in the typical clothes of the country—dark frocks with apron and blouse and a bright bonnet. Turned leftward to the sea, they are waiting for the return of the boats, as indicated by the image title. Stieglitz described the reality of life that underlies this scene: “The boats which these hardy fisherman use look as if they would weather any storm and outlive any of their masters, yet ten years is considered a long life for them . . . A sail came in sight, the watcher withdrew to his home—no smile, no expression of relief—that watch was to him, no doubt, one of many. . . . So day after day, one unending monotony. The whole village is out of

250 See Alfred Stieglitz The Net Mender, 1894, carbon print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.199, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35350.html; Alfred Stieglitz Wash Day, Katwyk, 1894, platinum print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.207, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205719.html); Alfred Stieglitz A Dutch Study, 1894, platinum print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.196, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205665.html; and Alfred Stieglitz Indoors, Katwyk, 1894, platinum print, NGA, acc. no. 1949.3.195, https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205650.html.

131

doors to greet the coming fleet, but the men in one group, the women in another—always separate, always serious and silent.”251

It is the expression of this monotonous way of life, perhaps overlaid with a meditative atmosphere, that Stieglitz tried to capture in Watching for the Return. The way he chose to crop the negative of the coastal landscape makes the image appear rather sparse and functional. The horizontal grouping of the people also emphasizes the landscape format. The women make a very homogenous group, with only the two in front with the child standing apart. There are only slight differences in their postures and directions of their gazes. Their faces are mostly averted or covered by bonnets; individual facial features cannot be recognized. Their uniform clothing, while marking them as female, furthers their anonymity.

Stieglitz enhanced this impression of monotony further by technical means. The black-and-white photograph is differentiated in many hues of grey, but without any distinctive contrast effects. The distribution of hues appears rather even; only the dresses of the women make a dark accent in the foreground. Stieglitz spreads a grey haze over the coastal landscape that thickens in the distance and dissolves in the cloud-covered sky. The original print of the photograph features a fine granularity that obfuscates any sharp lines or edges in the depicted objects (this technique was rejected in straight photography later on). Granulation was used by Stieglitz at this time as a means to give a photograph a special atmospheric impression.

Within the same series, there are similar pictures that Stieglitz called The Landing

251 Stieglitz, “Two Artists’ Haunts,” 12.

132

of the Boats.252 In these pictures, he does not focus on the waiting group with the coastal landscape in the background but instead deemphasizes the people relative to the returning sailboats at the left margin. Additionally, the panorama format emphasized the literally

“horizontal” composition, with the horizon dividing the image into two parts. Whereas the group of people waiting on the right does not exceed the horizon line, the long masts of the boats loom high into the cloud-covered sky.

The Hague school engaged in producing numerous coastal motifs that broached the topic of local life. Their works are mostly in grey and brown hues, featuring impressions of autumnal melancholy and oneness with the natural environment. These greyish hues were a trademark of the Hague School, and clearly Stieglitz tried to implement them using the scope of his technical faculties.

The Return of the Lifeboat by Hendrik Willem Mesdag (1831–1915) from 1876 could be taken as an optimal example.253 The sea often plays a leading role in Mesdag’s work. This painting features a dramatic scene in which fisherfolk rescue an incoming boat and its crew from stormy weather.254 The landscape-format work portrays a group of people standing tightly together on the left side waiting for the boat Mesdag placed on the

252 See Alfred Stieglitz, The Landing of the Boats, 1894. Platinum print, 3 7/8 x 8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.210. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205770.html.

253 See Hendrik Willem Mesdag, The Return of the Lifeboat, 1876. Oil on canvas, Mu- seum Boijmans Van Beuningen, Rotterdam, acc. no.: 1514 (MK). https://www.boijmans.nl/collectie/kunstwerken/2294/terugkeer-van-de-reddingsboot.

254 John Sillevis, The Hague School: Dutch Masters of the 19th Century (The Hague: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1983), 259.

133

right side. These two groups are surrounded by the agitated sea, indicated by large brushstrokes. The entire upper half of the painting is filled with the cloudy sky, the horizon line of which is crossed only by four adumbrative figures from the left group. Other members of the Hague school dedicated their paintings to similar subjects, such as

Johannes Bosboom (1817–1891) with his Beach at Scheveningen from 1873 or Jacob

Maris (1837–1899) with Arrival of the Boats from 1884. Indeed, Stieglitz composed his own particular images of the coastal landscape in the Netherlands, but he adopted the motif of the waiting people on the strand from the artists of the Hague school and realized the subject in their tradition, especially with regard to choice of hues.

Many other fine artists were influenced by the Hague school as well and even with regard to the photographic exploration of Dutch coastal landscapes, Stieglitz was not the first to discover this region. The critic that noted Stieglitz’s work as being overly influenced by the Scottish photographer James Craig Annan mentioned in his 1895 article “Seventh

Annual Joint Exhibition” that “Mr. Stieglitz gives us amongst his admirable set of prints, the long cut-down pictures of Dutch fishing boats and fisher folk which Mr. Craig Annan exhibited a year ago.”255

In 1892 Annan traveled to Holland and exhibited photographs of North Holland as early as 1892 in Glasgow. He also exhibited these works at the London Photographic Salon between 1893 and 1909. On a Dutch Shore (fig. 2.43), the picture the critic referred to in his article, is taken in landscape format and shows a nearly identical composition to

Stieglitz’s The Landing of the Boats. Annan placed the waiting people on the right side of

255 Quoted in Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, liii.

134

the image. Opposite to them on the left side he showed a large sailboat approaching the shore. A second boat is positioned more centrally in the image, whereas Stieglitz grouped it together with the other one at the left margin.

In 1894, Stieglitz had acquired his first gravures of Annan’s work.256 Besides many other works by Annan, Stieglitz owned a photogravure called The Beach at Zandvoort from

1892.257 Annan exhibited the photograph in 1893 in London, where Stieglitz most probably purchased it.258 It shows a long and narrow panorama, the lower half of which is completely taken up by the bright ground of the coast. Along its upper border, a long row of horizontally grouped dark spots is lined up. Taking a closer look, the spectator will recognize that these are people, the fisherfolk who are expecting the approaching boat that

Annan has cut off at the upper margin. In his photographs The Landing of the Boats and

Watching for the Return, Stieglitz adopted the format of this panorama photograph by

Annan.

Stieglitz traveled to Katwijk together with Herrmann. Two oil paintings by

Herrmann that he called Departure of the Boats and Arrival of the Fishing Boats are unfortunately lost;259 however, a page of Herrmann’s diary provides a clue about what they

256 Naef, Collection of Alfred Stieglitz, 259.

257 See James Craig Annan, The Beach at Zandvoort, 1892. Photogravure, 1 13/16 x 9 3/16 in. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, acc. no.: 84.XM.791.5. http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/objects/44798/james-craig-annan-the-beach-at-zandvoort-scottish-1892/.

258 Naef, 261.

259 Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 13.

135

may have looked like (fig. 2.44). Herrmann chose landscape formats and created differing compositions that show local people at the beach and the sailboats on the sea behind them, similar to what Stieglitz captured.

Herrmann returned to Katwijk the following year in 1895, and reported his artistic development in a letter to Stieglitz:

Very cold and stormy. I tried to work under the shelter of a boat. I had hardly gotten my easel & canvas up, to paint the sea and incoming ship, when suddenly I heard a dull cry . . . ungh . . . ungh . . . and looking to see the cause—saw that the boat had capsized. In less than half a minute the boat and all had disappeared. It was terrible and upset me completely. One man (out of six) was washed ashore, alive three hours later; all the rest were lost. After lunch got to work on a new canvas, painted under the influence of the moment: “The Boat in Danger.260

The description of his work in nature plagued by weather conditions is reminiscent of

Stieglitz’s descriptions of Katwijk and of his experience capturing Winter, Fifth Avenue, where he endured hours in a snowstorm to achieve the perfect photograph.261

Herrmann also worked as a photographer. Like Stieglitz, he was a member of the

Society of Amateur Photographers of New York.262 Two preserved prints in particular show Herrmann’s photographic skills in Katwijk. One scene, in which an arriving ship is pulled ashore by a horse-drawn train (fig. 2.45), is similar to the motif of Watching for the

260 Falk, 14.

261 See Alfred Stieglitz, Winter, Fifth Avenue, 1893. Carbon print, 9 1/16 x 7 1/4 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.93. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35242. html.

262 Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 17.

136

Return. The second photograph shows a posed scene of four women and three men resting on the beach with their large woven baskets (fig. 2.46).

Whether Herrmann used these photographic works as preliminary studies for his paintings or produced them as independent works of art is unknown.263 The 1896 issue of

The American Amateur Photographer reports that “Mr. Frank S. Herrmann, an artist, who has taken up photography as an aid to his work, had several exhibits, including enlargements. . . . His other views were about Venice and in Holland, all showing artistic treatment of light and shade and subject.”264 Although Herrmann used photography as a tool as many painters did, he clearly pursued with some of his work an artistic ambition, making his photographs available to the public in publications (fig. 2.47) and potentially in exhibitions.265

Stieglitz functioned as Herrmann’s collaborator in terms of photography, which is made obvious in letters that the men exchanged as early as in 1891: “I bought a daisy lantern in Paris; . . . I’ve fired out the petroleum lamps # am going to work, the oxyhydrogen-trick.— . . . I’ve got some beautiful slides which I bought in England made by J. V.—+ G. W.W.—(both well known names which I’ve forgotten) + some which I

263 Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 14. Herrmann exhibited his painting Someone’s Coming at the Société National des Beaux-Arts in Paris. This is potentially an example of a painting produced from a photograph in Katwijk.

264 The American Amateur Photographer 8, no. 4 (April 1896): 185, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015010806761&view=1up&seq=215.

265 See Frank S. Herrmann, Good Morning, The American Amateur Photographer 6, no. 10 (October 1894): 441, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024235858&view=1up&seq=467.

137

bought in Paris—made by Levy et gilg.—You ought to see his Collections!! Over 25.000 slides.—!!”266 Stieglitz and Herrmann collaborated on technical terms and kept each other up-to-date on new photographic and development techniques as they were discovered.

They also exchanged ideas on their motifs and subjects. In their work, both men aimed to capture narrative themes like many of the artists of the Hague school had long since done.

One painting in particular is similar to Herrmann’s photograph of a boat being hauled in by train. It is an 1876 painting by Anton Mauve (1838–1888) called Fishing Boat on the Beach at Scheveningen267, which presents horses pulling a large sailboat onshore.

As stated by Sillevis, “That is the resignation—the real kind, not that of the clergymen.

Those nags, those poor, ill-treated nags, black, white and brown; they are standing there, patient, submissive, willing, resigned and quiet. They have still to draw the heavy boat up the last bit of the way . . . they do not murmur, they do not protest, they do not complain, not about anything. . . . They are resigned to living and working somewhat longer, but if they have to go to the knacker tomorrow, well, so be it, they are ready.”268

266 Frank S. Herrmann to Alfred Stieglitz, n.d., YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 24, Folder 568.

267 See Anton Mauve, Fishing Boat on the Beach at Scheveningen, 1876. Oil on canvas, 31 x 44 1/2 in. Dordrechts Museum, Dordrecht, acc. no.: DM/949/411. https://www.dordrechtsmuseum.nl/objecten/bomschuit-met-sleeppaarden/.

268 Sillevis, The Hague School, 236.

138

Mending Nets (1894)

Stieglitz noted about one of his favorite photographs, Mending Nets, that it “brings before my mind’s eye the endless poetry of a most picturesque and fascinating lot of people, the Dutch fisher folk.”269 Mending Nets (fig. 2.48) is a picture in landscape format that was developed in sepia like many of Stieglitz’s prints. It shows a seated woman in profile, placed slightly off-center toward the left. With her back to the left margin, she is leaning forward over her work. She wears a long, dark gown that is spread on the sandy ground.

The indirect daylight illuminates her dress gently from the right and gives a sense of plasticity to her exposed skin. The fishnet she is working on lies on her lap, contrasting only slightly with the dark ground of her gown. Her waist is girded with a belt, and her hair is bound up and covered with a white bonnet that is banded under her chin. Her gaze is turned down and her eyelids lowered in full concentration on her work. Her face does not reveal any emotions; just the corner of her mouth seems to indicate a slight smile. Her overall posture gives an impression of inner quiescence. With sleeves rolled up, her left hand is sunk in her lap; one can only guess that she seizes the overlying net with it. Her right hand is holding a spiked tool.

The meditativeness of the woman is also mirrored in the environment. Around her there spreads a sandy plane dotted with grass. Whereas the single tufts of grass are in sharp focus in the foreground, the dark landscape blurs more and more as it reaches the horizon line, which is in fine contrast to the bright sky and divides the image very clearly in half

269 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 127.

139

horizontally. The hazy clouds are horizontally layered and distinguished from the highly textured ground surface. Overall, the lower part of the image is kept dark, thus it appears as “grounded” and very harmonious. This horizontal structuring is cut through by the net mender herself, with the upper part of her body looming up against the sky. Her leaning posture does not show any signs of discontent or resistance but rather submission to her society and acceptance of her role and her daily work. In other clothes and in another setting, one could imagine her as a bourgeois housewife engaged in some needlework.

There are also striking similarities in title and style to Max Liebermann’s painting

Die Netzflickerinnen (The Net-Mending Women), which was created in 1887, seven years before Stieglitz’s photograph.270 Through Liebermann's annual summer trips to Holland in the 1870s and 1880s, he established contacts with the local residents and artists, who inevitably influenced his work in terms of motif and style. His Net-mending Women is in landscape format; however, the picture is not focused on one single person, but many netmending women are shown at work, spread over a field. The subjects appear somewhat lonely insofar as each woman is working on her own. Liebermann arranged the figures in a kind of narrowing alley that extends deeply into the background, starting with a woman standing in front on the right and continuing with a line of alternating sitting and standing women, who shrink in perspective. The image is composed in a steplike structure from the fore- to the background, with a pattern that is defined by the distribution of the figures on

270 See Max Liebermann, Die Netzflickerinnen, 1887/89. Oil on canvas, 71 x 89 in. Kunsthalle, Hamburg, acc. no.: HK-1580. https://www.hamburger-kunsthalle.de/sammlung-online/max-liebermann/die-netzflickerinnen.

140

the picture plane and their postures. The woman sitting bent forward in the front left and the stooping woman on the right form two brackets around a space that is vertically crossed by the woman standing upright in front. The same arrangement of vertical figures between two brackets is repeated two more times by the net menders in the background.

Similar to Stieglitz’s photograph, the motif of the image is dreary work in a dreary setting. However, whereas in Stieglitz’s photograph the net mender appears as devoted and obedient, in Liebermann’s work, the woman who dominates the image in the foreground is rising across the horizon into the cloudy sky, looking toward the light. She holds herself upright against the wind that is lashing from behind with an expression of defiance and resistance.

A relationship between the works is clearly provided by the title Mending Nets.

Both artists have obviously covered the same subject. Noteworthy with regard to this choice of motif are the kind of work and the societal allocation of roles. In this coastal region, fishing was an essential economic activity, not only for subsistence but also for commerce. The roles were clearly assigned. While the men went out to sea in the fishing boats, the women had to attend to the support work before and after. One would think that, for the artist, the subject of actual fishing on the sea would be a more stimulating topic, but

Liebermann and Stieglitz looked, so to speak, at the coulisses of the action and showed women busy with marginal support work, preparing and mending the implements. This labor required skill and attention, it was arduous and especially subject to monotony.

In his painting, Liebermann emphasized two contrasting aspects. He showed the diligence of the women who do their job, obedient and with concentration, in the solitude

141

of the landscape. Against this he set a sign of resistance through the erupting wind, the cloudy sky, and especially the upright woman who emerges across the horizon. Whereas

Liebermann’s work seems full of energy (wind, clouds, upright posture), Stieglitz’s photograph speaks of quietness and harmony, perhaps with an undertone of melancholy. It almost seems as if Stieglitz had picked out one of the net menders from Liebermann’s painting and isolated her in the secluded scenery of the Dutch coast. According to posture and gesture, it could be the woman in the left front in Liebermann’s painting. Stieglitz avoided elements of resistance or revolt; he decided on an expression of compliant dedication to the assigned work. This is not a singular case in his work; most of his pictures considered so far appear harmonized and “soft,” even when showing people at work, in the tradition of the Hague school. By the manner in which he stages the poses, choses the direction of the lighting, sets the focus, and uses the scrim diffuser, the figures always gain a sense of picturesque melancholy. The hardness of labor is not emphasized by sharp contrasts and edges but played down with contours that benefit the harmony of the picture.

On this photograph, Stieglitz commented: “Mending Nets was the result of much study. It expresses the life of a young Dutch woman: every stitch in the mending of the fishing net, the very rudiment of her existence, brings forth a torrent of poetic thoughts in those who watch her sit there on the cast and seemingly endless dunes, toiling with that seriousness and peacefulness which is so characteristic of these sturdy people. All her hopes are concentrated in this occupation, it is her life.”271 Thus, according to his own statement,

271 Alfred Stieglitz, “My Favorite Picture,” Photographic Life, no. 1 (July 1899): 11–12, quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 61.

142

Mending Nets was the outcome of dedicated study.272

Stieglitz was obviously aware of Liebermann’s painting, although he expressed his dislike for it.273 When the art collector and dealer Fritz Gurlitt (1854–1893) exhibited in his Kunstsalon artworks of the “new way of painting”274 (he meant Impressionism) from the Bernstein collection in 1889,275 Liebermann’s Netzflickerinnen was among them.

Alfred Lichtwark (1852–1914), director of the Kunsthalle in Hamburg, acquired the artwork and lent it for temporary exhibitions from time to time.276 Among them was the

World Exhibition of Fine Arts in Antwerp in 1894 that Stieglitz attended during his

272 Max Liebermann also developed his paintings, such as Sitzende Netzflickerin from 1887 and Ziegenhirtin from 1890, through various preliminary studies. Both paintings show a woman in plain scenery. Sitzende Netzflickerin compares, in motif as well as expression, consistently with Stieglitz’s Mending Nets, but the subject is placed frontally toward the spectator; in Ziegenhirtin, on the other hand, she is sitting in a position that is exactly the mirror image of Stieglitz’s photograph. It is uncertain if Stieglitz had known both of these paintings, as it was Liebermann’s Netzflickerinnen that became much more famous.

273 “Stieglitz told critic Sadakichi Hartmann that when he made his photograph ‘Liebermann’s representation of Dutch fishing folk had never entered my mind.’” Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 61.

274 Nicolaas Teeuwisse, Vom Salon zur Secession (Berlin: Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaft, 1985), 106–7. In 1880 Gurlitt opened in Berlin his so-called Kunstsalon, where he exhibited Impressionist works. After an initial massive critique, this new style eventually gained positive recognition.

275 Teeuwisse, 104. Liebermann became acquainted with French plein air painting for the first time in Berlin in the collection of Carl and Felicie Bernstein after he had been introduced to their circle in 1885. For him, this was a key experience in his career as a painter.

276 Birgit Pflugmacher, ed., Briefwechsel zwischen Alfred Lichtwark und Max Liebermann (Hildesheim: Olms, 2003), 23–25.

143

honeymoon voyage, which he even brought up in a letter to Wilhelm Hasemann.277

Stieglitz’s negative statement about Liebermann’s painting clearly emphasized his independence as an artist by denying preventively any influence from other artists’ work.

According to Stieglitz, Mending Nets was one of his favorite pictures that he was particularly proud of: “It is a most difficult and unsatisfactory task to single out one of my pictures as a favorite. . . . Possibly, if I have any preference, it may be for Mending Nets, as it appeals to me more and more, and time is the true test of merit.”278 However, the fact that he borrowed from the artistic traditions of the Hague school cannot be denied.

Numerous examples can be used to support the notion that works by the Hague school served as inspiration for many artists. Jozef Israels took up the theme with Netzflickerinnen in den Dünen, as did Vincent van Gogh (1853–1890) with Netzflickerinnen in den Dünen bei Scheveningen. Israels’s painting placed the figures, similar to Liebermann’s, in groups.

Apart from this, there are also studies of singular figures, such as German Grobe’s (1857–

1938) Young Woman Looking Over the Beach or Israels’s Mädchen auf der Düne.

Additionally, there is one painting by Herrmann from their Katwijk trip that is preserved at the Museum of Modern Art, New York, as a black-and-white reproduction.

This painting shows three net-mending women sitting in the dunes in similar style to the work of Stieglitz and the other painters (fig. 2.49). Although Herrmann depicted a group

277 Pflugmacher, 64–65; Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 155; Alfred Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, August 23, 1894, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 20, 2018. For original quote, see Appendix.

278 Stieglitz, “My Favorite Picture,” 11–12, quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 61.

144

instead of a single person, both versions implement a balanced composition that gives a harmonious and calm impression. Again, the similarities between Herrmann’s paintings and Stieglitz’s photographs are undisputable.

Stieglitz and Herrmann adopted many of the Hague school’s stylistic principles, and Stieglitz succeeded in establishing the photos from this part of his journey as some of the most famous pictures in his oeuvre. Linking the old and the new, Stieglitz successfully captured at least some of the characteristic features of Dutch fine art in the new medium of photography. By the end of his voyage of 1894, Stieglitz became a member of London’s

Linked Ring Brotherhood. Davidson-Lowe described its principles: “While applying to photography some of the aesthetic rules of painting, the group rejected absolutely the prevailing opinion that photography was a mechanical imitation of painting.”279 James

Craig Annan was one of the group’s founders, and his photographic artworks seem to have been a great motivation for Stieglitz and Herrmann to pursue their own artistic realizations of the Dutch fishing people. In a letter to Stieglitz, Herrmann wrote: “You know I believe entirely in the latter, and therefore am of the opinion that the finest work I’ve seen is Craig

Annan’s exhibit. It is remarkably beautiful, and Craig Annan is a thorough artist . . . [whose work] I would like to own.”280 Soon after Stieglitz’s work gained recognition, many more photographers turned their creative attentions to the Northern European regions.

279 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 106.

280 Frank S. Herrmann to Alfred Stieglitz, March 22, 1895. Reproduction of original letter published in The American Amateur Photographer 7, no. 1 (January 1895): 166, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015067096589&view=1up&seq=184. The article is published as an anonymous letter “to Mr. Stieglitz by a very intimate American

145

As shown in the comparisons described in detail in this section, Stieglitz’s life and career were a continuous progression. Leveraging technical skills he developed at the

Photochrome Engraving Company in New York, new photographic technology, and his refined philosophy of photography, he returned to Europe to create art that he could use to set a new standard in America. His work while there, as analyzed is this section, was influenced by the pre-Impressionism style of European fine artists as well as his collaborations with Herrmann. Many of these photographs would become internationally acclaimed and would enhance Stieglitz’s authority in advancing his philosophy of photography in America.

3. Separation

The artistic exchange between Stieglitz and Herrmann was strongest in the 1880s and 1890s with peaks in 1887 and 1894. In the following years, the relationship between the two men changed. They continued to correspond, and Stieglitz included Herrmann’s photographic work in the publications in which he had influence. Stieglitz also took

Herrmann’s thoughts as a critic of art and photography seriously and wanted to share them with the public. He published a private letter from 1895 in which Herrmann criticized the photographs exhibited at the Paris Salon of that year. The reason the letter was published anonymously remains uncertain. How the lives of Stieglitz and Herrmann changed after

1894 will be discussed in the next subchapter.

artist friend of his, who is at present residing in Paris.” This letter could only be written by Herrmann.

146

Their continued collaboration was pervaded by both commonalities and discrepancies and had an equal impact on both their lives and art.

3.1. Between Continents

While the newlywed Stieglitzes went back to New York, Herrmann stayed alone in

Paris for the winter of 1894.281 One year later, he was married to Anna Schlesinger (1876–

1947), whose parents were of Jewish descent and settled in Munich after emigrating from their hometown Jassy (today: Iasi), a city in Northern Romania.282 For the next fifteen years the Herrmanns lived in Munich and had five children (Thea, who later married the Austrian painter Wilhelm Thöny; Hilda; Eva, who became a well-known caricaturist and was a model for Stieglitz in the 1920s; Kurt; and Pauline).283

While Stieglitz embedded himself more and more in New York’s photographic scene between 1895 and 1900, he continued to process the photographic material he brought with him from Europe. In New York, he started to see the changes in the city as new possibilities, capturing them photographically, and gathering a circle of followers around him, which eventually led to the establishment of the Photo-Secession.

During the same time, Herrmann did something similar in Munich. First of all, he settled down in a very prominent art district called Schwabing.284 Munich at that time

281 Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 18.

282 Flügge, 21.

283 Flügge, 18, 21, 25.

284 Flügge, 22.

147

presented itself as a city of arts because other industries, such as tourism, benefited from that reputation as well. Schwabing was discovered by the artistic and intellectual avant- garde and was reputed in bourgeois circles as a stronghold of bohemians.285 Herrmann lived in that district at Ainmillerstraße 5,286 neighbored by writers such as Rainer Maria

Rilke (1875–1926), Joachim Ringelnatz (1883–1934), and Thomas Mann (1875–1955) and artists such as Wassily Kandinsky (1866–1944), Gabriele Münter (1877–1962), Paul Klee

(1879–1940), and Franz Marc (1880–1916). While Stieglitz invited his fellow artists to his

Gallery 291 in New York, Herrmann often invited his intellectual friends to his house for a jour in Munich.287

Until the outbreak of the First World War, Herrmann traveled back to New York many times. In 1900, he decided to buy a house in Elberon, New Jersey. When he did business in New York or visited his friend Stieglitz, he resided at his parents’ house in

Manhattan.288 Stieglitz traveled to Europe in the beginning of the twentieth century in 1904,

1907, 1909, and 1911. During his trips, he made sure to see his friend, as he did in 1907 when Herrmann lived temporarily in Faulenbach near Füssen.289

285 “Wer lebte wo in Munchen,” Anthroposophische Gesellschaft in Deutschland, accessed on June 7, 2017, http://www.anthroposophie-muenchen.de/fileadmin/AZ- muenchen/dateien/Plan-muenchen.pdf.

286 Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 22. This street was named after the Munich glass painter Max Emmanuel Ainmiller (1807–1870).

287 Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 15.

288 Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 23.

289 Flügge, 23.

148

Herrmann was deeply connected to the art scene in Munich, the high point of which was his selection as a member of a new artists’ association called Sema in 1911.290 Today this association is nearly forgotten, although it counted among its members Paul Klee, Karl

Caspar (1879–1956), Alfred Kubin (1877–1959), Max Oppenheimer (1885–1954), and

Egon Schiele (1890–1918).291 The group conceived itself as a sign of a new age, which is expressed in its Greek name sema, which means sign.292 In their objectives, the group was not focused on economic aspects but solely on a common artistic and societal concept.293

Since for Herrmann the economic aspect had never been very important in his art and since he was seeking a community with the potential for intellectual exchange—similar to

Stieglitz—the association with this group was an opportunity for his own artistic and personal development. Stieglitz, who never joined Sema, was also an advocate of the idea that art (in his case photography) should not be created with commercial intentions but purely out of love for art itself. In a letter to Stieglitz, Herrmann (forty-five years old at the

290 Frank S. Herrmann to Alfred Stieglitz, December 25, 1911, YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 24, Folder 568. Herrmann joined the group shortly after the official announcement of the foundation, since members were only accepted upon invitation by the association. Herrmann’s invitation could have been facilitated by his close friend and fellow artist Paul Klee, since Klee was listed in the records as a foundation member.

291 Susanne M. I. Kaufmann, “Die ‘Kunstlervereinigung Sema,’ Eine Künstlergruppierung zwischen expressionistischer Kunstauffassung und den Mechanismen des Kunstmarktes” (Master's thesis, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, 2008), 7, 15. In 1911 colleague Egon Schiele was admitted to the association. According to Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 19, Herrmann bought pictures from him when he was in financial trouble.

292 Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 19.

293 Kaufmann, “Die ‘Kunstlervereinigung Sema,’” 7.

149

time) gave an account of his entry into Sema: “There are fifteen artists—all young fellows; and I am the ‘old gent’ of the crowd.”294

During Sema’s relatively short existence from 1911 until 1913, the group members exhibited their works at Galerie Tannhauser, which supported modern and contemporary art.295 Heinrich Tannhauser (1859–1934) was a gallerist and art collector who was one of the most important supporters of early expressionistic art in Germany. In 1904, he founded

“Moderne Galerie” in Munich with his colleague Franz Josef Brakl. In 1909, the two businessmen separated and Tannhauser continued his gallery under his own name. In a

1912 exhibition Herrmann was represented with the painting Winterabend im Gebirge

(Winter Evening in the Mountains) and the drawing Grablegung (Burial).296 In the same year, the artists also published a portfolio reproducing fifteen drawings, to which Herrmann contributed Italienischer Hof (Italian Courtyard).297 In spite of the stylistic diversity of the

294 Frank S. Herrmann to Alfred Stieglitz, December 25, 1911, YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 24, Folder 568.

295 “Dokumente der Thannhauser-Galerien: Aus dem Zentralarchiv 27,” Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, June 17, 2005, https://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/kunstmarkt/serie-dokumente-der-thannhauser- galerien-aus-dem-zentralarchiv-27-1279144.html.

296 Kaufmann, “Die ‘Kunstlervereinigung Sema,’” 159. Print of the exhibition catalogue from the Manuscript Department, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Munich.

297 Kaufmann, 1, 142. Sema-Mappe (Munich: Delphin, 1912) from the Staatliche Graphische Sammlung, Munich. The portfolio contains figurative representations as well as landscapes in conventional and trend-setting styles.

150

works therein, the portfolio featured a conceptual unity,298 as was emphasized in the preface text: “What they wish to help bring about in the Sema United is an art worthy of the name alone: an elevation of mind and spirit through the senses.”299

In the preface, they advocated an increased spirituality in order to evade the separateness of modernity and to supersede a merely aesthetic understanding of fine art.

With regard to Herrmann’s attachment to a group like Sema, it can be concluded in the context of this manifesto that he was afraid of isolation as an artist and was looking for equal-minded fellows. At the same time, the group supported individual artistic effort and abstained from establishing a group-specific internal style. This again suited Herrmann, who never adapted to a specific group style and agreed with Sema’s view on “modernity,” which accepted artists like C. D. Friedrich (1774–1840), Hans von Marées (1837–1887), van Gogh, El Greco (1541–1614), and Paul Cézanne (1839–1906), “but Picasso is too much for us.”300

298 Kaufmann, 23–24. As a token of this unity, the artists adopted a signet that showed six bows, curved downward and originating from a central trunk like branches from a tree. The meaning of this signet, which was to be found on most works of the members and obviously served as a kind of hallmark of the group, is not clear. Kaufmann’s approach to finding a logical and coherent explanation of the relationship between group, name, and signet could apply. She referred to some publications about the psychology of the sign where the group addressed its intellectual concept. The basic idea is that the heart of the group is signified in the signet by the vertical stem; the hanging branches symbolize the members who represent different arts.

299 Kaufmann, 36. For original quote, see Appendix.

300 Frank S. Herrmann to Alfred Stieglitz, December 25, 1911, YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 24, Folder 568.

151

At that time, Stieglitz had taken up his work as a gallerist and publicist and already opened the doors of 291. Although Herrmann and Stieglitz lived on opposite sides of the world, they corresponded and updated each other regularly. Stieglitz knew about Sema’s recreational activities and their occasional excursions with musical entertainment in which

Herrmann was involved.301 It can even be assumed that Stieglitz came into contact with the group members during his European tour in 1911 or that he met Herrmann’s artist friends in Munich on his previous trips.

In the scholarship on Stieglitz, it is mostly the American photographer Edward

Steichen who is mentioned as Stieglitz’s primary liaison to the European avant-garde, but

Herrmann was surely another source for Stieglitz. Nevertheless, Stieglitz seems to have preferred the French art movements, exhibiting the work of Henri Matisse (1869–1954),

George Braque (1882–1963), Pablo Picasso (1881–1973), and Constantin Brancusi (1876–

1957). He did not show the works of Herrmann, nor of Klee and other Munich artists.

Many critics have tried to describe the painting style of Herrmann or to force it into a track. While Herrmann shared many commonalities with his artist friends, he did not follow any art movements and did not promote the avant-garde. He always remained figurative, and his style has been described as one of a “poetic realist”302 or a master of

“natural magic.”303 In J. B. Neumann’s gallery in New York, Herrmann was grouped with

301 Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 18.

302 Ralph Flint, Art News, May 1944, quoted in Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 7.

303 Emily Genauer, New York World-Telegram, February 9, 1935, 26, quoted in Falk, 27.

152

other artists that followed the Neue Sachlichkeit (New Objectivity),304 and Peter Hastings

Falk described him as follows: “Post-impressionism was at the root of his style, romanticism at the root of his spirit.”305

Stieglitz and Herrmann specialized in two different art disciplines, one in photography and the other in painting. It is not possible to precisely separate the impact of either man’s influence on the other because, through their collaboration, their disciplines fertilized each other. Whether it was photography as an aid to Herrmann’s painting or painting as an inspiration to Stieglitz’s photography, both disciplines are reflected in each other’s work. The impact they had on each other was extended separately through their interactions with organizations in their respective art communities. Both continued to exhibit and publish their artworks in order to let the public participate.

However, it was in their attitudes regarding the new avant-garde movements from

France that their opinions became divided. At that time, the new avant-garde had turned the art world upside down. While Stieglitz was completely enthusiastic about the works and even brought them to New York to present them overseas for the first time, Herrmann represented the opinion of his Munich group, which identified more traditionally with the modern tendencies of Cézanne, for example. The disagreements that came to a head in those years between Stieglitz and Herrmann as a result of this change also continued in

New York.

304 Falk, 21.

305 Falk, 18.

153

3.2. Different Paths

During the ten years between 1910 and 1920, much changed, not only in terms of the world economy due to the First World War but also in the lives of Stieglitz and

Herrmann. Stieglitz’s career rose—he had made a name for himself nationally and internationally as a photographer, gallery owner, critic and publicist—and then he retired.

He closed his gallery 291 in 1917, discontinued his magazine Camera Work, and divorced his wife in 1918 in order to make his relationship with the painter Georgia O’Keeffe public.

Herrmann divorced his wife Anna in 1910.306 During World War I, he was not permitted to leave Germany and was one of the few Americans who remained in Munich with the obligation to report to the police once a month. He incurred severe financial losses, since he had invested his assets in reichsmarks.307 His Munich art circle dissolved and many of his friends were killed in the war or left for other cities. After the war, Herrmann traveled back to the States where he visited Stieglitz at Lake George.308 Given the difficult conditions in Germany and his precarious financial situation, Herrmann ultimately decided

306 Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 23.

307 Flügge, 24.

308 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 372–73; 658–59.

154

to move back to the States, where he lived in his family’s house in Elberon, New Jersey, and visited Stieglitz and O’Keeffe occasionally in the city.309

Viewing the works of Herrmann from the 1920s and 1930s, one will find that he let himself be influenced by the urban landscape of New York. The high-rise building that he located in the middle of Old Brownstone Rooftops and New Construction is surrounded by box-filled residential blocks like the ones that can be seen in New York today (fig. 2.50).

Behind the building, Herrmann indicated by means of a few exactly executed brushstrokes an innovative building construction that documents the steady growth of the city. Old

Brownstone Rooftops and New Construction brings to mind the photograph that Stieglitz made in New York documenting the bare skeleton of a construction complex, Old and New

New York from 1910 (fig. 2.51).310 Herrmann merely exchanged the body of water in the foreground of Stieglitz’s photograph with the flat roofs of the brownstone houses. Another painting by Herrmann shows part of the skyline of lower Manhattan with its building blocks one next to the other (fig. 2.52). Since the painting is in a private collection, it can only be guessed that it is to be dated around the 1920s and 1930s based on similarities.

Stieglitz, in fact, devoted himself to a similar approach as early as 1910, which became his

309 Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 19. When visiting in New York, Herrmann lived at his family’s townhouse at 27 West 75th Street.

310 Stieglitz continued photographing the changing high-rise buildings in the 1930s, which is documented by photographs such as From My Window at the Shelton, North, 193; and From My Window at An American Place, Southwest, 1932.

155

most popular work, City of Ambition.311 It can most likely be assumed that Herrmann knew

Stieglitz’s masterpiece and expressed his own version of it in his painting.312

Herrmann’s series My Chimney from 1934–1935 (fig. 2.53) shows a close-up view of a roof from his studio window in Elberon. He was fascinated by the changing qualities of the season and the weather. The cutout of the roof divides the image in harmonious basic forms; it is reminiscent of the photograph of Alvin Langdon Coburn (fig. 2.54) that

Stieglitz published in Camera Work in 1904.313 Later, in 1915, Stieglitz himself made several photographs from the back window of 291 where he also focused on the geometric forms that the urban landscape created.314 Stieglitz’s photographs from the 1930s also show his interest in architectural forms in rural areas. Stieglitz took a series of pictures of his

“Little House” in which he developed and printed his work (fig. 2.55).315

From these examples, it becomes apparent that the two friends were interested in similar subjects in later years. Although Stieglitz (and also O’Keeffe) was interested in

311 Alfred Stieglitz, City of Ambition, 1910. Photogravure, 8 3/4 x 6 5/8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.1278.29. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art- object-page.204616.html.

312 Other artists in America, such as Charles Sheeler (1883–1965), also devoted themselves to the theme of high-rise buildings in the 1920s.

313 Alfred Stieglitz, Camera Work 6 (April 1904), fig. I, https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1904_6/0007.

314 See Alfred Stieglitz, From the Back-Window-291, 1915. Platinum Print, 9 1/2 x 7 7/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.367. https://www.nga.gov/collection/ art-object-page.35518.html.

315 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 763.

156

Herrmann’s paintings,316 Stieglitz never exhibited or published them in his platforms.

Ralph Flint and Peter Hastings Falk, who are the only ones who have contemplated this situation so far, have justified Stieglitz’s inaction by saying that Herrmann was “an

American artist who avoided publicity to such an extent that it was only toward the end of his long life that he allowed his pictures to be shown.”317 However, the facts speak against this assumption.

Since the beginning of his career, Herrmann had exhibited his paintings and even his photography both in Europe318 and in America.319 He was very much interested in sharing his art with the public. Rather, the probable reason why Stieglitz did not exhibit or publish Herrmann’s paintings is that in the end Herrmann’s interests did not overlap with his. They appreciated each other as people and as artists, shared a lifelong friendship, and

316 Falk, 19.

317 Ralph Flint, “Frank Herrmann,” Art News, May 1944, 19.

318 Exhibition catalogue of the VII. International Art Exhibition at the Royal Glass Palace (Munich 1897), 61, http://daten.digitale- sammlungen.de/bsb00002417/images/index.html?id=00002417&groesser=&fip=193.174 .98.30&no=&seite=79; Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 15; Kaufmann, “Die ‘Kunstlervereinigung Sema,’” 142. Herrmann exhibited six oil paintings at the Glass Palace exhibition. He showed later at the Knoedler Gallery in New York. The Munich hotel Vier Jahreszeiten decorated their rooms with his paintings. He exhibited at the St. Louis Exposition in 1904. With the Sema Group, he exhibited at the Tannhäuser Gallery in 1912 and contributed to their portfolio (published in April 1912 in Munich).

319 Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 22; Flügge, Die Muse des Exils, 19. Herrmann had his first one-man show at the Babcock Gallery in New York in 1925 and exhibited at J. B. Neumann’s New Art Circle Gallery in the 1930s. His memorial exhibition also took place there in 1944.

157

supported each other320 but came to a different understanding of their purpose. Stieglitz evolved into an advocate of the avant-garde, while Herrmann remained true to his own art and painting style throughout his life without allowing himself to be impressed by the new tendencies. Herrmann described his intentions as follows: “I am trying to express my attitude toward life. Line, color, and pattern are all essential to a work of art, but I believe the thing itself and the vision that it evokes is more important and so I use all these qualities to express myself.”321 To Stieglitz, “he never quite grasped why I didn’t show his work at

An American Place. He could have never grasped what I was actually trying to do.”322

Stieglitz felt misunderstood by Herrmann and this possibly contributed to his impulse towards secession, both personally and professionally.

Conclusion

In Chapter 2, Stieglitz’s early years in Europe during the 1880s and 1890s were examined more closely. His upbringing, his early education in New York, and his time in

Germany led him to the discovery of photography which he eventually made his obsession.

Aided by the circumstances of the late nineteenth century, including industrialization, the political unification of Germany, and the rise of the bourgeoisie, he was able, with the

320 Falk, Frank S. Herrmann, 25. In 1923 Neumann opened the Print Room at 509 Fifth Avenue, the same building where Stieglitz opened An American Place in 1929. According to Herrmann’s son Kurt, Stieglitz had encouraged his friend to exhibit at Neumann’s, whose New Art Circle Gallery was a meeting point for artists and collectors. In 1931 Herrmann showed his artworks, which Stieglitz saw at the gallery. 321 Quoted in Falk, 22.

322 Quoted in Falk, 29.

158

financial support provided by his parents, to devote himself to the medium of photography both technically and artistically. His teacher, Hermann Wilhelm Vogel, played a decisive role in this regard. Stieglitz “found that I was [a] master of the elements . . . but I had much to learn.”323

Therefore, Stieglitz was guided by Prof. Vogel’s seminars and writings and inspired to challenge photography beyond its limits. With his friends like the Encke brothers, Louis

Schubart, Joseph Obermeyer, and most importantly Frank Simon Herrmann, Stieglitz tried to understand and use photography to capture the world in which he lived. Although most of his friends shared a passion for the fine arts, Stieglitz found in Obermeyer and Herrmann like-minded experimenters regarding photography, and they tested their technical and artistic skill sets together during their travels through Europe. In his position as the coeditor of the famous magazine The American Amateur Photographer, Stieglitz used his power to promote his own and his friends’ photographic work.

With Herrmann, Stieglitz maintained a particularly trusted relationship, which is repeatedly seen in the joint photographs and later correspondence. With his artistic background, Herrmann had special qualities as a painter that Stieglitz appreciated and that refined him as a photographic scientist and a photographic artist. Of course, both Stieglitz and Herrmann were influenced by the time in which they lived. The pre-Impressionist currents reflected in the artists’ colonies of Barbizon and The Hague are evident, especially in Stieglitz’s European photographs. But apart from the general influences of that time, the direct exchange with Herrmann and other artists shaped Stieglitz and his work. Herrmann

323 Quoted in Craven, “Stieglitz—Old Master of the Camera,” 14.

159

participated both directly and indirectly in some of Stieglitz’s creations, playing different roles. Whether as a staffage figure, as a provider of ideas, or as a critic, Herrmann’s consistent presence as an artist figure seems to have been processed by Stieglitz and is reflected in his photographs.

At the beginning of the new century, the relationship between the two changed.

While Herrmann as an artist drew inspiration in Munich, Stieglitz looked to Paris. Although they both maintained a close relationship with each other throughout their lives and valued each other as artists, Stieglitz overtook Herrmann artistically. Herrmann was not enthusiastic about the new avant-garde movements, while Stieglitz maintained a vision and saw their potential to change the world of art. This farsightedness combined with his stubbornness to fight for his vision established during his studies finally led Stieglitz to the fame he enjoyed then as now.

One of the important contentions of this dissertation is that, in order to truly understand art, art historians need to look more closely at the aspects of artistic practice that influence the body of realized works of art. While it is certainly difficult to assign a value to the early developmental aspects of a practice, the value needs to be recognized.

Given that Stieglitz in later life destroyed much of his early work it is impossible for anyone to really know the extent of his collaboration with Herrmann. However, it appears undeniable that the European artistic tours and networks shared with Herrmann were the beginnings of Alfred Stieglitz’ transference of ideas into visual form via a collective and collaborative enterprise. These experiences certainly provided an important piece of the foundation that created Alfred Stieglitz.

160

CHAPTER 3 SHAPING PHOTOGRAPHY—STIEGLITZ & HASEMANN

The essence of the work of art is in the artist’s vision.324 –Alfred Stieglitz

Stieglitz’s early exposure to his father, Edward Stieglitz, his father’s interest in art, and his father’s network of artist contacts were critical ingredients in the formation of the man Alfred Stieglitz would become. Those influences were magnified by Stieglitz’s locational exposure to Europe in general and, as described in this chapter, the Black Forest in particular. As already mentioned in Chapter 2, the academic teachings of Hermann

Wilhelm Vogel helped Stieglitz to understand the technical handling of the camera.

However, the Black Forest, its art community, and the painter Wilhelm Hasemann each played separate but important roles in Stieglitz’s artistic and professional development. It was these relationships and experiences that broadened Stieglitz’s awareness of the possibilities for his chosen medium. As a result, Stieglitz began to create a vision to reshape photography.

Throughout the 1880s and 1890s, Stieglitz had numerous mentors who shaped him as a person and helped him to develop his artistic vision. One such influence, Wilhelm

Hasemann, began as the art instructor of Stieglitz’s father and provided support to Alfred

Stieglitz in many ways, including as a father figure, mentor, teacher, and friend. Hasemann was a different type of influence than Herrmann, who was a friend of the same age with whom Stieglitz studied, experimented, and traveled. The established artist Hasemann was

324 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 82.

161

important because his art practice and involvement in the founding of a new artists’ colony was witnessed directly by Stieglitz. His interactions with Hasemann surely provided an impression that influenced the impact Stieglitz would later have on the art world.

Through Hasemann’s artistic guidance, Stieglitz developed a more serious approach to art photography. From the available examples, it is clear that Hasemann as well as other artists from the Gutach area left considerable impressions on Stieglitz regarding the artistic treatment of subject and composition in an image. Stieglitz experimented with the motifs that were popular in European circles in his own photographic style and created a number of his most acclaimed works. Furthermore, due to the prevailing political and industrial circumstances, Hasemann was able to pursue and successfully found an artists’ colony. The successful pursuit of the goal of his mentor must have inspired Stieglitz to later implement his own vision to found an artists’ community— the Photo-Secession in New York.

The following chapter focuses first on Stieglitz’s social preparation through his father and how this positioned him to leverage the valuable perspectives provided by

Hasemann. As described herein, Stieglitz assimilated his father’s personality traits. After

Edward Stieglitz became interested in art and culture, this interest—to which Alfred

Stieglitz was inevitably exposed—was transferred to his son. The chapter will explore how

Hasemann played a critical role in Edward Stieglitz’s progression as an artist and, through this process, how Hasemann indirectly taught Alfred Stieglitz that art was a process of absorption, reflection, and collaboration. Secondly, it will be shown that by networking with other artists including Hasemann, the Encke brothers, and Moses Ezekiel (1844–

162

1917), Stieglitz was made aware from an early age that a vision for art or, for Stieglitz, photography could only be achieved through collaboration. Lastly, Stieglitz’s artistic work in Hasemann’s environment will be analyzed in detail to uncover the extent to which the

Black Forest art circle impacted Stieglitz’s artistic vision.

1. Social Preparation

Stieglitz is well-known as an influential photographer, gallery owner, publicist, and pioneer of modernism in America. The capabilities necessary to establish the authority to fill those roles required not only technological know-how and artistic taste but also certain personality traits. These prerequisite characteristics, which Stieglitz had been developing since childhood, created a sense of self-confidence that he would use to elevate photography to a fine art form. It was the unique combination of continued artistic and financial support from his culturally sophisticated parents that laid this foundation for

Stieglitz. Stieglitz was the first child of six born into an immigrant family of German-

Jewish background. Although he was born in America, called himself an American all his life, and died in America, his personality trait of perfectionism was characteristically

German. For Stieglitz, it was not quantity of production but an obsession with consistency and quality that showed in his photographs. To him, America was “an impatient country where ‘time is money’ and ‘that’s good enough: don’t waste any more time on it.’”325

Stieglitz would reject this “American” ethos in every aspect of his approach to photography.

325 Newhall, From Adams to Stieglitz, 65.

163

1.1. Character Formation

Many people contributed to Stieglitz’s life and personality, but it was the relationship with his father that initially formed Stieglitz as a human being. This relationship has, so far, been investigated out of purely biographical interests and not in relation to Stieglitz’s professional activities. As described in this subchapter, Edward

Stieglitz and his broad support for Alfred’s artistic interests played a significant role in the man his son would become.

Perhaps one of the most important lessons that Stieglitz learned by watching his father’s career was that, with the combination of ambition and intellect, success was probable. Through his success in business, Edward Stieglitz achieved the American Dream for his family. His starting conditions were not privileged, as Edward Stieglitz was born on a farm in Germany in the first half of the nineteenth century. He was the youngest of the six surviving children of his parents Loeb Stieglitz and Johanna Rosenthal.326 Even at a young age, Edward Stieglitz was ambitious enough to create his own personal secession and move almost penniless to the United States.

When his two older brothers, Siegmund and Marcus, decided to immigrate to

America in their early twenties, Edward Stieglitz followed shortly thereafter at the age of sixteen. Once in America, Edward Stieglitz began by establishing a partnership with his brother Siegmund to distribute mathematical instruments, while his other brother founded

326 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 17.

164

his own business.327 Edward Stieglitz soon realized that partnerships and collaboration were essential tools for success in the United States.

A few years later, Edward Stieglitz formed a partnership with Hermann Hahlo, a concern they called Hahlo & Stieglitz, and he began his professional career as a textile merchant, trading various commodities including cotton and wool.328 Over time, Edward

Stieglitz’s business expanded both nationally and internationally, and he earned a reputation as “The Most Honest Wool Merchant in New York.”329 The American Civil

War created several commercial dynamics that would prove to be quite lucrative for

Edward Stieglitz and his company. First, soldiers on both sides needed uniforms, and the available materials at the time were cotton and wool. Due to the war, the supply of cotton from the South was disrupted, which created an opportunity for Edward Stieglitz to corner the market in wool. As a result, Hahlo & Stieglitz grew rapidly over these years.330

It was Edward Stieglitz’s keen business acumen that allowed him to capitalize on idiosyncratic market events; this created the fortune that changed the life of his family.

While Edward Stieglitz could have taken the money he had made in selling his interest in

Hahlo & Stieglitz and invested it in businesses like other industrialists, he instead retired at the age of forty-eight and used his money to indulge his love of art and culture.

327 Davidson-Lowe, 18.

328 Davidson-Lowe, 1.

329 Davidson-Lowe, 41.

330 Davidson-Lowe, 19.

165

For Alfred Stieglitz, this created a secession at a similar time in his life. Alfred

Stieglitz was seventeen years old when Edward Stieglitz made the decision to return to

Europe with his family. During the next four years in Germany, Alfred Stieglitz was able to effectively integrate into, what was for him, a new world. Edward Stieglitz provided his son with substantial financial support, numerous contacts, and the encouragement to explore his cultural interests. This uniquely broad parental support would benefit Alfred

Stieglitz in many ways both at the time and in the future.

Edward Stieglitz’s character traits, both positive and negative, were anonymously eulogized in a passage published by Stieglitz biographer Richard Whelan. “[Those who] took a fancy [to him] were greatly charmed and impressed with his generosity, enthusiasm, praise and appreciation of the conditions and surroundings at the time. Those, whoever, . . . who perchance were unsympathetic to him, found him as a rule a man given to somewhat free expressions of frankness. . . . He could overlook the faults of his friends and others with equal impartiality, and no one, friend or stranger, in search of advice and aid would appeal to him in vain. It was then that the dreamer, the enthusiast, the extremist, became the philosopher, friend and guide.”331

Edward Stieglitz showed great interest in art and promoted numerous artists, among them Fedor Encke, Moses Ezekiel, and later Wilhelm Hasemann. He was also interested in becoming artistically active himself. Edward Stieglitz was not enthusiastic about photography like his son but enjoyed painting. He took art lessons in New York when

331 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 4.

166

Alfred Stieglitz was still young, which he later intensified in Europe in the 1880s.332 This affinity for art and the way Edward Stieglitz took on the role of patron of the arts was reflected in the rooms of his home, which were occupied with paintings, sculpture, and decorative art.333 Given the strong interest of his father, it is not surprising that Alfred

Stieglitz similarly adorned his rooms with his various artistic interests (fig. 3.1).

Edward Stieglitz would exhibit his collection at his regular weekend gatherings where he hosted fine dinners, offered alcohol, smoked cigars, and played billiards and cards. He invited a cross section of New York society, including the Austrian caricaturist

Joseph Keppler, John Foord, Howard Carroll, and the journalist Richard Rogers Bowker.334

It was Edward Stieglitz’s way of creating networks and maintaining contacts. Alfred

Stieglitz played a not-so-insignificant role in this context as he was chosen by his father to participate in these meetings. His participation, however, took the form of a kind of servant, and he was referred to by visitors as “errand-boy.”335

A formal education was important to Edward Stieglitz, and he encouraged this by sending Alfred Stieglitz to the prestigious Charlier Institute.336 The development of Alfred

Stieglitz’s social skills was equally important to Edward. Alfred Stieglitz witnessed

332 Whelan, 45.

333 See Alfred Stieglitz, Lake George, Oaklawn, 1912. Gelatin silver print, 8 x 10 in. Art Institute of Chicago, acc. no.: 1949.715. https://www.artic.edu/artworks/66337/lake- george-oaklawn.

334 Whelan, 32–33.

335 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 47.

336 Davidson-Lowe, 47.

167

firsthand his father’s effective way of communicating and later imitated this behavior within his Photo-Secession group, making the rooms of 291 and later An American Place a type of living room in which he was always present. According to Sue Davidson-Lowe,

“Alfred, like his father, would become a people collector.”337

Despite the rapidly improving technology at the time that allowed for quick and copious photographic production, from the 1880s onward Stieglitz was never concerned with quantity but always with quality—regardless of cost and time. His commitment to quality was addressed in the first issue of his magazine Camera Work when he stated the following premise:

Photography being in the main a process of monochrome, it is on subtle gradations in tone and value that its artistic beauty so frequently depends. It is, therefore, highly necessary that reproductions of photographic work must be made with exceptional care and discretion if the spirit of the originals is to be retained, though no reproductions can do full justice to the subtleties of some photographs. Such supervision will be given to all the illustrations which will appear in each number of “Camera Work.” Only examples of such work as gives evidence of individuality and artistic worth, regardless of school, or contains some exceptional feature of technical merit, or such as exemplifies some treatment worthy of consideration, will find recognition in these pages. Nevertheless the pictorial will be the dominating feature of the magazine.338

Since Camera Work was primarily a visual magazine, it was essential that Stieglitz handeled the production of the illustrations with the utmost dedication. Only in this way could he ensure that the quality was upheld to his standards. The photographs were printed by hand as photogravures on Japanese tissue, which, due to its fine quality, was able to

337 Davidson-Lowe, 46.

338 Alfred Stieglitz, Camera Work 1 (1903): 15, https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1903_1/0027/image.

168

reproduce the tonal values and structures within the photographs in all their subtlety. The engravings were printed by hand on high-quality deckle-edged art paper with corresponding color tint.339 A transparent glassine sheet provided the ultimate protection and separated the illustration from the text.

The critical side of his father also rubbed off on Alfred Stieglitz. Edward Stieglitz, who did not mince his words when something bothered him, reacted from time to time— driven by his hypersensitive moods—choleric toward family members.340 At times, Alfred

Stieglitz also judged his fellow photographers and friends harshly and treated them with resentment when they did not live up to the ideal he had in mind.341 He also became a control freak, just like his father, although Alfred Stieglitz expressed it differently. While his father acted autocratically at home, Alfred Stieglitz transferred this tendency to his work as an editor. In his work for The American Amateur Photographer, which he started in 1893 and gave up only three years later in 1896, the collaboration failed mainly because he wanted to have absolute control over the magazine and its appearance.342

Many of the personal characteristics that made Edward Stieglitz successful were absorbed by his son. A love of the arts and a self-confidence to be strong minded in his views of what he thought was right were the ingredients that made Alfred Stieglitz

339 Roberts, Camera Work, 192.

340 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 47.

341 Newhall, From Adams to Stieglitz, 120.

342 Newhall, 105.

169

successful. He once said, “As a kid I was promised an America—An America I believed in—and I insist on living—and dying—in that America, even if I have to create it myself.”343 This was the greatest gift his father could have given him because he got to explore freely his cultural and artistic interests. Although the relationship between father and son was at times ambivalent, the most important thing for Alfred Stieglitz was to maintain his father’s approval of the path he chose with photography. When Alfred

Stieglitz won one of his first prizes in the Holiday Work Competition in 1887, he later reported to Nancy Newhall that “I’m very glad for my father; it’s a tangible proof for him that I am not wasting my time.”344

1.2. Cultural Emersion

Edward’s artistic progression began with an appreciation for art but then morphed into a desire to learn how to create art as a protégé. While managing his company in New

York, he pursued his passion for painting as a hobby and took lessons from established artists on the weekends. Later, after he retired, he devoted himself more intensively to his artistic studies under the guidance of his artist friends, especially during his stay in Europe.

In the following subchapter, Edward’s relationships with three important artist contacts, Fedor Encke, Moses Ezekiel, and Wilhelm Hasemann, will be explored. The young Alfred Stieglitz profited from these connections during his years of study in

343 Newhall, From Adams to Stieglitz, 65.

344 Newhall, 122.

170

Karlsruhe and Berlin. Like his father, Alfred Stieglitz maintained contact with these artists, who, over the years, became both friends and important mentors.

1.2.1. A Painter and a Sculptor

The portrait and genre painter Fedor Encke had been acquainted with the Stieglitz family since the 1870s, when he stayed for nearly one year at their house in New York and summer home at Lake George.345 Fedor and his brother Erdmann Encke returned the favor by taking care of Alfred Stieglitz during his first year at university in Berlin. Fedor Encke acted as a liaison for the Stieglitz family, introducing Edward and Alfred Stieglitz to many of his artist friends. For example, he introduced them to the well-known American sculptor

Moses Jacob Ezekiel, who joined Encke and the Stieglitzes in New York in 1877.346 Encke and Ezekiel had previously met in 1869 at the Königliche Kunstakademie (Royal Academy of Arts) in Berlin.347 Over their numerous long visits, Encke and Ezekiel became very important to the Stieglitz family.348 Ezekiel, who was “begged [by Edward Stieglitz] to accept their hospitality,”349 described his impressions as follows: “Our stay in the Stieglitz

345 Nash, Moses Jacob Ezekiel, 80.

346 Nash, Moses Jacob Ezekiel, 80. Ezekiel was born in the US, studied together with Fedor Encke in Berlin, and through a German fellowship settled down in Rome, where he spent most of his time throughout the rest of his life.

347 Nash, 41.

348 Nash, Moses Jacob Ezekiel, 80. Ezekiel stayed again with the Stieglitz family from January until September 1878.

349 Joseph Gutmann and Stanley F. Chyet, eds., Moses Jacob Ezekiel: Memoirs from the Baths of Diocletian (Detroit: Wayne State University, 1975), 194.

171

house was one of continued pleasure, as literary men and women, musicians, and artists often came in of an evening, and we had readings and good music. Edward was very liberal with his good cigars and made both Encke and myself feel as if the house was our own.”350

Ezekiel and Encke were not interested in permanently residing in New York and preferred to visit for extended periods. In 1877, to his friend Hasemann (whom the

Stieglitzes would not meet until four years later), Encke wrote, “I live a rather secluded life here . . . I [feel] little desire to go out in company, since I consider myself a stranger here and as a painter, even more so as a German, I prefer to talk to my old friends rather than to court the Americans. . . . As far as getting rich, I am unfortunately too impractical . . . Generally speaking, ‘making money’ is the first and noblest principle here.—How? It doesn’t matter how.—you see that Ez. (Ezekiel) even as a born American, but artist for everything in the world, would not stay here.”351

Alfred Stieglitz, who was thirteen years old at the time, grew accustom to having the artists around his house. He formed a relationship with both, becoming closer to Encke than to Ezekiel. Alfred Stieglitz described Ezekiel as a person who “never spoke a word . . . but he was deeply interested in making photographs.”352 It is not determined whether Alfred Stieglitz’s attention to photography was already manifesting itself in 1877 through Ezekiel’s influence. At the time, Stieglitz referred to Encke as his favorite

350 Quoted in Nash, Moses Jacob Ezekiel, 81.

351 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, March 3, 1877, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018. For original quote, see Appendix.

352 Gutmann and Chyet, Moses Jacob Ezekiel, 194.

172

painter,353 and the Stieglitz family owned numerous sketchbooks of Encke’s drawings.354

Among them are a small portrait of Alfred Stieglitz (fig. 3.2) and another presenting him casually leaning against a wall (fig. 3.3).

Edward supported both Encke and Ezekiel not only by providing them a place to live but also financially. For example, he contributed to Ezekiel’s material costs by advancing him money. He also paid for Encke’s travel expenses to art centers such as Paris and encouraged him in his creativity.355 Edward would have been proud to know that his eulogy ended with the words “The keynote of his nature was charity.”356

In summary, Alfred Stieglitz spent his formative years with culturally focused parents who surrounded him with talented artists. Growing up, he witnessed his father’s continued support and admiration of Encke and Ezekiel. Alfred Stieglitz certainly must have understood the implications of the attention Encke, Ezekiel, and other artists received from his father, both creatively and financially. From this vantage point, he could begin to see that art was not just an endeavor but could be a career if one were talented enough to attract a wealthy sponsor. Not surprisingly, as Alfred Stieglitz’s interest in art and photography grew, the favored son turned to his father for similar support. Importantly, these early influences on Stieglitz became particularly relevant as they positioned him to benefit materially from his relationship with Wilhelm Hasemann.

353 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 64.

354 For example, Sketchbook, YCAL MSS85, Series XI, Box 244, Folder 4321.

355 Whelan, 44, 45.

356 Whelan, 4.

173

1.2.2. A Painter from the Black Forest

In 1881, the Stieglitz family announced their intention to visit Fedor Encke for the summer at the beginning of their residency in Germany.357 Encke mentioned to Hasemann that he was expecting a visit from his friends from New York and planned on bringing them to the Black Forest.358 Two months later, Encke welcomed the Stieglitzes in

Bremerhaven;359 they stayed together at Baden-Baden and Lichtenthal and then traveled to

Gutach at the end of July.360 This was the beginning of a relationship between the

Hasemann and Stieglitz families that quickly developed into a close personal friendship.

After Edward Stieglitz had accommodated his three sons in Karlsruhe and sent his eldest daughter, Flora Stieglitz, to Leipzig, he decided to spend the winter in Karlsruhe, together with his wife, his two younger daughters, his sister-in-law Rosa Werner, and governess Ida Winter.361 It was not long after their arrival that Encke suggested to

357 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, April 17, 1881, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018. Encke mentioned the Stieglitz family for the first time.

358 Encke to Hasemann, April 17, 1881.

359 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, June 15, 1881, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018.

360 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, July 14, 1881, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018.

361 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, September 11, 1881, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018.

174

Hasemann that he should take Edward Stieglitz “under his artist’s wings” 362 and took over as a kind of a facilitator for the Stieglitz family.363

It can be established from a letter to his parents from 1868 that Hasemann was an experienced instructor who, since the beginning of his studies in Berlin, had tutored disciples of all talent levels.364 His students included Henriette Bürck, Walter Burk, and

Adolf Rettelbusch (1858–1934), who later became a professor of decorative painting at the

Kunstgewerbeschule (applied arts school) in Magdeburg.365 Accordingly, Hasemann provided his artistic services to the Stieglitz family and especially to Edward, who gratefully accepted his offer to become Hasemann’s student and to work in his studio in

Karlsruhe and later in Gutach. Now that Edward no longer had his own studio, as he was used to in New York, he “rented the entire sleeping and living quarters of the Gasthaus zum Loewen—a very primitive tavern—in Gutach, and the family spent the summer there.”366

362 Encke to Hasemann, September 11, 1881. For original quote, see Appendix.

363 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, October 12, 1882, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018. Encke could not take care of Alfred during this time because he had to go to Paris to finish portraits. However, he accompanied Alfred from Karlsruhe to Berlin and visited Alfred’s sister Flora Stieglitz in Weimar on the way before handing him over to brother Erdmann Encke.

364 Heinemann, “Hasemanns Schuler,” 109.

365 Heinemann, 109.

366 Dr. Leopold Stieglitz (Alfred’s brother) to Georgia O’Keeffe, September 3, 1946, YCAL MSS85, Series VIII, Box 215, Folder 3803.

175

In the years to follow, a regular exchange took place between Hasemann and

Edward (fig. 3.4). During this time both men sent painting supplies and drawings and sketches to each other. It was mostly Hasemann who sent drawings to Edward, who tried to copy them or at least practice Hasemann’s techniques and motifs in order to progress as an artist. In this way, Edward adopted Hasemann’s manner of painting.367 In August 1882

Edward wrote to Hasemann from Interlaken, Switzerland, “Started to draw again a little, scenery of course & progressing very slowly. I often look at your drawings to form myself afterwards—but I always find my execution petty & meagre & nevertheless it gives me pleasure—since it requires to immerse oneself in nature & its forms & sounds.”368

In his teaching activities, Hasemann relied on a traditional approach that was mostly practiced in art academies and schools. Since Edward was more of a learner than a naturally gifted artist, an emphasis was placed on the mastery of specific painting and drawing techniques rather than on finding Edward’s own personal style. To this end, the copying of available works was a suitable method of teaching. It seems noteworthy that Hasemann did not present any classical pieces to Edward to copy, as was commonly done with students at the academies. Instead, Hasemann used either real objects for open-air painting when

Edward was on-site, or he took some of his own works and used them for his student’s technical training.

367 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, October 5, 1881, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018. Encke wrote that Stieglitz wanted to place himself entirely in Hasemann’s hands and that he occasionally worked in Hasemann’s studio.

368 Edward Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, August 14, 1882, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 24, 2018. For original quote, see Appendix.

176

When Edward Stieglitz brought his family to Berlin, Fedor Encke served as an art instructor and also gave him drawings to copy.369 Edward Stieglitz rented a room as a studio in the same house as Encke’s370 and also attended classes at the art school on-site.371 It is obvious that Edward Stieglitz took his work as an artist seriously, making use of both professional teaching in schools as well as working with artists directly to improve his skills.

In many ways, Encke and Hasemann complemented each other in their teaching of

Edward Stieglitz; in their letters they compared notes about the drawings and progress of the diligent disciple.372 Edward Stieglitz most likely paid for his lessons, since Hasemann’s father mentioned this issue in a letter to his son, writing, “We are very pleased that you received 200 marks from Mr. Stieglitz for the short time; . . . It’s very good and it’s a great thing that you have such a man as a friend.”373

Edward Stieglitz’s artistic ambitions have been historically underappreciated by scholars and never examined in detail. As uncovered, during the research for this dissertation, it appears probable that Edward Stieglitz was much more than a hobby painter.

369 Edward Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, January 31, 1883, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 24, 2018.

370 Edward Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, January 22, 1884, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 24, 2018.

371 Encke to Hasemann, September 11, 1881. Encke reported that Stieglitz would take a studio and attend art school as a guest student.

372 Encke to Hasemann, October 5, 1881.

373 Father Hasemann to Wilhelm Hasemann, April 15, 1883, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 15, 2018. For original quote, see Appendix.

177

Certain of Edward Stieglitz’s artworks will be presented in the following paragraphs. The collections of the Philadelphia Museum of Art and the Beinecke Library contain examples of Edward Stieglitz’s pencil drawings of landscapes from the regions of southern Germany.

The sheets in the Philadelphia Museum of Art are from a scrapbook that contains seventeen drawings by Edward Stieglitz. It is quite possible that they served as preliminary studies for oil paintings; if so, the paintings are not accessible in public institutions and, therefore, cannot be used for comparison.

The Beinecke Library owns two drawings by Edward Stieglitz from 1882. Like a real artist, he signed his works with an abbreviation, “ES,” which gives the impression of an autonomous work. He adds the remark “Nach Hasemann” (After Hasemann), which indicates an original template. The painting by Hasemann used as Edward Stieglitz’s template is most likely Schwarzwälder Bauernhof (Gutach) (Black Forest Farm Building

[Gutach]) (fig. 3.5). He picked up on Hasemann’s composition by drawing a farm with similar architecture and showed it from slightly below, which intensifies the size of the house (fig. 3.6). Whereas Hasemann used staffage figures to define the image space in his painting, Edward Stieglitz moved the whole composition nearer to the viewer. For Edward

Stieglitz, the focus and the challenge were definitely the dominating architecture viewed from below. Therefore, it was not necessary to copy the whole of Hasemann’s painting but to hone in on the building as the central element and to elaborate it accordingly.

A second pencil drawing by Edward Stieglitz dated December 2, 1882, could be related to another painting by Hasemann entitled Der Oberbauernhof im Vorfrühling (The

Upper Farm Building in Early Springtime) (fig. 3.7). This drawing provides another

178

example of singling out a certain image element. Whereas Hasemann filled his composition with a hilly landscape in the background, a big farm building in front, and a small bridge stretching over a little creek, Edward Stieglitz focused on the bridge, with lesser emphasis on the staffage figures (fig. 3.8). Again, Edward Stieglitz selected the detail he was interested in and converted it into a drawing with slight changes in the surroundings.

Although it is not a direct copy but rather a work that stands on its own, Edward Stieglitz signed it again with the comment “Nach Hasemann” (After Hasemann).

Hasemann also applied this method when copying his own work for some different commissions. In der Dorfgasse, for instance, was one of his best works that he executed a number of times in slightly different versions. He sent one to a patron in America in 1889, one to Paris in 1899, and a third to a customer named Miss Trick five years later in 1904.374

The only version that still exists is from 1911 (fig. 3.9). Hasemann designated these works not as copies but as “free repetitions,” where he saw “each repetition completely independently . . . [and] in particular, painted the group of figures according to other models.”375

As partial remuneration to Hasemann for the progress he made as an artist, Edward

Stieglitz wanted to help advance Hasemann’s position in the art community in Gutach. In this regard, Edward Stieglitz provided funding so that Hasemann could achieve his dream

374 Margret Zimmermann-Degen, “Wilhelm Hasemann, Maler in Gutach,” in Wilhelm Hasemann und sein Weg zum Schwarzwaldmaler, ed. Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heinemann (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Liebich, 2012), 132.

375 Zimmermann-Degen, 132–33. For original quote, see Appendix.

179

of creating an artist studio and permanently settle in Gutach.376 The first reference to this plan is found in a letter dated September 3, 1881, from a certain German artist, Carl Streller

(1889–1967), to Hasemann: “I agree with your plan to build a studio . . . If you believe that

Gutach will provide you with materials and motifs for a longer period of time than the same materials and motifs will be able to cover the costs of the construction and pay interest on them, then this question would be settled, or rather unnecessary. The money will perhaps be advanced to you, moreover you will not carry out the work on a colossal scale, but rather comfortably and yet sufficiently for the requirements.”377

The realization of Hasemann’s dream followed in the next year. On March 20,

1882, Hasemann wrote to his parents that he had bought land in the village of Gutach.378

He also bought an old shoemaker’s cottage that, because of its fine timber quality, was well suited to be taken down and reerected on the new parcel.379 It was most important for him that this cottage featured large windows on the north side to provide ideal light conditions for his work.380 However, the building plan became feasible only as a result of financial support provided by Edward Stieglitz, who granted a loan to Hasemann.381 On July 22,

1883, Hasemann inaugurated the studio with a big party to which he invited people from

376 Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 15, 2018.

377 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 37. For original quote, see Appendix.

378 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 39.

379 Heinemann, 39.

380 Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 15, 2018.

381 Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 15, 2018.

180

the valley.382 Of course, the festivities were quite to Hasemann’s traditional tastes with merrymaking and folk dances in costumes into the late evening.383

Edward Stieglitz had “helped a number of artists financially . . . but Hasemann was the only one that ever repaid the so-called loans.”384 Perhaps as a token of gratitude,

Hasemann presented the Stieglitz family with a portrait he painted in 1882 in watercolors that shows Alfred Stieglitz with curly hair and a mustache.385 It is one of many portraits of

Alfred Stieglitz that Hasemann created during the long years of their friendship.386

Not only did Hasemann and his friends and acquaintances enjoy the success of the project but soon it received significant public attention. A contemporary, widely distributed arts journal praised the artist’s studio and lead its readers to Hasemann in the Gutach valley.387 The writer explained, “We can visit him here now in his own little house, and if we didn’t already know exactly what to do, every ‘Bua’ [boy] and every ‘Maidli’ [girl] could tell us where ‘‘s Hasemann-hüsli’ [Hasemann-house] or ‘‘s Molerhusli’ [painter- house] is located. . . . This is W. Hasemann’s home and artist workshop. . . . A special

382 Heinemann, 42.

383 Claros, “Ein Kunstlerheim im Schwarzwald,” 244.

384 Dr. Leopold Stieglitz to O’Keeffe, September 3, 1946.

385 See Wilhelm Hasemann, Alfred Stieglitz, May 1882, 1882. Watercolor on paper. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series VI, Box 155, Folder 2874.

386 Edward Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, May 25, 1882, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 19, 2018. For original quote, see Appendix.

387 Claros, “Ein Kunstlerheim im Schwarzwald,” 243–48.

181

peculiarity, however, makes this studio appear more comfortable and interesting to us than others: If you turn your back to the large window, you will see the most beautiful and picturesque part of a Black Forest parlour in front of you. The so-called ‘Herrgottswinkel’

[holy back corner].”388

This corner in Hasemann’s studio has been depicted in many drawings and paintings as well as in photographs produced by Alfred Stieglitz (fig. 3.10).389 Hasemann went on to accommodate many artist friends in his studio, such as Fritz Völlmy (1863–

1929), a Swiss painter who studied under the same teacher as Hasemann, Gustav

Schönleber (1851–1917), in Karlsruhe. Völlmy came again and again to Gutach, resided with Hasemann, and became a part of the artists’ colony.390

Apparently, the cooperation between Edward Stieglitz and his “new” art instructor

Hasemann was fruitful, as can be seen in the progression of Edward Stieglitz’s artworks.

The method of copying proved of value, notwithstanding the fact that Edward Stieglitz always judged his own works critically just like his son did later on with photography.391

Stieglitz portrayed his father as an artist many times. One photograph shows Edward

Stieglitz standing in front of an easel with smock, painting palette, brush, and cigar (fig.

388 Quoted in Claros, 244. For original quote, see Appendix. It is a place in Christian houses designed with a crucifix and is often located in a corner of a room opposite the stove.

389 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 61. For example, Herrgottswinkel by Wilhelm Hasemann in Wilhelm Jensen, Der Schwarzwald (Leipzig, 1891).

390 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 47.

391 Edward Stieglitz to Hasemann, February 28, 1884.

182

3.11). The easel holds a landscape painting that focuses on trees—a motif that Alfred

Stieglitz would be especially interested in throughout his late photography period.392 Two more photographs that Stieglitz took of his father in the role of artist are immortalized in one of the many family albums. Both photographs show Edward Stieglitz as a serious artist, who, in the midst of nature, seems to examine his surroundings closely and try to transfer them to canvas. In these photographs, Alfred clearly sought to present Edward Stieglitz as working and not posing for the camera.393 Interestingly, the previous page in the album contains a portrait of Hasemann, providing another link to the teacher and the many painting lessons Edward Stieglitz received in Germany.

The historical significance of Alfred Stieglitz’s upbringing and particularly his father’s influence must be recognized. The experience of watching his father help

Hasemann financially in building his studio as a first step in creating an artist community in Gutach would be relevant later on when Stieglitz decided to support artists within his circle with all his means. Maybe, more importantly, Alfred Stieglitz’s witnessing of

Edward Stieglitz’s training as an artist through the copying of various artworks would be used by him later—not with a pencil but with a camera. In this way, Stieglitz was being

392 See Alfred Stieglitz, Apple Tree, Lake George, 1933. Gelatin silver print, 8 7/8 x 7 3/16 in. National Gal- lery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.759. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35910. html.

In the 1920s Alfred Stieglitz photographed a series of a dying chestnut tree. In the 1930s he focused on a series that made poplars the motif. These photographs are kept, among others, in the National Gallery of Art in Washington, DC.

393 See also Edward Stieglitz Oaklawn, 1907 (private collection) in Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 139.

183

trained indirectly by Hasemann. This experience allowed Stieglitz to internalize the legitimacy of using other artists’ work to create original art. It is impossible, therefore, to ignore the uniquely special circumstances that Alfred Stieglitz was exposed to in his formative years which created the foundation for what Alfred Stieglitz would become.

2. Development of a Vision

As early as 1886, Stieglitz began to develop a perspective that would profoundly effect his artistic work and his ultimate impact on the art world. This developing perspective was rooted in the idea that it is necessary for an artist to have a “vision” in order to create art that has a purpose. Richard Whelan quoted Stieglitz as saying, “the essence of the work of art is in the artist’s vision,” because “without [it the] technical virtuosity is empty show.”394

As Stieglitz refined his artistic vision, he also became aware of the importance of community. In a letter to The Amateur Photographer in 1887, he wrote that “the importance of societies within which amateur photographers could ‘learn from one another and strive together for the goal of artistic and technical perfection. . . . I hope soon to be able to report the organization of a society for the promotion of amateur photography, the sure sign of its firm hold and rapid advancement.’”395 Stieglitz was aware that he had to integrate himself into existing networks of artists and photographers in order to create something original. Like his father, Stieglitz was ambitious and his vision for photography

394 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 82.

395 Quoted in Whelan, 82.

184

started with the art but quickly expanded into building a community that would establish photography as a recognized form of fine art.

In this subchapter, certain influences that helped to shape Stieglitz’s grand vision for artistic photography are explored. As a result of living in Germany, he gained direct exposure to the secession movements that were just beginning to occur in Europe in the

1890s. However, and perhaps more importantly, his perspective was influenced by the artists he had made part of his network. His relationship with Black Forest painter Wilhelm

Hasemann would provide Stieglitz with an appreciation of community that he could reference as he envisioned and developed his own views on what photography should become. Hasemann’s love of country (Heimatliebe) and tradition, the way he cooperated with other artists in order to promote his own art, and the way he supported the Gutacher

Künstlergemeinschaft (Gutach Artist Colony) gave the young Stieglitz an example of the importance of the establishment of an artists’ colony. This impact is reflected in Stieglitz’s statement of 1887 that societies—not only for the fine arts but also for photography—have important functions through which their members can connect with and learn from each other on both an artistic and technical level.

2.1. An Individual Approach

Stieglitz’s education and interest in art and culture was surely a key reason

Hasemann took a special interest in him. Stieglitz, in turn, looked up to Hasemann as a mentor. They met for the first time in 1881 when Hasemann connected with Edward

Stieglitz through Fedor Encke shortly after the Stieglitzes arrival in Germany. Even after

185

his parents returned to New York, the younger Stieglitz visited Hasemann regularly in the following years. He described his first impression of Gutach to his sister Flora Stieglitz on a postcard drawn by Hasemann with the following words: “Dear Flora, since yesterday morning Mr. H. and myself have been here. The scenery is very picturesque, the people odd and everything new to me, still, as the weather is rather chilly, it isn’t as pleasant as one could have wished. Particulars in my weekly letter. With love your loving brother

Alfred.”396

Hasemann himself needed time to get used to Gutach, since he had been born in

Mühlberg an der Elbe in the state of Brandenburg in northern Germany. When he was fifteen years old, he left his academic studies to go to work at his father’s business as a mechanic. Hasemann’s artistic career started with his entry into the Königliche Akademie der Bildenden Künste (Royal Academy of Fine Arts) in Berlin in 1866, where he met Fedor

Encke.397 It was during this time that Hasemann acquired and honed basic skills when he studied under the German painter August Theodor Kaselowsky (1810–1891).398 After completing his studies in Berlin, Hasemann moved to the quiet, rural town of Weimar, where he would spend the next six years of his life (1873–1879) before he moved to

Karlsruhe in 1880.399

396 Alfred Stieglitz to Flora Stieglitz, May 12, 1882, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 25, 2018.

397 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 10.

398 Heinemann, 12.

399 Heinemann, 20.

186

In the same year, he gained his first major assignment, which was to illustrate a luxury edition of the novel Lorle, Frau Professorin by the popular writer Berthold

Auerbach (1812–1882). For this project, Hasemann visited the picturesque village of

Gutach in the Black Forest for the first time, which served as the perfect environment for illustrating the rural stories of Auerbach.400 Hasemann felt inspired by the valley with its farmhouses in a pictorial landscape. At that time, he was not aware that this visit, planned to be short, would soon extend into a stay of over thirty years.401

2.1.1. A Model of Collaboration

Hasemann collaborated with a large number of people he met in Berlin, Weimar,

Karlsruhe, and Gutach. They all contributed to his success, but the connection to Fedor

Encke stands out among the others. In the following subchapter, it is explored how important the cooperation between Encke and Hasemann was for Hasemann’s career. Since

Edward Stieglitz and Alfred Stieglitz knew Encke well and made the acquaintance of

Hasemann through him, a brief analysis of Encke’s role in both the life and career of

Hasemann and the artistic development of Alfred Stieglitz is warranted.

The first major collaboration between Hasemann and his artist colleague Fedor

Encke occurred through Encke’s arrangement of Hasemann’s acceptance at the school in

400 Heinemann, 32.

401 Heinemann, 36. For the next three years, from 1880 to 1883, Hasemann commuted between Karlsruhe and Gutach.

187

Weimar.402 This was followed by many more collaborations both commercial and artistic.

Encke even took on the role of Hasemann’s agent. During his numerous travels, Encke had established a widespread network of clients. He resided in Berlin during the end of the nineteenth century when the art market was flourishing, the city offered many exhibitions, and the cultural atmosphere attracted a society of many talented artists. This served as an advantage for Encke compared to Hasemann’s secluded area in the Black Forest. Several letters, mainly from the 1880s, give evidence of how they utilized Encke’s contacts in order to arrange exhibitions for Hasemann.403 Encke was conversant with the art market in Berlin and he gave Hasemann recommendations on how he could better market his work.

Later with Encke’s assistance, Hasemann sold some paintings to clients from

Encke’s national and international network who were presumably drawn to his brightly illuminated interiors with figure groups and his somewhat idealized heads of peasants. It cannot be determined if Encke benefited financially from his services to Hasemann or if it was done out of friendship.

In this context, it seems plausible that both painters used photographs to evaluate their works over long distances, to advertise them with potentially interested parties, or to keep impatient customers updated on works in progress. With regard to the sale of more artworks to a client, for instance, Encke once requested photographs from Hasemann with

402 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, December 4, 1872, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 31, 2018.

403 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, October 24, 1886, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018.

188

details on size and price.404 Photography seems to have been the perfect tool to work over long distances on an international level to distribute and sell their artworks.

Although the collaboration between Hasemann and Encke took place primarily on a commercial level, there is also an example that points to an artistic exchange. This exchange manifests itself in the portrayal of a young lady, who is presented with her hair loosely bound in a bun on her head (fig. 3.12). Tiny hairs fall down her neck, guiding the observer’s view to her back. The neckline of her gown leaves her shoulders free and reveals much bare skin down to the middle of her back. The slight gathers in the dress indicate a triangular cut, tapering downward. The young woman’s pose hides her face from the curious viewer. Encke painted the sitter in this position and attire in 1886. Notably,

Hasemann also painted a portrait of this young lady, although the date is unknown (fig.

3.13).

While it is difficult to determine whether it was Hasemann or Encke who first portrayed the unknown sitter, the similarities between the two paintings are striking.

2.1.2. Incorporating Collaboration

It is not unreasonable to assume that Stieglitz must have been aware of Hasemann and Encke collaborating, supporting each other, and sharing networks in order to establish themselves internationally and—in their case—to make a profit. Stieglitz incorporated these basic principles of networking and collaboration into his work. As can be seen from

404 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, February 9, 1890, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018.

189

Chapter 2, he had already collaborated with other artists such as Frank S. Herrmann in the

1880s. Later, in the 1890s, he took advantage of his role as the coeditor of The American

Amateur Photographer to publish photographic works by friends Joseph Obermeyer and

Herrmann. He referred Herrmann to J. B. Neumann’s American Art Circle gallery where

Herrmann was able to exhibit his paintings. In return, Stieglitz profited from Herrmann’s networks in Munich.

Stieglitz also built a network of photographer colleagues. This circle included

Edward Steichen, who Stieglitz knew since 1900. Steichen was an American photographer of Luxembourg origin. In his collaboration with Stieglitz, he was particularly responsible for the design of the magazine Camera Work and played a decisive role in the founding of

Stieglitz’s first gallery, the Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession (291), in 1905.405 When

Steichen moved to Paris, he became familiar with the art scene and made friends with avant-garde artists such as Matisse and Rodin, whom he subsequently introduced to

Stieglitz. Stieglitz brought work by the artists “discovered” by Steichen to the United States and exhibited it for the first time in 1908 at the 291, which initially caused a furor in

American society.406 Stieglitz took on a role similar to that of Hasemann, associating with people and profiting from their networks.

Although a gallery or a magazine are commercial enterprises, Stieglitz—unlike

Hasemann and Encke—did not pursue monetary gain with his work. To the contrary, he did not accept amateur photographers who were interested in participating and at the same

405 Roberts, Camera Work, 197, 202.

406 Roberts, 203.

190

time had commercial intentions. The mission statement of Camera Work, “A non- commercial publication primarily devoted to the demonstrations of the possibilities of

Photography as a medium of Self-Expression,” was printed on the last page of Stieglitz’s magazine.407 It was decidedly not profit oriented, as the income from subscriptions hardly covered the production costs of the magazine.408

The sales of Stieglitz’s works and those of other artists shown in the gallery were also not aimed at making a profit. The exhibitions could be visited free of charge, Stieglitz bought many works that were exhibited himself, and if a potential buyer was interested,

Stieglitz did not set fixed prices but began the conversation with the question: “How much are you willing to give the artist?” Stieglitz called the money he received for the work he sold a “donation” that went directly to the artists in full, or if he sold one of his own works, he called the amount, which he reinvested in the gallery, a “gift.”409 Stieglitz’s vehement fight against commercialism ended up being an important aspect in the breakup of the

Photo-Secession, after some followers, like Gertrude Käsebier (1852–1934) and Clarence

White, decided to make money from their work.410

It is clear that Stieglitz was adept at noticing positive, useful characteristics of those around him and adopting them for his own intentions. By witnessing an artistic exchange

407 Stieglitz, Camera Work 12 (1905): 54, https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1912_special_no/0060/image.

408 Roberts, Camera Work, 197.

409 Newhall, From Adams to Stieglitz, 149.

410 Roberts, Camera Work, 206.

191

such as that of Encke and Hasemann, Stieglitz gained a clear picture of how he himself might in the future advance and expand his network. Regardless of whether he had new or existing contacts from his father, he remained in touch with Encke and Hasemann for many years.

2.2. A Collective Approach

Hasemann and Stieglitz were artists who, through their work, represented a singular artistic vision. However, both realized that their greater ambitions could only be achieved through a collective approach by organizing societies. While Hasemann’s goal was to preserve the traditions of the Black Forest region, Stieglitz pursued—in the beginning in the tradition of pictorialism—a vision of establishing the medium of photography as a fine art.

In the following subchapter, the political and social circumstances of the German

Empire in the second half of the nineteenth century will be presented, as they serve as a base on which Hasemann founded his artists’ colony. In addition, Hasemann’s collaboration with Stieglitz and his professional influences on Stieglitz are also examined.

2.2.1. A Vision for Heimatliebe

At that time, as an antidote to the Industrial Revolution and the accompanying processes of urbanization, a form of homeland movement (Heimatliebe) increasingly took hold in the German-speaking world. The purpose of this movement was to strengthen national identity, especially after the founding of the Reich in 1871. As a reaction to

192

industrialization in Germany, the relationship between man and nature was changing. This trend, which had been recognized during the Aufklärung (Enlightenment) by the well- known Swiss writer and philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778), entered the sciences in the form of the exclamation “Back to Nature.”411 Nature was now perceived less as a threat and was increasingly viewed with curiosity and the urge to explore.412 This resulted in the founding of numerous regional associations—from traditional costume associations to history and hiking clubs.413 These were dedicated above all to the commitment to preserve landscape and nature.

The construction of the Black Forest railway made the natural environment particularly accessible to the population and, as a result, nature and tradition were confronted with the masses.414 The expansion of the railway network promoted tourism, which certainly created economic opportunities for the region but also held the risk that the

Heimat (homeland) would change negatively. The originator of the homeland protection movement, Ernst Rudorff, wrote down his concerns as early as 1880 in the essay “On the

Relationship of Modern Life to Nature.” In it, he described his view that nature was being

“played out in a peculiar double game” and that “industrial progress ruthlessly defies all

411 Jean-Jacques Rousseau, “Emile oder Über die Erziehung” (1762) cited in Barbara Leven, “Pittoreske Idyllen und gesampelte Natur. Künstlerische Konstruktionen von Landschaft,” in Brehm, Kammel, and Selheim, Wanderland, 75.

412 Thomas Brehm, Frank M. Kammel, and Claudia Selheim, “Wanderland. Eine Reise durch die Geschichte des Wanderns,” in Brehm, Kammel, and Selheim, Wanderland, 13.

413 Brehm, Kammel, and Selheim, 16.

414 Brehm, Kammel, and Selheim, 16.

193

existing conditions—the rails of the railway over the picturesque forms of the landscape, the smoking factory chimneys over their poetry and the practices of modern agriculture over their organic physiognomy.”415

Hasemann, who lived in Gutach in the Black Forest region, was particularly affected by these currents and this spirit. He saw that his purpose in Gutach was to preserve the local traditions and to support the rural people in material as well as social terms. He played a key role in a historical procession in September 1881 that was organized by the city of Karlsruhe on the occasion of the double anniversary of the Baden royal house.416

Due to Hasemann’s vibrant social network in Karlsruhe and the surrounding area that he was commissioned to help organize the procession. The core of this parade was, among other things, the Baden national costumes presented by about eight hundred people on appropriately decorated floats.417 Hasemann’s involvement in the organization of this event shows that even before his final settlement in Gutach, he was already deeply rooted in its traditions, and its preservation was his major concern.

415 Quoted in Friedemann Schmoll, “Wege bahnen, Bewegung organisieren. Wandern im Verein um 1900,” in Brehm, Kammel, and Selheim, Wanderland, 71. For original quotes, see Appendix.

416 Brigitte Heck, “Marke Schwarzwald. Naturraum und Kulturlandschaft im langen 19. Jahrhundert,” in Schwarzwald Bilder. Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts (Karlsruhe: Städtische Galerie Karlsruhe, 2016), 26. This was the silver wedding anniversary of the grand ducal couple and marriage of their daughter Victoria to the Swedish crown prince Gustav Adolf.

417 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 38. The city of Karlsruhe commissioned the painter Johann Baptist Tuttiné (1838–1889), who organized the parade and who in turn made Hasemann jointly responsible for the department of regional costumes.

194

Hasemann’s worries about threats to tradition were not unfounded because even in the Schwarzwaldführer of Carl Wilhelm Schnars observations about the disappearance of folk costumes and the development of the countermovement were being communicated.

The evidence of the importance of these associations is seen in the following quote: “in different places by founding folk costume associations, which by costume and spinning festivals, premiums, equipment of first communicates and confirmands with some success, which promote for the continuation of a brave peasant class not unimportant preservation of the costumes.”418

Hasemann expressed himself through his art, which leads to the conclusion that his drawings and paintings are inseparably linked to his primary concerns—the destruction of the beauty of the Black Forest’s rural landscape, the preservation of old traditions and costumes, and the protection of the rural aesthetic—all of which seemed to be endangered by urbanization and neglect.419 The Heimatliebe movement was accompanied by the gradual formation of many groups of artists who questioned their attitudes toward classical academic training. These secessional movements give evidence of a search for liberation from the constrictions and conventions in the fine arts. These were the contemporary

418 Claudia Selheim, “Der gelenkte Blick oder Die erwanderte Volkskultur,” in Brehm, Kammel, and Selheim, Wanderland, 94. For original quote, see Appendix.

419 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 69. Three of Hasemann’s contemporaries also devoted themselves above all to the preservation of traditional costumes, including the painters Rudolf Gleichauf (1816–1896) and Johann Baptist Tuttine, with whom Hasemann had already had dealings during the organization of the procession in 1881. Tuttine privately collected traditional costumes, which Hasemann used for his paintings, among other things. Georg Maria Eckert (1828–1903) also collected traditional costumes and tools from Baden in the 1890s.

195

conditions also experienced by Stieglitz in his daily life in Europe, and they would have impressive effects on his life and artistic work.

Due in part to improving accessibility, not only hikers but also many artists came to the Gutach valley, especially in the last third of the nineteenth century. While some only stayed for a short time, others settled for longer periods or remained for the rest of their lives. For Hasemann, his students, and other artists, Gutach was an ideal place to found a painters’ colony. Over nearly three decades, a circle of artists gathered around Hasemann, a group that soon became known by the name Gutacher Künstlerkolonie (Gutach Artist

Colony).

Hasemann’s circle, to which Edward Stieglitz belonged, can be described as a loose association of artists who met, worked, and learned from each other in the Black Forest— without any set rules and without belonging to a certain “school.”420 They all shared an interest in the landscape of the region—in marked contrast to urban environs—which they used as a pictorial motif in their works. Another commonality was the practice of their painting activity, which they carried out exclusively outdoors. This approach was a reaction to the great social and societal upheavals of the time. Living and painting in the solitude of nature was a frequent topic in the correspondence between Hasemann and other artists.

420 Ansgar Barth, “Gutach zur Zeit Curt Liebichs,” in Curt Liebich. Ein Künstler seiner Zeit (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Liebich, 2018), 36.

196

In promoting this project, Hasemann cooperated closely with the inhabitants of the valley as well as with the mayor and the local priest, who both supported his endeavors.421

Hasemann even motivated other artists, such as the folk author Heinrich Hansjakob, to write a manifesto for the preservation of Black Forest costumes in order to preserve and spread folklore unaltered.422 In 1891, Hasemann met the German painter Curt Liebich

(1868–1937), who played a decisive role in fostering Hasemann’s vision from the 1890s onward.423 Liebich fell in love with the Gutach valley the same way Hasemann had eleven years earlier.424 Liebich researched and processed the Black Forest folklore of his adopted

Heimat both in his art and in writings in which he reported on the customs of the peasants:

“The farmer in the Black Forest is worth something. He feels himself to be a hereditary farmer and keeps to himself and his estate, to his farm, on which his ancestors sometimes sat for centuries. He is almost always addressed by his farm name, that is his honorary title.”425

421 Ansgar Barth, “Gutach zur Zeit Wilhelm Hasemanns,” in Wilhelm Hasemann und sein Weg zum Schwarzwaldmaler, ed. Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heinemann (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Liebich, 2012), 5. The mayor was Johannes Wöhrle and the local priest was Richard Nuzinger (1867–1950).

422 Zimmermann-Degen, “Wilhelm Hasemann, Maler in Gutach,” 127.

423 Barth, “Gutach zur Zeit Curt Liebichs,” 17.

424 Barth, 19. Liebich’s first wife was Emma Lichtenberg, a sister of Antonie and Hasemann’s wife. After Emma died, Liebich married Antonie.

425 Quoted in Barth, 21. For original quote, see Appendix.

197

Liebich’s paintings mainly present rural motifs and village life in the Gutach valley.426 Similarly to Hasemann, impressionistic tendencies are recognizable in his paintings created en plein air.427 Nevertheless, he and Hasemann always remained true to a more academic painting style in contrast to painters of the Murnau colony, such as

Wassily Kandinsky and Gabriele Münter. Hasemann and Liebich had a decisive influence on the art of painting in the Black Forest, and through their old connections to Dresden,

Berlin, Weimar, and Karlsruhe, they attracted many artists to the Gutach valley.

Hasemann successively invited his colleagues from the Karlsruhe Academy to the

Black Forest village. Among them were his professor, the landscape painter Gustav

Schönleber, his fellow students Julius Bergmann, Friedrich Kallmorgen, Paul von

Ravenstein, the brothers Max and Victor Roman, the Swiss painter Fritz Völlmy, and many more. Hasemann’s studio, which Edward Stieglitz helped to finance, served not only as his living quarters but also as a place of community where other painters, his students, and friends gathered, worked, and resided. In fact, the studio provided a meeting place and was critical in the formation of the Black Forest painting community.

They also had occasional meetings at local guesthouses Zum Loewen and Krone, where they all immortalized themselves with small drawings and greetings in the guest

426 See Curt Liebich, Madchen in Tracht. Watercolor, 14 x 10 in. Private Collection. After Ansgar Barth, ed., Curt Liebich—Ein Kunstler seiner Zeit (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Liebich, 2018), 104.

427 Barth, 24.

198

books.428 The taverns served as typical places for regular Stammtische (group meetings) to share news and exchange experiences. Among the participants was Stieglitz’s father,

Edward Stieglitz, who played an important role as a friend, student, and sponsor of

Hasemann. He, Hasemann, and their mutual friend Encke eternalized themselves on one page within a guestbook. They documented their collaboration and friendship in 1882 with pencil drawings (fig. 3.14).

Hasemann was an active member of the Gutach community and was a founder of the Gutach costume group, an organization developed to preserve the traditional costumes of that time.429 Together with Liebich, Hasemann was involved in the organization of many traditional costume festivals during the 1890s, the highlight of which was a festival in the

Kinzigthal that attracted about 25,000 visitors.430 Hasemann also involved his wife, Luise, in his work on the preservation of customs, traditional costumes, architecture, and landscape. She was particularly involved in the Baden Women’s Association, where she took care of the weekly event of the spinners.431 While she performed the manual work with the spinners, the singing of folk songs was also cultivated and preserved.432 This work was captured by Hasemann, among others, in his paintings (fig. 3.15), and Stieglitz also

428 Baumstark, “Der Schwarzwald,” 97.

429 Barth, “Gutach zur Zeit Wilhelm Hasemanns,” 5.

430 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 70.

431 Heinemann, 84.

432 Zimmermann-Degen, “Wilhelm Hasemann, Maler in Gutach,” 128.

199

devoted himself to the subject in his photograph called A Study, Gutach from 1894 (fig.

3.16), which was probably motivated by Hasemann and his wife.

Indeed, with his works, Hasemann attracted many people to the Black Forest who wanted to see the landscape, costumes, and traditions that he used in his paintings. In

Hasemann’s works of art, he promoted the romanticization and idealization of nature, showing it as an intact, unspoiled world.

Because of his efforts, Hasemann was made an honorary citizen of Gutach in

1889.433 He was also made an honorary member of numerous associations, such as the

Badischer Schwarzwaldverein (Baden Black Forest Association), the Volkstrachteneverein

Freiburg (National Costume Club Freiburg), the Verein für ländliche Wohlfahrtspflege in

Baden (Association of Rural Welfare Work in Baden), and the Badischer Verein für

Volkskunde (Baden Association of Folklore).434 With the money he made from his endeavors, Hasemann helped to finance a community hall and also contributed to the worldwide fame of the Black Forest as the iconic landscape of southern Germany.435

Shortly before the turn of the century, three local groups from the Black Forest

Association built the first Schutzhütte (mountain hut) with a viewing platform, which was

433 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 59.

434 Barth, “Gutach zur Zeit Wilhelm Hasemanns,” 5.

435 Zimmermann-Degen, “Wilhelm Hasemann, Maler in Gutach,” 128. The income came from the sale of his postcards, which contributed to the construction of the community center. At the same time, the distribution of the postcards also served to spread his work and to spread Black Forest motifs.

200

named Hasemannhütte in honor of Wilhelm Hasemann.436 He also accepted the appointment of the curator of art and antiquity monuments for the administrative district of Wolfach and spearheaded a project in Gutach, where he wanted to establish a small folklore museum that organized art exhibitions. Unfortunately, this foundation was not realized, but art exhibitions were regularly held in the town hall that presented first and foremost local artists of the Gutacher Künstlerkolonie.437

As a young adult, Stieglitz was aware of artists’ colonies in different locations and of different sizes, such as those in France (Barbizon), Holland (Hague school), and others in Germany like the artists’ colony of Dachau centered around Wilhelm Leibl (1844–1900) and Hans Thoma (1839–1924), who dedicated their work to the rural life of peasants as well. Stieglitz witnessed firsthand in Gutach the building of a community by Hasemann, whom he was directly influenced and certainly impacted by. Later in New York, Stieglitz built his own “artists’ colony” and community. His gallery 291 not only exhibited works of art but was also used by Stieglitz to cultivate social ties, just as Hasemann did in Gutach.

Therefore, 291 served as an informal meeting point for ruleless creative exchange for

Photo-Secession members who had previously only been able to meet in restaurants and other public places.438

436 Barth, “Gutach zur Zeit Wilhelm Hasemanns,” 5.

437 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 84.

438 Roberts, Camera Work, 203.

201

Hasemann did not publish a magazine for the purpose of disseminating the traditions from the Black Forest to an interested public. Instead, he creatively used another medium to ensure that the Bollenhuttracht (Bollenhut costume) was recognized internationally—postcards. At that time, it was common practice for people to write letters and notes to each other several times a day. This lively correspondence took place between

Hasemann and Edward Stieglitz and Alfred Stieglitz. This interaction was not only in the form of letters but also in the form of postcards, the so-called Korrespondenzkarte,439 which could be sent internationally for private purposes from 1878 onward in most countries.440

In the beginning, this correspondence card contained an address field on one side and an empty text field on the other side. Motif postcards and greeting cards already existed in the 1870s, although printed picture postcards were not available until the mid-1890s.441

In general, the history of the picture postcard can be seen as a parallel development to the rise of tourism in the second half of the nineteenth century. These pictures presented mainly topographic views of towns, villages, and other landscapes, some with typical buildings or sights, which were intended to give an impression of the whereabouts of the region visited.

439 Anett Holzheid, “Das Medium Postkarte. Eine sprachwissenschaftliche und mediengeschichtliche Studie,” in Philologische Studien und Quellen, ed. Jürgen Schiewe, Hartmut Steineck, and Horst Wenzel, no. 231 (Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2011), 121. Oberpostrat and later general postmaster of the German Reich Heinrich von Stephan and the Austrian national economist Emanuel Herrmann coined the designation of the postcard with their postcard manifestos.

440 Holzheid, 413. The “Korrespondenzkarte” was introduced in Germany by Otto von Bismarck in 1870 and in the United States on May 1, 1873.

441 Holzheid, 413.

202

Prior to picture postcards, Hasemann developed a series of self-drawn postcards that he would send to his friends. These cards contained motifs similar to his paintings, which were primarily focused on the typical old farmhouses, churches, traditionally clothed citizens, and the wide, green landscape of the Black Forest. Many of these postcards were addressed to Edward and Alfred Stieglitz as early as the 1880s and were esteemed by their recipients very highly.

It did not take long for Edward Stieglitz to develop the idea to collect these postcards in an album. On August 3, 1882, he wrote a letter to Hasemann:

What you say in relation to the album, I had prepared myself mentally just as well & of course your meaningful postcards give the only impulse & everything you say so beautifully in relation to it—I sympathize with you quite well, but I find some reservations to accept your extremely friendly suggestion—without further ado— since you use your freshest moments for such things—you can see that from the vividness of the drawing. I could easily & appropriately enough arrange an album & would this ‘Hasemann-Album’ also probably gain a quite significant recognition inside and outside my family circle.442

The proposal to compile a postcard album was probably realized by Hasemann shortly thereafter. Today the Hasemann postcard album is held at the Beinecke Library.443

From the dedication, it can be assumed that Hasemann had the book produced for the

Stieglitz family.

The album includes a postcard from October 28, 1882, that shows Edward Stieglitz playing cards with his friend and painter Karl Lindemann-Frommel (1819–1891) (fig.

442 Edward Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, August 3, 1882, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 25, 2018. For original quote, see Appendix.

443 Album of forty-one figure studies and rural scenes drawn in Germany on postal cards and sent to the Stieglitz family, 1882–1885, YCAL MSS85, Series XI, Box 245.

203

3.17). Portraits of Alfred Stieglitz were also captured twice in Hasemann’s drawings. In one he is playing the board game Mühle with a young lady who has been erroneously identified as Emmeline (fig. 3.18).444 Hasemann sent this card to Edward Stieglitz with the words “All sent best love.” Another drawing included in the album is addressed to Alfred

Stieglitz at his address in Karlsruhe while he was living with Karl Bauer. The card shows a portrait of Stieglitz with tousled hair and beard lolling dreamily on a sofa with his head resting on his right arm (fig. 3.19).

It is not known if the album was conceived only for the postcards dated between

1882 and 1885 or if they intended to continue the project. According to a letter from 1886 from Edward Stieglitz to Hasemann, the album must have been finished by 1885. He writes:

[A]lready 6 weeks ago I paid my respects to the secretary of the “Century” & made your thing the point of the conversation.—The main thing he told me was that it is almost impossible to have artists carry out orders which are not appropriate here, i.e. with whom one cannot communicate verbally. . . . I then suggested to him to send the album to him, which he accepted most bindingly. An extremely flattering letter accompanied the album when he sent it back to me.—With the greatest admiration he & the whole artist staff had looked through the beautiful work & s. w. But since the beautiful words did not contain any practical value for you, the matter upset me more than it could astonish me. I have not yet made the suggestion to publish this myself, but will make an attempt at the beginning of the year to establish a connection.445

444 Edward Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, August 12, 1883, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 25, 2018.

445 Edward Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, December 13, 1886, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, June 6, 2018. For original quote, see Appendix.

204

In this letter, Edward Stieglitz enclosed the message from the secretary of the Century:

“My dear Sir—We thank you for letting us see Mr. Hasemanns sketches, they are certainly very charming and all our people have enjoyed looking them over. As I told you the other day Mr. Hasemann is too far away to be of use for us. Perhaps he will come to New York some time. Very sincerely yours M. Ellsworth Secty.”446

The album was not only created as a token of their friendship but with a commercial purpose in mind. At first, Edward Stieglitz tried to find a contractor to publish Hasemann’s postcards and drawings in the United States, but due to many problems the project was not realized. Just three years later in 1889, while Alfred Stieglitz was still in Germany, he took over and tried again. In collaboration with their mutual friend Fedor Encke, they found someone who agreed to publish Hasemann’s work.447

It was typical of Stieglitz’s personality that when he saw something promising for a friend or colleague, he did not give up. He seems to have been the driving force behind the album and wanted to make it a success, perhaps to foster the career of Hasemann, who had been so supportive of Stieglitz and his artistic interests during these years. Therefore,

Stieglitz organized the opportunity and would have been prepared to stand in as author of the publication. However, this commercial project was not realized and, as a result, the

Hasemann album remained in the possession of the Stieglitz family.

446 M. Ellsworth to Edward Stieglitz, n.d., included in Stieglitz to Hasemann, December 13, 1886.

447 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, January 2, 1889, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 20, 2018. For original quote, see Appendix.

205

While friends and acquaintances viewed the album with great admiration,

Hasemann continued to work on postcard motifs, later even in collaboration with Curt

Liebich. Motivated by Hasemann, Liebich arranged for his own artist postcards to be distributed in five languages all over the world and made an enormous profit.448 The pair achieved their goal of popularizing and spreading through the postcard medium the motifs of their paintings that ended up in private collections. Since the distribution of the postcard album did not work out, Hasemann and Liebich decided to participate together with their colleague Fritz Reiss at the Internationale Ausstellung von Ansichtskarten (International exhibition of postcards) in Berlin in 1898.449 In this way, they were able to present their postcards to the public in a formal setting which, emphasized the artistic approach to the medium.

2.2.2. A Vision for Art Photography

Stieglitz never made his photographs in postcard size and never had the ambition to distribute them in the form of postcard motifs. He saw, however, how Hasemann chose a method of distribution to advance his ultimate ambition of raising the world’s awareness of the simple beauty of the Black Forest and its traditions. For Stieglitz, founding a magazine was a much more effective way to get his message to the public. His mission was much greater than establishing himself as an accomplished photographer. He understood that his followers would play an important role in the implementation of his

448 Barth, “Gutach zur Zeit Curt Liebichs,” 31.

449 Barth, 47.

206

ambitious vision—elevating photography to a recognized form of fine art. Stieglitz recognized the success of the Munich and Vienna secession movements that used magazines as their mouthpiece and chose to use the same medium.

Moreover, Stieglitz’s networking with his photographer followers also lead them to network with each other and exchange artistic ideas. Their exchange evolved from the

European subjects they produced during their stays in France, Holland, England, Germany, and Italy to ideas about the city they lived in—New York. For them, but especially for

Stieglitz, New York was what the Black Forest was to Hasemann—the subject of homeland

(Heimatliebe) that had undergone an enormous transformation.

When Stieglitz returned to New York in 1890, he immediately recognized the effects of industrialization.450 Over the course of several decades, new urban models and architectural forms associated with significant innovations were created, including the expansion of the telephone network and electricity supply, the construction of the Brooklyn

Bridge, the emergence of the office, the invention of the elevator, and shortly after the turn of the century, the building of the subway.451 Stieglitz’s first impression of the rapidly changing city was negative as evidenced by his comment, “Upon my arrival in New York,

I found the Brooklyn Bridge intact but the land of my dreams was nowhere to be discovered. . . . Soon I realized, that ‘photography,’ as I understood the concept, was

450 Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 107.

451 Claudia Bohn-Spector, “A Gentleman’s View. Das Bild von New York in der Fotografie Alfred Stieglitz,“ (PhD diss., Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität, Munich, 1997), 45.

207

disconcerting. People were without work. It was not clear where I myself would fit in. . . . Everything I saw to begin with, intensified my desire to rush back to Europe.”452

However, unlike Hasemann, who tried to hold on to the traditions in the Old World,

Stieglitz opened up to New York and all of its possibilities. In the numerous photographs he took of the ever-changing city at the beginning of the twentieth century, this inner attitude of Stieglitz toward New York becomes clear. Two photographs by Stieglitz will be presented as examples. These photographs each show his new subject, the growing city of New York. They are intended to illustrate how Stieglitz, like Hasemann, implemented a sense of cohesion among artists. While the common element between Hasemann and his group of artists was the motif of the Black Forest, Stieglitz and his group’s was both the subject of the big city, as shown in The Flatiron (fig. 3.20), and composition, as displayed in Two Towers—New York (fig. 3.21).

After initial rejection by residents, the Flatiron Building, built in 1903 by Daniel

Burnham Fuller, attracted favorable attention.453 In the words of Claudia Bohn-Spector, the Flatiron embodied the “nationalist and commercial belief in progress of a ‘new

America.’”454 Stieglitz expressed his admiration for the peculiarly shaped building in his photograph The Flatiron. From a view from below, the skyscraper in the background rises behind park benches and trees into the white sky. The ground and tree branches are covered

452 Quoted in Norman, Stieglitz: American Seer, 32.

453 Merrill Schleier, The Skyscraper in American Art, 1890–1931 (Michigan: UMI Research Press, 1986), 43.

454 Bohn-Spector, A Gentleman’s View, 90.

208

with snow, allowing the dark tones of the building to clearly contrast with the light background. Stieglitz reduced the sharpness of the image so that the structured rows of windows of the high-rise are only partially visible, which gives the building facade an even texture. In the foreground, to the right of center, a single dark tree trunk stands in stark contrast to the light background. It forks in the upper third of the composition, forming a striking triangle that divides the upper image space and creates a structural relationship with the building. The Flatiron was the only New York building with a triangular floor plan; Stieglitz’s photograph establishes an abstract relationship between natural and industrial objects beyond the spatial composition.

Only a short time later, some of Stieglitz’s followers devoted themselves to this theme using the same building. Edward Steichen photographed the Flatiron Building in

1906 in a similar composition with a branch projecting far into the picture from the left.455

Alvin Langdon Coburn also chose the viewpoint out from the park with trees in the foreground, although he did not capture the top of the building, but its broadside.456

Two Towers—New York of 1911 also explores the distribution of sharp and blurred parts within the photograph. Stieglitz moves the architecture into the background both in

455 See Edward Steichen, The Flatiron – Evening, 1906. Gum bichromate over platinum print, 18 13/16 x 15 1/8 in. Metropoli- tan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no.: 33.43.39. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/ collection/search/267803.

456 See Alvin Langdon Coburn, The Flat-Iron, 1909. Photogravure, 7 13/16 x 5 5/8 in. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, acc. no.: 84.XO.1133.8. http://www.getty.edu/art/collection/ objects/199495/alvin-langdon-coburn- the-flat-iron- british-negative-1909- print-1910/.

209

terms of perspective and through the pronounced softness of the image. The foreground is dominated by the crown of a small tree whose bare, snow-covered branches protrude into the center of the picture. Its natural, irregular shapes spread out to all sides and contrast with the clearly structured, vertically accentuated facades of the buildings. Snow-covered railings of brownstone stoops can be seen in front of and behind the tree. Between the parallel vertical balusters of the railings and in front of the architectural structures in the background, the ramified treetops form a natural accent in the big city motif. Two towers, which give the photograph its title, rise up into the cloudy sky in the background. They are

Madison Square Garden (left) and the Metropolitan Life Building (right), taken from a veranda on the west side of Madison Avenue.457 Corresponding to the portrait format of the picture, the skyscraper towers emphasize the vertical. The foreground tree, while not the subject of the title, serves to emphasize the contact between the natural and industrial environments in the living space of the modern metropolis.

The photograph entitled Notre Dame by Coburn seems to have been a forerunner for Stieglitz; Coburn photographed it four years earlier, and Stieglitz had published it in

Camera Work in 1908—so he obviously knew it.458 Coburn’s European motif shows the

Paris cathedral in portrait format with a view over the northern bank of the Seine. The intensity of tonal values and contrast is greatly reduced so that the church building and the

457 Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 247.

458 See Alvin Langdon Coburn, Notre Dame, 1907. Halftone, 8 1/4 x 6 5/8 in. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no.: 33.43.207. https://www.metmuseum.org/ art/collection/search/267613

210

river in the foreground appear veiled in a light grey. Details of the building can hardly be made out apart from some buttresses supporting the Gothic masonry. In contrast, Coburn has foliage hanging into the foreground from the right and left sides of the picture. While the foliage on the left side occupies only a narrow strip of the lower half of the picture, the foliage on the right side takes up considerably more space. It is dark overall and stands out clearly against the light background.

Stieglitz’s composition is in many respects similar to that of Coburn’s work. The choice of motif is also the contrast between a human-made object in the form of a building and a natural object in the form of a tree with branches. Obviously, both photographs are concerned with the aesthetic interplay between nature and artificially constructed architecture. Both blur the architecture into the background and bring the natural element sharply into the foreground. However, while Coburn made the building appear light and the foliage dark, Stieglitz reversed the situation due to the weather conditions. The titles of both photographs, Two Towers and Notre Dame, emphasize the architecture even though it fades into the background. Perhaps both artists were declaring through their pictures that nature was superior to architecture.

As Chapter 3 makes clear, Hasemann was successful as a pioneer in the preservation of Black Forest traditions. Due in no small part to his efforts, to this day the world knows the traditional south German Bollenhut costumes, the hipped roofs of the farms, and the green, hilly landscape surrounded by dark forest. Although Hasemann could not stop industrialization, his visual contributions as a painter enabled him to shape the image and brand of the Black Forest region. Stieglitz, who was in close contact with

211

Hasemann during the 1880s and 1890s, saw how he collaborated with other influential artists. Fedor Encke supported Hasemann in his mission and procured him commissions both at home and abroad. Edward Stieglitz called into play his networks in New York and

Europe. Even though the postcard album was not a commercial success, the effort proves that Edward Stieglitz believed in Hasemann. As supportive as he was of Hasemann’s career, Edward Stieglitz was also invested in the artists’ colony that Hasemann organized together with Liebich.

Alfred Stieglitz was exposed to all these events from a young age and saw how cooperation lead to success. Stieglitz was impressed by Hasemann’s ambition, which he absorbed and later put into practice to promote his vision for photography. Stieglitz was an original modernist who used the Zeitgeist of the modern era in New York to his advantage.

Robert Crunden has described the social circumstances of that time in New York: “They

[the first modernist generation] were a collection of the excluded: they were Southern in a

Yankee society, Jewish in a Christian society, black in a white society, Catholic in a

Protestant society, female in a male society, or homosexual in a heterosexual society. . . . A modern artist could make history, especially his history, into anything he wanted to be.”459

Embracing this concept, Stieglitz understood that photography had been excluded from recognition by the art world; however, as he had seen Hasemann be a force in preserving the Black Forest customs, Stieglitz knew he had a chance to change the world’s perception of photography.

459 Robert M. Crunden, American Salons: Encounters with European Modernism 1885– 1917 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), xiii.

212

3. Artistic Realization

A uniform Black Forest artistic style did not develop. The artists, who mostly found their inspiration in the open countryside, were united by their motifs; they either thematized the distant views over the vastness of the plateaus or made the details in individual trees or streams the content of their pictures. Genre themes about life and work were also common.

The resulting pictures were predominantly idealized and romanticized and show nothing of the deprived life and the years of hunger caused by the events of the Baden Revolution around 1848–1849.460 The Karlsruhe Academy was founded shortly afterward by

Frederick I to focus on landscape painting in an effort to paper over the difficult past of the region.461 The artistic results were in sharp contrast to the reality of life in the Black Forest.

Hasemann’s painting style was primarily influenced by the Karlsruhe Academy.

When Stieglitz returned to the Black Forest with his wife Emmeline in 1894, he created many of his most important photographic works in just seven days. The following year, he published some of these photographs in The Photographic Times magazine to accompany an article under the headline “Two Artists’ Haunts—by Alfred Stieglitz and

Louis H. Schubart” with the additional note that the illustrations were made by Stieglitz.462

460 Brigitte Baumstark, “Schwarzwald-Bilder. Einfuhrung,” in Schwarzwald Bilder. Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts (Karlsruhe: Städtische Galerie Karlsruhe, 2016), 14.

461 Baumstark, 15. The founding director and landscape painter Johann Wilhelm Schirmer came from the Academy of Fine Arts in Düsseldorf.

462 Stieglitz, “Two Artists’ Haunts,” 9. His friend Louis Schubart was named as an artist, too, although there has never been anything mentioned about him painting, photographing, or doing other artistic work. In fact, at that time Schubart was more of a

213

At the beginning of the text, Stieglitz outlined the intention of his essay and the pertinent illustrations, namely to give an idea about Gutach to the reader and to the potential

“camera artist.” In his own words, “a field for work, yet a short description of the places themselves, the inhabitants, the difficulties which beset an artist, and a few words about the nature of the people one has to employ as models will not be amiss and will be of value to those who wish in future to visit these golcondas of genre and landscape.”463

Stieglitz joined a long tradition of artists who discovered the Black Forest and the

Gutach valley as a subject for their work as early as the beginning of the nineteenth century.

Among them were the Austrian painter Moritz von Schwind (1804–1871), the French painter Eugène Delacroix (1798–1863), and the French painter and realist Gustave Courbet

(1877–1819),464 who were primarily interested in the landscape of the area.465 The

American author Mark Twain (1835–1910) was a typical traveler who pursued educational tourism as well.466 In 1880, similarly to Stieglitz, he reported on his experiences in the

Black Forest:

From Baden-Baden we made the customary trip into the Black Forest. We were on foot most of the time. One cannot describe those noble woods, nor the feeling with which they inspire him. A feature of the feelings, however, is a deep sense of contentment; another feature of it is a buoyant, boyish gladness; and a third and very conspicuous feature of it is one’s sense of the remoteness of the work-day business partner to Stieglitz, since they worked together at the Photochrome Engraving Company in New York.

463 Stieglitz, “Two Artists’ Haunts,” 9.

464 Baumstark, “Schwarzwald-Bilder. Einfuhrung,” 14.

465 Baumstark, “Der Schwarzwald,” 74–75.

466 Heck, “Marke Schwarzwald,” 25.

214

world and his entire emancipation from it and its affairs. . . . We found the Black Forest farmhouses and villages all that the Black Forest stories have pictured them.467

Berthold Auerbach’s stories about the Black Forest had been internationally known since the middle of the nineteenth century and influenced many other authors. As Stieglitz commented, “the stories of the Black Forest are told in fairy tales.”468 As mentioned above,

Auerbach, who originally came from the northern Black Forest, was interested in collaborating with Hasemann for his novel Lorle, Frau Professorin;469 Hasemann gained this first major commission through his art contacts in Karlsruhe.470 With this work,

Auerbach created a literary monument to the Black Forest by writing and disseminating

Black Forest village stories as amusing and instructive tales in a rural milieu.471 He recommended that Hasemann travel to the Gutach valley to complete the commission, as its diverse motifs offered an ideal backdrop for landscape and genre painting. What

Hasemann found in Gutach has been vividly described by the historian Hermann Eris

Busse:

The landscape captivated him immediately. As if in a fever of love, he began studies at first sight and forgot everything else about them, including the commission. The strange farmsteads with their huge roofs fascinated him by their form, their harmony with the surroundings and by the richness of their colours, the silver and

467 Mark Twain, “The Black Forest and Its Treasures (Chapter XXII),” in A Tramp Abroad: The Complete Works of Mark Twain, vol. 19 (Hastings East Sussex: Delphi Classics, 2013).

468 Stieglitz, “Two Artists’ Haunts,” 9.

469 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 32.

470 Heinemann, 36.

471 Heck, “Marke Schwarzwald,” 28.

215

brown tones in the wood of the boardings and arbours, the embers of the geraniums in front of the windows, the mighty sweep of the roof and its colours playing over green and violet and golden brown and brick red. In addition he saw the peasant people going to work and going to church in traditional costumes, which in the Protestant village are tuned to black, white and red, he saw the festive red pollen hats of the girls, the dignified lap skirts of the men made of black velvet lined with red flannel, he saw the life of children by the bright brook on a multi-flowered mountain mat, saw all this in the course of a few days, and he felt as if he had found a home. He stayed.472

The commission from Auerbach was particularly important for Hasemann’s career.

In general, local literature reached a large circle of readers in the second half of the nineteenth century. Auerbach’s work with Hasemann’s illustrations—of which the

Stieglitz family owned a copy—became one of the most widely read works of the time in

Germany. It achieved such great popularity that it was subsequently staged as a theater play and even made into a film in 1950.473 Through Hasemann’s illustrations, he canonized the image of the typical Black Forest girl wearing a Bollenhut costume, which became a national symbol emblematic of the Black Forest region. Hasemann had, therefore, played a decisive role in shaping the Black Forest brand and spreading its visual image internationally.

Stieglitz, with the photographic works he made in the Black Forest, is part of the tradition of well-known artists who visited the southern German region. In the following

472 Quoted in Ludwig Vögely, “Der Schwarzwaldmaler Wilhelm Hasemann (1850– 1913),” in Wilhelm Hasemann. Künstlerpostkarten, ed. Joachim Baumann and Peter Schäfer (Schonach/Trossingen: Baumann & Schäfer, 2016), 7. For original quote, see Appendix.

473 Heck, “Marke Schwarzwald,” 29.

216

subchapter, Stieglitz’s artistic work in the Black Forest will be examined using a few examples.

It is noticeable that the motifs he chose and the way he used composition and lighting are similar to Black Forest paintings, especially to those of Hasemann. Hasemann was someone whom Stieglitz learned from and respected greatly for his paintings and drawings. Stieglitz regularly consulted with Hasemann on his work and, like his father,

Edward Stieglitz, he appreciated Hasemann’s perception of the traditional Black Forest

Bollenhut costume. Stieglitz often took a picture and developed it years later, sometimes with a different chemical process. In this way, these motifs from 1894 never grew out of date and reflect Stieglitz’s continued artistic development. The following provides an analysis of how Stieglitz contributed to the pictorial traditions of the Black Forest with his medium of photography and spread those images in the United States through exhibitions and publications. The following photographs engaged Stieglitz’s artistic mind for a lifetime.

3.1. Austria

In the 1890s, pictures of peasants taken by Stieglitz were likely done in Vienna and not the Black Forest (except for those made on his brief visit in 1894); however, in comparing Stieglitz’s pictures to those of Hasemann or the Barbizon school, we notice the striking resemblance of the peasant motif contained in these works. As can be seen in the selected picture comparisons, Stieglitz’s early interest in the depiction of countryfolk was influenced by Hasemann and contemporary European schools of art. In direct homage to

217

them, Stieglitz included staffage figures in scenes that are consistent with those of painters who came before him.

Sunlight Effect (1890)

In a picturesque shot, a girl sits on a hillside in a profile angle (fig. 3.22). The photograph in portrait format shows a slope, rising from left to right, overgrown with grass and bushes. The girl is sitting in a reclined position, holding in her hands an unrecognizable object. She looks downward, dedicated to the work on her lap that is supported by a crossed leg. The girl is clad in a bright top with buttons and slight patterning. Her long skirt stretches downward, leaving free only her feet. Her hair is covered by a dotted scarf that only reveals her bangs.

Since 1888, Hasemann had been working on a painting now entitled Die

Wallfahrtskirche (The Pilgrimage Church) (fig. 3.23). The final version shows a group of pilgrims on Assumption Day at the Late Baroque parish church Maria in der Tanne in

Triberg (a place near Gutach).474 The multitudinous group gathers in front of the church portal in the center of the image. Women and men in their finest traditional dresses and with all kinds of headgear stand in a grape-like formation in order to enter the church. The church building itself takes up nearly the whole upper right half of the image, appearing as a bright, coherent area consisting of plain stones and plaster without any elaborate exterior decoration. On the opposite side, there is a steep natural rock wall towering nearly as high

474 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 64.

218

as the church. Both walls, the human-made and the natural one, enclose a narrow lane that leads straight back and is being used by some approaching churchgoers.

Through this arrangement, Hasemann accomplished an effect of deep spatial recession. But the spectator’s view is mostly drawn to the two girls sitting on the grass in the foreground. While the one on the left is seen only from the rear—an opportunity to admire her beautiful cap—the other shows herself in profile. She is likely waiting in front of the church until all the other crowding pilgrims have given way. She sits in her colorful costume consisting of a white blouse, red top, violet skirt, and black bonnet and is lost in reading her prayer book.

Stieglitz’s photograph of a young girl seems to have risen out of Hasemann’s painting. Indeed, her attire is not exactly the same, but posture and overall composition are very similar. This effect is even more striking with regard to another work of Hasemann’s, a study called Junges Mädchen (Young Girl) (fig. 3.24). She is sitting mirror-inverted to

Stieglitz’s photograph; perspective and composition are exactly the same. Since Die

Wallfahrtskirche was included in a book by Wilhelm Hermann Jensen (1837–1911) entitled Der Schwarzwald (The Black Forest) and correspondence confirms that Edward

Stieglitz possessed a copy of it, Alfred Stieglitz surely knew the painting and probably also

Hasemann’s sketches of it.475

Over the years, Hasemann repeatedly included a sitting girl on a hill in several variations in his pictures. Another example is the portrait Erika from 1894 (fig. 3.25). Erika

475 Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, August 20, 1890, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018.

219

is sitting in the middle of the forest with many fir tree trunks in the background that allow only a partial view of the area farther behind. The whole foreground is covered by a meadow overgrown with violet flowers. Only a small, young fir at the left margin of the image can be viewed as a whole tree. Again, the ground on which the girl is sitting is not depicted as even, but as rising upward from left to right. Erika is picking flowers, which she puts on her lap and adds to a bunch with her left hand. The violet blooms are in marked contrast to the black fabric of her apron. Her white puffed sleeves and yellow hair, set centrally in the composition, are the brightest elements in the picture. As a completed work,

Erika resembles most of Stieglitz’s photographs from this time. Stieglitz’s focus is not on churchgoers but on young girls resting, reading, or picking flowers, always in the same pose and in nearly identical perspective.

Weary (1890)

Another photograph by Stieglitz that should be considered in the context of his photographs of young girls resting in fields was taken by him not in the Black Forest but near Vienna in 1890 and entitled Weary (fig. 3.26). Stieglitz chose a landscape format, most of which shows a meadow. Only at the top margin do dark shrubs contrast with the bright area of the meadow and frame the image. In the center, a girl sleeps on the ground.

Her upper body leans on a cluster of tied-up branches, which she uses like an inconvenient pillow. Her head, in three-quarter profile, is supported by her left hand at her temple, while her right hand rests on her thigh. She keeps her eyes closed, and her hair is partially covered by a white scarf with dark dots. She is wearing a dark, high-necked top with the sleeves

220

rolled up to the elbows. A striped skirt and white apron reach shortly below the knee. Her bare feet rest in the grass. Stieglitz has sharply focused the image to the far edge of the bundle of branches. Behind that the focus decreases more and more until it completely dissolves in the far distance. On the whole, the photograph contains very bright tones, broken only by the figure in the foreground and the horizontal strip of dark trees. This strip, together with the branches and the overall landscape format, results in a dominant horizontal structure, interrupted only by the diagonal posture of the girl.

Before Stieglitz, the motif of a sleeping person in the middle of a meadow or field has been perceived and interpreted by many artists in different ways. Mostly these are pictures of peasants who take a rest during their hard work to gain new strength. A typical example in paint is Jules Breton’s (1827–1906) A Rest in the Fields from 1866, where a similar motif is shown.476 Breton’s resting girl is placed in a similar composition, and like the peasant in Weary, she is reposing on her working material. Here, this is not branches but a bunch of straw that the girl shall carry off. While resting, she puts her right arm under her face to lean upon the straw like on a pillow. The other hand is not on her lap but beside it. Similarly to Stieglitz’s girl, she is clad in a dark top with a skirt and apron. On her head she is wearing a white bonnet. Breton has placed her centrally in the composition, with a field of white flowers surrounding her that extends to the upper margin of the picture.

Likening Stieglitz’s work to Breton’s, the author Marmaduke Humphrey commented in

476 See Jules Breton, A Rest in the Fields, 1866. Oil on canvas. Private Collection. https://www.wikiart.org/en/jules-breton/a-rest-in-the-fields-1866.

221

Godey’s in 1897 that “Weary is ingenuous and as full of sincerity as any of Millet’s or

Breton’s peasants. . . . they show a finely artistic feeling for composition and values.”477

During his stay in Cortina in 1890, Stieglitz staged himself in a self-portrait (fig.

3.27), not lying in a meadow like his peasant girl but on a set of stairs during a short break in his sightseeing exploration. The dominant structural line is marked by his body, which extends diagonally through the image space from bottom left to upper right. His body sprawls over five steps, which are shown in the lower-right corner. The lines of the steps’ edges point toward Stieglitz’s body; thus, they not only add to the dynamism of the whole composition but also focus the spectator’s view on the body of the young man. These lines are emphasized by the alternating light and dark in each step, a contrast that is taken up by

Stieglitz’s dress. He wears black trousers, a white shirt with a dark cravat, and a jacket. His bright face is framed by dark hair, beard, and a cap. He holds his hands nonchalantly behind his head. His right leg is set on a step for support, while his left leg is stretched out in an affected manner, his toes only just reaching the lowest step. Even if Weary is supposed to authentically depict a sleeping girl, it was most probably staged; with his self-staging as a resting Italian during a siesta, he carries this technique to the extreme.

Three years later, his new wife Emmeline submitted to a similar pose at their summer residence at Lake George.478 Near a small like in the meadow covered with grass,

477 Humphrey, “Triumphs in Amateur Photography,” 588.

478 See Alfred Stieglitz, Emmy Obermeyer, Tea Island, Lake George, 1893. Platinum print, 6 1/8 x 8 1/4 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.80. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205727.html.

222

leaves, and roots, Emmy Stieglitz sleeps on a blanket and cushions. She holds her arms behind her head, and her long skirt could nearly be taken for a cover. Next to her on the right there lies a summer hat. On her left lies another hat together with a dark box that suggests a picnic or photography equipment. The upper third of the landscape-format photograph contains shrubs on the left, the base of a large tree in the middle, and a glimpse of a body of water on the right.

This photograph of his newly wed spouse look, with regard to her pose, inviting and nearly erotic for that time. Indeed, they are very private pictures in contrast to the pictures described above and Stieglitz never publicly displayed the photograph in either exhibitions or in print. The same applies to his self-portrait from Cortina. Only Weary was exhibited by him—five times between 1891 and 1899. He also published it eight times in

German and Anglophone magazines.479

3.2. The Black Forest

Four years after creating Weary, in 1894, Stieglitz returned to Gutach to visit

Hasemann, introduce him to Emmeline, and take photographs of the village. He continued the work he had begun in Austria four years earlier by devoting himself once again to the typical rural subject of the everyday life of the inhabitants of the Black Forest. The following six examples show a sample of the photographs taken by Stieglitz at that time.

They deal less with the traditions and costumes of the region and more with themes of field work, fetching water, playing children, and the delivery of letters. Stieglitz continued to

479 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 36.

223

focus on the romanticization of the Black Forest as described in stories and legends and was not interested in depicting a realistic picture of peasant life. The only architectural artistic photograph presented is of a mill of a blacksmith’s shop which many artists found particularly worthy of depiction. These photographs reflect Stieglitz’s desire to present the region and its inhabitants with the overlaying of his style.

Hasemann’s painting style is primarily ascribed to mood naturalism in the tradition of late Romantic landscape art.480 For him, the reproduction of lighting and mood was important, aspects that also played a special role in Stieglitz’s photographs. While

Hasemann was able to express mood through his color palette using cool colors and strong color accents, Stieglitz strove to capture mood with fine gradations of tonal values in his photographs. Stieglitz and Hasemann both knew the works of the French Impressionists and the masters of the Barbizon school. Hasemann came into contact with their landscape interpretations of the paysage intime mainly through a trip to Paris in 1878. He adopted their exploration of the relationship between nature and man in his Black Forest motifs.481

Sunlight (1894)

Stieglitz posed a girl similar to the one in Weary to make a photograph four years later that he titled Sunlight (fig. 3.28). The picture is taken in landscape format. It shows a scene in Gutach with a young girl who does not have to carry bunches of branches but is fetching water. She stands in her dark, sleeveless frock in front of a water trough at a

480 Zimmermann-Degen, “Wilhelm Hasemann, Maler in Gutach,” 130.

481 Zimmermann-Degen, 130.

224

standpipe. Under her frock she wears the typical white blouse with billowing sleeves that reach down to the elbows. Her hair is tied up in a dark, white-dotted scarf so that it does not bother her in her work. With her left hand she balances a round wooden bucket that she has placed on the wooden trough. With the other hand she presses down the lever that operates the pump to haul the water from the well up into the trough. She looks downward, concentrating on the job to be done. The lower-left corner of the image is covered by a green and behind the girl a path crosses, leading downward to the rear. In the top-right corner of the image part of a farm building’s facade is showing. At the bottom of the path two lank trees echo the vertical components of the girl and standpipe in the foreground.

The path, the water trough, and the edge of the meadow bring out a diagonal from bottom right to top left. With the landscape format, Stieglitz combined different directions in his picture, thus generating a dynamic effect that is in contrast to the meditative way the girl is shown at her work.

Stieglitz’s title Sunlight seems quite adequate, since the girl is working at midday, and the whole scene is brightly illuminated by the sun. But behind the photographer there must have been a tree standing against the sun. His shadow is superimposed on the trough and the girl and produces a flickering halftone, a nearly impressionistic effect that was probably of high interest to Stieglitz. This small pattern is taken up again in the crowns of the two slim trees in the rear on the left. The path is thoroughly kept in a bright hue, whereas the facade of the building appears in a darker tone that is repeated in intensity only below the water trough.

225

In this photograph, Stieglitz kept to his principle to focus on the topical foreground scene and let the image blur increasingly toward the rear. Stieglitz did not publish this carefully composed image but exhibited it two times. Unlike most of his Gutach photographs, he did not exhibit it the following year, but five years after it was taken in

1899. It seems noteworthy that the year of the second exhibition was 1934.482 Apparently, he appreciated this photograph since he still considered it worthy of exhibiting after forty years.

Regarding Stieglitz’s contact with Hasemann, there is no lack of potential sources of inspiration. For example, for the illustration project for Wilhelm Jensen’s Der

Schwarzwald, Hasemann worked together with other artists, among them Paul Emil Hugo

(1878–1938), Max Wilhelm Roman (1849–1910), Wilhelm Volz (1855–1901), and Karl

Eyth (1877–1957). The publisher, Reuther, envisioned a magnificent volume about the

Black Forest. Hasemann was acquainted with him, since he had formerly lived in

Karlsruhe. After some contemplation, a meeting with all artists took place in 1888.483

In a chapter entitled Land und Leute der Gegenwart (Country and People of the

Present), there is a woodcut by Hasemann that he titled Wasserhäusle (Little Water

Station), finished some years before Stieglitz’s photograph (fig. 3.29).484 It shows a young girl fetching water, depicted in lateral perspective. Like the figure in Stieglitz’s photograph, she wears a sleeveless, dark dress with white, blousy sleeves down to the elbows. Her hair

482 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 110

483 Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, August 7, 2018.

484 Heinemann to author, August 7, 2018.

226

is bound behind in a plait. She is looking down on the water, holding with her hand a round wooden tub that is set upon a trough. Water is running into the tub through a wooden outlet.

In front of this scene, Hasemann has arranged on the left side a meadow and shrubs and on the right a small stairway with four steps that leads down toward the spectator. Behind the girl there is also the facade of a large farm building, here marked with a big portal on the right. Stieglitz’s photograph does not contain this detail, nor another item in Hasemann’s picture, a porch with a singular tiled roof at the left side of the building. In the background above this porch, there are more shrubs like those in the foreground. The facade of the building is truncated but not as deeply as Stieglitz’s. Due to the portrait format, it is shown up to the roof gutter.

Notwithstanding these minor differences, the identity of the motifs and the similarity of the compositions are astonishing—the girl, the clothing, the posture, the water pipe, the trough, and the surrounding scenery are comparable. Both scenes are captured in lateral perspective, both pictures impress with their dynamic compositions that contrast with the tranquility of the central motif and the charisma of the girl. Both artists have emphasized this contrast by the light-dark patterns in small-scale and extended areas. All these corresponding details suggest that Hasemann’s work has led Stieglitz to the idea of his photographic realization.

227

A Gutach Peasant Girl (1894) / The Truant, Mittenwald (1886)

In Stieglitz’s picture A Gutach Peasant Girl from 1894, he took up once more a similar motif with a single girl standing in a doorframe (fig. 3.30).485 Placed in the middle of the portrait-format image, she fills most of the space, facing the spectator directly. Her hair is bound back and she is clad in the typical, everyday dress of the Gutach peasant women. With her right hand she is leaning against the doorframe, holding a tin bucket by its handle with her left. Behind the girl, the door swings inward, where there is nothing to be perceived but utter darkness.

In 1876, Hasemann painted a genre scene with two girls in front of an entry door

(fig. 3.31). While the small girl is leaning against the entry at the right, her arms folded behind her back, her elder sister is sitting on a stone bench to the right of the door. On her lap lie knitting needles; a ball of wool has fallen down already, much to the amusement of two kittens who are charging it in front of her feet. Her look is lowered to the spectacle of the cats, guiding the gaze of the viewer. Both girls share the same hairdo and dress.

Although Hasemann has painted the girls in rather sober tones, they are the only colored elements within a monochromatic environment. The upper two-thirds of the image is filled with the entrance on the left and the brittle wall on the right. The entrance is open, but due to the darkness, the interior cannot be recognized from the outside and the space is painted in uniform black. In contrast, the wall on the right shows variations in material and texture, such as the heavy brown beams with their grain pattern as well as the differences

485 Stieglitz published his photograph once in 1898 and exhibited it three times very late in his career in 1921, 1934, and 1941. He also took two more versions of the same subject.

228

in the plastering with bare brickwork in some places. In the middle of the upper two-thirds of the image, the two girls are placed. In the lower third, a small stone stairway leads from the entrance down to the meadow where the two kittens are playing with the varicolored wool. On the stone bench to the right of the girls, there stand two wooden buckets like the ones shown in Sunlight and Wasserhäusle, articles of daily use for peasants.

Hasemann’s composition is structured by vertical and horizontal lines determined by the beams of the timber frame, the stairway, and the stone bench and emphasized by the vertical posture of the little girl who is huddling closely against the right side of the entrance. The older girl slightly diverges from this pattern; her diagonally-oriented posture from lower left to upper right guides the direction of the spectator’s view through the image. Captured first by the figures of both girls, the eye moves down the frock of the elder sister to her protruding foot and is led along the wool yarn to the kittens. The children’s impish smiles about the scene of the playing kittens may be easily transferred to the spectator.

A photograph called The Truant, Mittenwald that Stieglitz took in 1886 involves a similar composition (fig. 3.32). This time a little boy with his mother stand on the doorstep of a farmhouse. While the mother is looking down from above, perhaps checking to see if he has taken his school bag with him, the boy is looking straight into Stieglitz’s camera with a slightly dubious expression. With his right hand he grabs the doorframe behind as if he would rather stay at home. With the other hand he lets his satchel drag on the ground.

His left leg is bent and set on the step to the door. He is clad in leather-flap trousers and a

229

white shirt under a jacket. His head is protected by a dark hat, and his bare lower legs are covered by gaiters without shoes.

Stieglitz placed the boy exactly in the middle of the portrait-format image. His posture corresponds with the vertical door. His right foot is straightened, elongating the line of the wooden door. Thus, the door and the boy form the vertical axis of the image. In parallel to the left, the mother is standing in an upright posture, emphasizing the verticals of the composition. She is leaning out from inside the doorframe, which she holds with both hands. Like Hasemann’s, the interior is too dark to recognize any details. Her hair is carefully bound in a plait, and she is wearing a dark blouse with sleeves rolled up to the elbows and a striped skirt with an apron. Her focused gaze guides the view of the spectator to her son. On the right side of the boy, part of a little bench is shown with some round tubs on it. The elements captured by Stieglitz for the composition of his image are similar to

Hasemann’s.

Stieglitz’s The Truant, Mittenwald shows a simple image composition dominated by the vertical lines of the house wall, the entrance, and the two figures in the foreground.

In contrast, the doorstep is set diagonally, rising from lower left to upper right, a line that is taken up once more through the bench on the right and the arm of the mother on the left.

Most of the surrounding areas are shaped in large scale, whereas the figures are emphasized by the minute details of their clothing. The bright dress of the mother contrasts with the dark left half of the image, the dark dress of the boy with the bright door beside him.

In 1895 The American Amateur Photographer published an article by Edwin B.

Giles on how to make oil paintings with the camera. Although he did not refer explicitly to

230

Stieglitz’s The Truant, Mittenwald, which is printed beside the text, somehow the picture seems to support Giles’s demonstrations.486 In the article, he explained how to produce, with a special darkroom technique, an effect that will make a photograph appear like an oil painting. It is not mentioned that this technique was applied to The Truant, Mittenwald, but the thoroughly composed, painting-like picture might have served to motivate the reader to carefully study the instructions and put them to the test.

In his works The Truant, Mittenwald and A Gutach Peasant Girl, Stieglitz adopted genre motifs from Hasemann, who was especially dedicated to portraying and propagating the Black Forest and Gutach with their local traditions. He did not imitate Hasemann, but certain relations between the works are evident and the motific similarities are indisputable.

The Letter Box (1894)

Be it a truant or a peasant girl at work, Black Forest genre painting comprised many different motifs where children are shown. Apparently, Stieglitz had a liking for the children of Gutach. He captured them photographically engaged in some work (Sunlight and Gutach Peasant Girl) or taking care of their siblings (A Gutach Meeting). Another picture entitled The Letter Box shows two little girls posting a letter, which addresses the subject of communication. At that time, sending letters was popular and was a common way for marriage proposals to be delivered. Accordingly, this became a popular motif for artists as they romanticized the sending and receipt of notes. Hasemann captured in his

486 Edwin B. Giles, “How to Make Oil Paintings,” The American Amateur Photographer, no. 7 (May 1895): 204, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015067096589&view=1up&seq=222.

231

paintings the moments of opening such proposal letters while family members of the girl witnessed the scene (fig. 3.33).

In Stieglitz’s The Letter Box, two young girls are standing side by side in front of a letter box attached to a house wall (fig. 3.34). With regard to height and age, they could nearly be the same girls as in Hasemann’s Vor der Haustür (fig. 3.31), transported into

Stieglitz’s photograph. In Stieglitz’s work, the elder one is standing in front, raising her right arm to drop a thin white letter into the slit of the letter box. She is attentively looking upward over her arm. Her little sister is standing close to her, looking tensely in the same direction. Both are dressed the same, wearing a dark sleeveless frock with a dark apron that reaches down to the ankles. The top is garnished with small, bright embroidery, and a little patterned band collar is protruding above. Their arms are covered by the sleeves of white blouses. Their feet are bare, and their long, blonde hair is bound back in long plaits.

Similarly to what he did in the former pictures, Stieglitz has focused on the protagonists with the surroundings of minor importance. These photographs show an action, the surroundings are mostly set with the structures of a house wall, a door, or a window. This plain environment provides the basic framework of the composition into which the main scene is embedded, in this case, the two children posting a letter in the mailbox to the right. Stieglitz has captured the house wall not from the front but laterally.

Consequently, the lower edge does not appear as a horizontal but as a diagonal line in the image space. The lower part of the house wall differs, due to its protrusion and darker hue, from the upper part, which is plastered. From this there results a second diagonal that will intersect with the lower one in a point outside the image space. In the upper third of the

232

picture, two windows with open shutters are partially captured on the left. On second glance, the spectator will detect another girl who is peeping out of the rear window, observing the two girls. The eye is then drawn downward to another opening at the lower edge of the wall and, since nothing is to be detected there, will move back to the girls and the letter box on the right.

By means of his composition, Stieglitz knew how to guide the spectator through the image space of his photographs. Stieglitz’s emphasis is always on the major scene, which he treated in detail like a painter, quite in contrast to the structures in the background.

In the present example, he placed the girl in action in the middle of the picture, her little sister on the left, and the letter box on the right. These three major objects are arranged side by side. The letter box on the house wall is marked with the inscriptions “Deutsche Post”

(German Mail) and “Postbriefkasten” (Letter Box); on its sides a drawing of a letter indicates the slits. At the bottom and top of the box concave sections merge with the wall like capitals of a column.

Hasemann’s friend, Fritz Reiss, was a painter and graphic artist and also belonged to the Gutacher Künstlerkolonie. In the course of his 1894 contract to contribute illustrations for Lustiges aus’m Schwarzwald (Gayeties form the Black Forest), Reiss also included a picture entitled Am Briefkasten (At the Letter Box) (fig. 3.35). The pertinent poem is about a young girl who is longing for a boy named Michel. Now she is deliberating whether she shall drop the letter into the mailbox or not.487

487 Fritz Reiss, Lustiges aus’m Schwarzwald (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1890), 24.

233

On the page opposite the poem, Reiss illustrated the text with a watercolor. It shows a girl in costume standing in front of a letter box. Unlike the girl in Stieglitz’s photograph, this one does not drop in the letter but turns away from the letter box. She bashfully looks down and pensively puts one finger to the corner of her mouth. In her right hand she carries, together with a red bag, the letter she has written to Michel. Beside her to the left, Reiss has drawn the exact same letter box photographed by Stieglitz, featuring not only the inscriptions on the front but also the identical form, including the concave sections above and below. The girl approaches the letter box not from the left side but from the right.

Although Reiss had a wide range of watercolor hues at his disposal, he kept the image in a monochromatic grey-green with a rather bright overall impression. Only minor details, such as the seal on the letter, the girl’s ankle socks, parts of her skin, and the shrubbery in the background are marked in an orange hue. Since Lustiges aus’m

Schwarzwald had already been published in 1894, it can be assumed that Reiss’s drawing was finished before Stieglitz took his picture.

Gutach Children / A Gutach Meeting (1894)

One particular photograph in landscape format that Stieglitz took is called Gutach

Children (fig. 3.36). It shows a small lane stretching from the foreground of the picture in a slight left arc to the rear. Lined up on the right side of the lane there is a row of fine, stately farmhouses with ample straw-covered roofs and small framed windows. At the left border of the image extends an intermingled meadow that allows a clear view to the end of the lane. Only a few meters away from the photographer’s position, a young girl of perhaps

234

is standing in the middle of the lane, dressed in a dark frock with a white blouse. She is turned to the left, her face is in profile, and her hair is bound in a braid on her neck. With her left hand she holds the bail of a rather large wooden bucket. In front of her stands a buggy with four large wooden wheels. Out of that a little girl with straw-colored hair is slipping, obviously wanting to be lifted out of the carriage. In the background, six more children—girls and boys—are already approaching her, one of them with another buggy.

Stieglitz disposed the contrasts of bright and dark in an artful manner, not following the upper and lower pattern but in a diagonal spread. Whereas the meadow on the left and the heavy roofs above right take up the dark parts of the picture, the bright areas are distributed over the lane, in the foreground at the right, and in the rear toward the end of the road at the left side. In order to create a spatial recession as deep as possible, Stieglitz placed the girl with her ward in a nearly central position. The counterpoint to this pair in the foreground is provided by the group of children in the rear, which appears more out of focus. In the deep background this blurring is pronounced so that the fields at the end of the lane can be recognized only dimly.

Stieglitz photographed this location twice; the second version is entitled A Gutach

Meeting.488 The overall composition is similar. Again, he chose a landscape format and photographed the scene from a position on the lane. But this time Stieglitz’s picture encompasses more items. Instead of cropping the upper part of the buildings, he included

488 See Alfred Stieglitz, A Gutach Meeting, 1894. Gelatin silver print mounted on paperboard, 5 9/16 x 8 1/2 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.183. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35334.html.

235

the full height of the impressive roofs. He must have taken his place a few steps behind where he stood for the first shot in order to capture the two different fences—the foremost with diagonal, the one behind with vertical pickets—enclosing the neighboring field at the right.

Whereas in the former picture the girl was the focus of the scene, here we see three women in the center. Similarly to the girl, they have their hair braided upward, and they are dressed in blouse, skirt, and apron. They are engaged in animated talk at the wayside.

The round wooden tub shows up once more, casually held under the arm by the woman on the right. In the background, children are on their way, but this time only three instead of six. Like small, dark patches, they are set apart from the bright wall behind. Another little boy, who was missing in the former picture, is hiding at the foremost tree in the right part of the picture.

Turning to the paintings of Hasemann, one work comes into view: In der Dorfgasse

(In the Village Lane) (fig. 3.9). This is a painting that Hasemann himself considered one of his most important works. He reproduced it in several versions dated to different years.

It was common practice for him to keep painted copies of his works, mostly those that were sold abroad. They could serve as demonstration material for him or others, and there was always a chance that another client would like a similar painting.

The available version of In der Dorfgasse is dated to 1911 and is currently held in a private collection. Similarly to Stieglitz’s photograph Gutach Children, it shows a group of five people who are placed in the center of the image. A young woman holding a child is talking with a man with a hat on. An old woman is joining the group from the right,

236

while at the left a girl is pushing a wooden buggy with large wheels and pillows. As compared with Stieglitz’s photograph, Hasemann has placed the group much closer to the spectator.

The portrait format gives even more emphasis to the large, thatched roofs of the row of farmhouses along the lane at the right margin of the picture. Only a small part of the adjacent field and fence on the right and the meadow on the left is included. Hasemann put the full focus on the group in the foreground without adding further people in the rear.

Nevertheless, he also created a balanced composition. His lane does not feature the dominant left turn but runs straight ahead to the rear, thus suggesting a deeper perspective.

Similar to Stieglitz’s photograph, the landscape in the background is only dimly adumbrated in a pictorial manner, whereas the scene in the foreground is worked out in much detail.489

Early Morn (1894)

In an article from 1895, one year after his voyage, Stieglitz described his impression of the Black Forest as follows: “The inhabitants of each section have their own dialect, their own idioms, and, what is more important to the photographer, their own costume and physique. The people of the Schwarzwald are small from long years of ploughing and

489 Joachim Baumann and Peter Schäfer, eds., Wilhelm Hasemann. Künstlerpostkarten (Schonach/Trossingen: Baumann & Schäfer, 2016), 21, 35. On page 21, card 5 shows the painting of 1911 as a four-color print of an artist’s postcard. On page 35, card 4 shows (and describes) the painting of 1911 in copperplate printing (green/white) and card 4.1. shows (and describes) the painting with a reduced group of people (black/white).

237

harvesting. Their faces reflect the sunshine of spring and summer and the protection their pleasant homes grant them in the winter.”490 Stieglitz wrote further that “[t]he town itself offers every possible variety of subject. Mountains, even the snow-clad ones of the Alps in the distance, beautiful vistas in the pine woods, farming scenes,—for these people are distinctly agricultural, everything that the artist could desire.”491 Stieglitz had recorded nearly all of the features described in this short paragraph by means of photography.

In a picture that he titled Early Morn, Stieglitz showed two peasants, a woman and a man, at work in a field early in the morning (fig. 3.37). The picture is in landscape format.

About two-thirds of it is covered by long, dry wheat, whereas the background shows trees, houses, and fields in the distance. Both peasants are positioned in the foreground. The woman, in front, stoops toward the left and reaches with her hands deeply into the lengthy straw. Her face is seen in profile but is overshadowed by her dark hat so that no characteristic features can be recognized. She is clad in the contemporary peasant garb of the turn of the century. Closely behind her the man stoops down only slightly. With an attitude of curiosity, he turns frontally toward the spectator. With his left hand he grabs a bunch of grain and his right is probably holding a sickle. Both of these figures are placed in the center of the picture. They are surrounded by an extended field of grain with the stalks nearly reaching to their hips. In the lower-right corner, one can see an area where the grain stalks have already been cut, so the direction of the harvesting is clearly from right to left, step-by-step. The depiction of labor is most significant in the figure of the woman.

490 Stieglitz, “Two Artists’ Haunts,” 9.

491 Stieglitz, 10.

238

Stieglitz has captured her in motion, therefore somewhat blurred. The man behind her, however, is in focus.

In this photograph, Stieglitz succeeded in harmonizing the contrast between the hard fieldwork of this central group of figures on the one hand and the aesthetical circular motion of their bodies on the other. The bent and inclined postures of the peasant couple corresponds to the swaying grain on the left. The plants on the right are standing vertically, underlining the bearing of the man. This very fine-scaled structure of the singular, thin stalks covers the whole lower two-thirds of the image. In the middle ground there is a small house with a mill wheel, together with some shrubs that are extending into the image from the right. The mill wheel once more accentuates the curvature of the grain and the bearing of the peasants. On the left, the picture is also framed by trees and shrubs. Stieglitz captured in the distance an outlook on the field, with a farm building of typical Black Forest architecture. Far in the background one could assume a mountainous silhouette, dissolving in a layer of bright mist.

Apart from the motif of this photograph, the differences in image sharpness are especially remarkable. Whereas the foreground is captured in a highly detailed texture, allowing each single grain stalk to be recognized, the focus decreases as one moves back in the image space. Behind the male figure, the landscape becomes abruptly blurred, giving a nearly watercolor-like impression. The bright landscape in the sunlight with its concise dark figures and objects and the harmonic distribution of vertical and horizontal structures, together with this differentiation in focus, add up to a very balanced composition.

239

Early Morn is not a snapshot that picks up a single moment in peasant work. It is telling an exemplary story about the interconnections of peasant life. Whereas in the background the property of a major estate is shown surrounded by large meadows and fields, the couple in the foreground is bound to its daily active labor. The yield that is produced in the fields will be processed at the mill. The circular form leading the view through the image is used by Stieglitz not only as a compositional element within the photograph proper but also to tell the story of the peasants’ existence.

By the end of the nineteenth century, peasants at work was a subject that had been produced in painting as well as photography. Many other artists, including Jules Breton, painted women in the field, in groups or singly. In The Colza of 1860, Breton shows men, women, and even children working in the field.492 They carry heavy loads, tenderize grass, or stoop forward to make cut straw ready for transport.

Stieglitz surely also knew the painting Des glaneuses (Gleaners) by Jean-Francois

Millet from 1857.493 Together with Jean-Baptiste-Camille Corot (1796–1875), he is considered one of the founders of the Barbizon school. In their works they mostly addressed subjects of landscape and the poor peasant population.

492 See Jules Breton, The Colza, 1860. Oil on canvas, 37 x 54 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 2014.136.21. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object- page.195862.html.

493 See Jean-Francois Millet, Des glaneuses (Gleaners), 1857. Oil on canvas, 32 1/2 x 43 in. Musee d’Orsay, Paris, acc. no.: RF 592. https://www.musee-orsay.fr/en/collections/index-of-works/notice.html?no_cache=1&nnumid=342.

240

In Des glaneuses Millet depicted three women in a field that has already been harvested. Two are bending deeply to gather any ears of grain left over from the harvest, each one holding a bunch with her left hand. The third, with her back to the viewer, is standing to the right; she is only slightly bent and turns to the left. She is also holding a bunch of stalks in her hand and seems to be looking out for further ears. None of the women are facing the spectator—they are absorbed in their work. Under their scarfs, their faces are mostly hidden; no individual features can be recognized. In the background, the field extends farther into space, where farmhands are preparing the harvested grain for transport on a wagon. Millet integrated several stages of harvesting work into different image planes.

Stieglitz’s photographs he realized the rural subject matter in his own way, although, Millet’s paintings could have provided some motivation for that. Indeed, it was

Millet’s concern to reveal, with his realistic style, societal conditions and to broach the issue of the poverty of the lower classes.494 John Berger has commented that “the poverty of the city and its suburbs and the market created by industrialisation, to which the peasants were sacrificed, could one day bring with it the loss of all historical feeling. This is why

Millet saw the peasant as the epitome of man, and why he assumed that his paintings had a historical function.”495 Stieglitz published and exhibited his photograph—Early Morn—

494 John Berger, Das Leben der Bilder oder die Kunst des Sehens (Berlin: Klaus Wagenbach, 1981), 60ff.

495 Berger, 64. For original quote, see Appendix.

241

several times.496 When he published Early Morn for the first time, in The Photographic

Times one year after the picture was taken, he described the rural idyll as the only goal of the artist’s longing “and not all factory buildings with their modern rectangular lines of bricks and windows to disturb, no railroads with smoky locomotives to dim the pure atmosphere.”497

Perhaps not with the same sociopolitical critique as Millet, Stieglitz criticized the cities and praised the rural idyll. For him as an artist, the subject of the peasant was an important motif that fulfilled all of the preconditions for the creation of fine art—including photography. From his Gutach photographs, it seems as if he wanted to capture every minor detail that was no longer accessible in his hometown of New York. Stieglitz did not emphasize the hard and laborious life of the peasants and he composed pictures of balance and harmony. Stieglitz created a picturesque atmosphere and produced the impression of an idyllic world which he exported by means of publications and exhibitions into the world of reality.

The Old Mill (1894)

As one can see in the pictures reviewed so far, there are recurring motifs that were preferred by the artists of both the Barbizon school and the Gutach circle. These motifs contain well-established subjects like portraiture, genre, and architectural studies. Stieglitz

496 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 114, 116. Stieglitz exhibited Early Morn over ten times from 1895 to 1934 and published it about five times from 1895 to 1899.

497 Stieglitz, “Two Artists’ Haunts,” 10.

242

joined the Gutach group in creating and propagating artworks about the Black Forest.

Indeed, he was not the first to exhibit or publish these kinds of pictures abroad; however, he became devoted to this country as a source of motifs for his photographs. To this end,

Stieglitz lingered on the wonderful landscape and the people of Gutach and the surrounding countryside which appeared to him like fairy tale locations and figures.498

Stieglitz was interested in the motif of a smithy. He took a photograph of it that became one of his most popular pictures which he exhibited and published in journals between 1895 and 1910. The Old Mill motif is taken in portrait format (fig. 3.38). Stieglitz limited himself to the architectural object, dispensing with the inclusion of any people. It is a plain building, partially decayed as it seems, with a barn attached. Stieglitz has taken it on the diagonal and cropped the top and right side. The building is divided into several sections of different construction. Beside the plain facade on the left there are a small wooden shed and a high chimney. The main part of the building behind is in timber-frame construction. Attached to the building in the front right there is a timber barn with a waterwheel mounted on its front wall. In the foreground, in a diagonal at the lower edge of the picture, runs a creek that drives the wheel. The soil in the foreground is overgrown with plants, and a shrub protrudes into the picture from the right.

Stieglitz has captured the mill in close perspective, leaving no space for the further course of the creek or for the overlying bridge. His emphasis is definitely on the wheel, which is set slightly off-center to the right. It is marked as the darkest area in the image and

498 Stieglitz, 9.

243

is in maximum focus. Toward the rear, the buildings appear to be blurring and fading. The structure of the picture is determined by the architectural construction of the building, the nested parts of which result in a composition of horizontal, vertical, and diagonal lines. In contrast to this linear structure, the wheel is highlighted by its circular form.

In his essay “The Myth of Art Photography: An Iconographic Analysis,” Ulrich

Keller discussed Stieglitz and his Photo-Secession group and mentioned numerous pictures and photographs as examples of how other artists used the same motifs or angles. With regard to The Old Mill, Keller referred to a photograph by Joseph Wilson Swan (1828–

1914) in an exemplary comparison (fig. 3.39). Using this photograph, Keller demonstrated that by the mid-nineteenth century popular rural subjects in painting were being taken up in photography.

Swan was an English physicist who also contributed to the technical improvement of photography. Like Henry Peach Robinson, he was an honorary member of the Royal

Society of London.499 As early as 1866, nearly thirty years before Stieglitz worked in

Gutach, he photographed his Holy Street Mill, implementing the subject of the water mill in a nearly identical way.500 His picture also shows a house with a facade partially covered by wooden boards and a mill wheel mounted in front. Below shrubbery and large stones there is also a millstream, placed diagonally into the image but running toward the spectator. Both photographs show a house with a waterwheel. Both take the motif not frontally but at a slight angle, Stieglitz from the left, Swan from the right. Both have the

499 William De Wiveleslie Abney, ed., Photographic Journal 27 (August 1903), 217, 251.

500 Keller, “Iconographic Analysis,” 12.

244

waterwheels placed nearly in the center of the image. In Swan’s work, the mill is positioned somewhat farther back; the foreground is dominated by the millstream. In The Old Mill,

Stieglitz portrayed the wheel in the immediate foreground, the creek is covered, and the architecture comprises more space than the vegetation.

The thematic relationship between both photographs is obvious—they resemble each other distinctly in motif and composition. The occasion and intention for taking the pictures, however, is uncertain, and there is no proof that Stieglitz knew the earlier photograph by Swan. Then again, Swan was well-known in the international photography community as a researcher and developer and hence probably known by Stieglitz. His photograph was mentioned in 1903 in The Photographic Journal, a long time after both pictures were taken.501 Nevertheless, it cannot be ruled out that Stieglitz eventually saw

Holy Street Mill in a former edition of this or another photography journal and got inspired by it. But, in fact, Swan’s mill is not the same as Stieglitz’s. Its location is unknown, unlike the one in Stieglitz’s The Old Mill that stood in Gutach in the Black Forest until it burned down in the early 1950s.502 In 1894 it was the Gutach village smithy. Curiously, photographers and painters barely appreciated the fine main facade of the smithy building, instead focusing on the rear side with the waterwheel, which was also depicted by Stieglitz.

It is astonishing that Keller apparently ignored quite a number of other examples that are much more related to Stieglitz’s photograph. Apart from Liebich, there were many

501 De Wiveleslie Abney, Photographic Journal, 217, 251.

502 Jean-Philippe Naudet, Hasemann-Liebich-Museum, Gutach, correspondence with author, August 3, 2017.

245

other Black Forest painters who chose exactly the same mill building at the same angle as the subject of their works. Perhaps Keller preferred using photographs for comparison, but the available images from Germany indicate an obvious relationship between the works of

Stieglitz and the Gutach artists’ colony.

Fritz Völlmy contributed a drawing of the smithy to the famous Gutach artists’ album Zum Loewen in 1883 (fig. 3.40). Likewise, the object is captured from the right, but in a wider angle. The whole house is shown in full height, with a meadow in the foreground and a defoliated tree on the left. Whereas Stieglitz focused on the water mill, Völlmy captured the whole complex of buildings. In contrast to the carefully finished mill, the surrounding is done in brisk strokes. In the foreground grass is growing in all directions, and in the upper part of the composition the chimney is blowing out white clouds of smoke.

Stieglitz knew the album that contained this drawing; he contributed to the volume, as did his father, Fedor Encke, and Hasemann.

Hasemann also painted mills in Gutach, but apparently not the one that was photographed by Stieglitz. The surroundings in Hasemann’s Eine Mühle in Gutach (A Mill in Gutach) in Jensen’s Der Schwarzwald speaks of another location (fig. 3.41). Hasemann composed his picture in quite a different way. He placed the spectator in the middle of a creek that is spreading in front and running toward the rear. Shrubs to the left and right mark the water’s edges. On the left side behind a tree, there is a little wooden cabin with a roof of straw. In front of that the mill wheel is mounted above the water that is driving the wheel and running down, via a construction of hollowed wooden beams, back into the creek directly in front of the spectator. A similar view of the mill is contained in

246

Hasemann’s famous postcard motifs.

Fritz Reiss included a picture of a mill in his illustrations to Lustiges aus’m

Schwarzwald beside a poem entitled “Hammerschmiede” (“Hammer Mill”) (fig. 3.42). The object is the same as in the drawing of Völlmy in the artists’ album. In the picture by Reiss, the spectator looks at a nested assembly of buildings with timber work, two chimneys, and the mill wheel in the foreground. Reiss also chose a more distant view on the mill that comprises the whole building. In the foreground, he depicted the meadow with flowers, a small tree on the right, and a large rock in the middle in more detail. Again, he covered his drawing in bright hues of brown, green, and orange. For Reiss, the whole smithy building was of interest; the mill wheel is a major element, but it is not so definitively in focus as in

Stieglitz’s photograph. The picture is a further example showing one and the same mill building in exactly the same perspective.

Likewise, one of Hasemann’s students, Helene Lang (nee Fink), drew Die

Dorfschmiede (The Village Smithy) in July 1890 (fig. 3.43). Her version is most similar to that of Stieglitz. Indeed, she included the whole roof of the front building rather than cutting off the top as in Stieglitz’s photograph, but she chose the same view and standpoint. She also approached the mill so that the proportions between the image space and the objects therein are equal. Like Stieglitz, she did not include another tree on the left or a rock in front or birds on the roof. She also placed the mill wheel off-center in the right half of the portrait-format work. A slender wooden beam lies across the creek between the image’s center and left border, similar to the photograph of 1894.

For Stieglitz, the mill wheel in its picturesque environment was the major motif—

247

he abstained from showing any people engaged in operational work at the mill. His picture emphasizes the aspects of rural life attractive to a visitor. Far away from the noisy city, seemingly in accordance with nature, this unadulterated, idealized image of the rural environment serves as an escape from the intense commercial development of urban reality. Stieglitz had never experienced the economic constraints of rustic life himself.

Without any personal relation to this subject, it is interesting that the superficial aesthetics of it appealed to him.

From these examples, it can be concluded that Gutach with its traditions was a point of attraction and a favored source of motifs for many artists at that time. Stieglitz took a liking to this idyllic town in the Black Forest which was very different from New York, and captured it in several photographs. The Old Mill is one of Stieglitz’s best-known works from his time in Gutach. But his work was not the result of an individualistic approach.

Other artists had not only selected the same motif but photographed or drew it, with slight variations, in the same perspective. With regard to photographic examples, there are striking congruencies with Swan’s Holy Street Mill, which, in fact, was not localized in

Gutach but was depicted by a recognized photographer whose work was surely not unknown to Stieglitz. In principal, the same applies to Stieglitz’s relation to several less recognized painters. Surely, he knew the works of Völlmy from the Gutach artists’ circle and was acquainted with Reiss and even Lang.

248

Conclusion

In Chapter 3, certain important influences that contributed to the shaping of Alfred

Stieglitz’s artistic and professional vision were discussed in detail. First, many of Edward

Stieglitz Stieglitz’s personality traits were passed on to his son. Alfred Stieglitz’s father was also intently focused on his education. In addition to academics, Edward Stieglitz emphasized Alfred’s cultural and artistic development as well as his social education in the form of collaboration and networking. Stieglitz was greatly influenced by and benefited significantly from the contacts in his father’s artist network.

Edward Stieglitz and Alfred Stieglitz were immensely similar in many ways, but it was Edward Stieglitz’s unwavering support of his son’s interests that made Alfred Stieglitz the ambitious photography promoter he would eventually become. Perhaps at the root of

Stieglitz’ legacy was not only his father's esteem for art but Edward Stieglitz’s success as a first generation entrepreneur. It was Edward Stieglitz that provided Alfred with his first experience in the establishment of a American identity which Stieglitz later created not only for himself but also for U.S. modernism.

In addition to his father, Stieglitz had a special relationship with the German painter

Wilhelm Hasemann who assumed a mentoring function in the 1880s. Stieglitz observed how Hasemann worked as an artist, both creatively and on an administrative level.

Importantly, from an early age Stieglitz watched as Hasemann taught Stieglitz’s father how to paint by copying Hasemann’s artwork. Interestingly, in looking at many of the pictures that Stieglitz ultimately took, it is strikingly apparent that they are similar in many ways to

Hasemann’s artworks as well as those of other Gutach artists at that time. Perhaps a

249

valuable lesson taught to Stieglitz by Hasemann was that an artist can utilize the work of other artists but apply their own style to make an original piece of art.

After Stieglitz’s return to New York in 1890, he found himself in a similar situation to Hasemann in Germany—exposed to a world changing because of industrialization. Both felt a special connection to their home country that can be described in the German word

Heimatliebe. While Hasemann felt connected to Gutach in Germany, Stieglitz felt the same way about New York in the United States.

Hasemann had a defined vision and a goal of achieving it. In the midst of the chaos of industrialization he was afraid of losing the beauty of the rural landscape and he tried to hold on to the old traditions in the Gutach population. Already in the late 1880s, Stieglitz realized that he wanted to pursue photography as a fine art. He formed his vision of promoting photography in this way, which—at the turn of the twentieth century—had not been widely accepted. With his social skills, technological training, and artistic talent, he felt confident to fight for his vision of establishing photography as a medium of fine art in

America. As New York had not only been changing but also largely expanding, it was the ideal place to establish a new approach to a relatively new medium.

In order to achieve their goals, Hasemann chose the traditional art form of painting and Stieglitz used photography. Both executed their methods as single artists but realized that founding a group enhanced the chances for their success. Hasemann’s group was the

Gutacher Künstlerkolonie and he distributed Black Forest traditions through postcards.

Stieglitz, on the other hand, founded a group shortly after the turn of the twentieth century and called it the Photo-Secession, as he wanted to break away from the established use of

250

photography. Instead of postcards, he was influenced by the secessional movements of

Europe that used magazines to spread their images and philosophies.

Furthermore, Stieglitz’s photographs that he took during his seven-day stay in

Gutach in 1894 are another indicator of his collaborative relationship with Hasemann.

Stieglitz wrote in Hasemann’s personal guestbook, “The best days of our 94 trip were spent in Gutach with the Hasemann family. May similar ones return!”503 Although the motifs and compositions of the photographs are very much based on the French art movement in

Barbizon, a direct reference to Hasemann and the Gutach artists’ colony is evident.

Comparisons of the pictures make it clear that Stieglitz and Hasemann collaborated artistically with each other and consulted each other about their respective media— painting, drawing, illustration, and photography. However, their different motivations to make art are reflected in their works. While Stieglitz was looking for artistic motifs to realize photographs similar to paintings, Hasemann always had the preservation of customs in mind. In his drawings and paintings, for example, Hasemann depicted the unique construction of Gutach farmhouses so that the identification of individual farms was possible.

These works are proof of Hasemann’s intention to preserve historical monuments which was never the intention of Stieglitz and is not visible in his works. Hasemann used photography for his art, although with a different approach from Stieglitz. Interestingly,

503 Guestbook Wilhelm Hasemann, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018. For original quote, see Appendix.

251

however, Hasemann began to realize not only exterior but also interior photographs from the summer of 1894 onward.504

These two artists who were completely dedicated to their goals achieved the establishment of their vision through ambition. Thanks in no small part to Hasemann, the

Black Forest and its landscape and traditions are known worldwide today. In large part because of Stieglitz’s work, photography is recognized as a form of fine art. Although the relationship between Stieglitz and Hasemann was touched upon in Katherine Hoffman’s scholarship for the first time, this chapter bears witness to the fact that Hasemann played a far more important role in Stieglitz’s early career than previously assumed.

Hasemann’s devoted obsession to preserving a sense of German identity had a profound foundational impact on both Stieglitz’ psychology as well as his artistic and leadership ambitions. As but one observable example, it was the constant interaction with the ruralist Hasemann in Gutach that provided the rich, urban Stieglitz with perhaps his first palpable, personal experience of pre-modern nostalgia. Such influence can be seen in

Stieglitz’ appreciation of American folk culture in his exhibitions in the 1920s and 1930s as well as Stieglitz’ establishment of art communities in America.

504 Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken,” 72.

252

CHAPTER 4 ELEVATING PHOTOGRAPHY—STIEGLITZ & KÜHN

Talent is form, genius is substance. . . . Talent works, but genius creates.505 –Alfred Stieglitz

In Heinrich Kühn (1866–1944), Stieglitz found a paladin who also devoted himself to pictorialism and pursued it with the goal of establishing photography as a medium of fine art. Chapter 2 described Herrmann as an unestablished artist who attended and benefited from group activities with Stieglitz. In this way, Herrmann played a critical role in helping Stieglitz to discover artistic photography. Chapter 3 explored Hasemann as an established artist who had a vision to preserve traditions in the Black Forest which he executed through his artwork and the creation of his own group. Accordingly, it was

Hasemann who possibly had a large influence in shaping Stieglitz’s vision for photography.

Kühn, in contrast to Herrmann and Hasemann, was not a painter but a successful photographer who also understood the power of groups but shared a common vision with

Stieglitz as a pioneer of art photography in Europe. The social and artistic collaborations with Kühn were both purposeful and critical to Stieglitz in executing his vision of elevating photography to a form of art.

In relation to this chapter’s introductory quote, Stieglitz effectively absorbed the talent of each protagonist featured in this dissertation. However, Stieglitz’s legacy is largely related to the role he played in the elevation of art photography in America.

Accordingly, Kühn had a greater sensitivity to what Stieglitz was trying to achieve. As

505 Quoted in Kiefer, Stieglitz: Scientist, Photographer, 65.

253

described in this chapter, it was Kühn’s support and deeper understanding of Stieglitz’s vision that provided a catalyst to change Stieglitz’s legacy. A personal, handwritten dedication on the first page of a September 1905 issue of Camera Work that Stieglitz sent by mail to Kühn emphasizes the difference in their relationship relative to the other protagonists. Stieglitz wrote, “To my friend Heinrich Kuhn, one of the very few who really takes art photography seriously.”506

In Chapter 4, the dynamic connection between Stieglitz and Kühn is illustrated through an analysis of the genesis of their relationship and certain resulting collaborations.

Firstly, the reasons for Stieglitz’s significant interest in Kühn are explored. In analyzing and understanding the impact of Kühn’s collaboration with Stieglitz, a brief description of

Kühn’s biography and photographic achievements in Austria is essential. Further investigation reveals how both visionaries worked with each other and shared their networks and explores the productive outcome of those experiences. It is unquestionable that the results of their efforts and collaboration led to the elevation of photography as a fine art form internationally.

1. Recognition of a Shared Mission

At the time they began their relationship, Alfred Stieglitz and Heinrich Kühn faced similar situations. They both lived in worlds where their perspectives on photography were not shared by the institutional elite. Stieglitz complained that photography “was looked

506 This copy of the Camera Work issue dated September 20, 1905, is in the collection of the Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg. For original quote, see Appendix.

254

upon as the bastard of science and art, hampered and held back by the one, denied and ridiculed by the other.”507 As amateur photographers, they strove to produce works of art that could garner the same type of recognition as the works of painters or sculptors. In doing so, they entered the battle of the paragons, which had already triggered endless debates questioning the nature of art since the invention of photography in 1839.

In the tradition of Henry Peach Robinson and Peter Henry Emerson, Stieglitz and

Kühn pursued a pictorialist approach in order to prove that the photographer had control over the machine and that the “originality of a work of art refers to the originality of the thing expressed and the way it is expressed.”508 When the further development of technology, especially in the 1880s with Kodak, made the taking of photographs accessible to the general public, Stieglitz and Kühn sought to distinguish themselves from professional commercial photographers as well as hobby photographers.

In the following subchapter, Kühn and his photographic activity with the Trifolium is introduced as this is what led to Stieglitz’s interest in Kühn. As their relationship grew,

Stieglitz began to see the commonalities between himself and Kühn regarding their perspectives on photography and he soon realized that they were a productive match.

1.1. Commonality of Biography

Around the turn of the twentieth century, Carl Christian Heinrich Kühn, who was born in Dresden on February 25, 1866, stood at the height of his photographic career in

507 Stieglitz, “Pictorial Photography,” 528.

508 Stieglitz, 529.

255

Europe. As a contemporary of Alfred Stieglitz, he had spent the ten years from 1890 to

1900 working on the perception of photography as art in the German-speaking world.

While his initial goal was to create and disseminate his own photographs, over time Kühn realized that, by joining forces with like-minded people, he could play a broader role in the scientific and artistic development of photography.

1.1.1. Parallel Backgrounds

Kühn, like Stieglitz, was provided the opportunity to dedicate his time to a hobby because he was born into a wealthy family. Kühn’s father, Christian Heinrich Kühn (1825–

1893), had earned his fortune as a successful industrialist in the worldwide trade of spices.509 As a result of his success, his father cultivated numerous contacts in intellectually influenced circles and promoted an interest in art and culture. Kühn was also influenced by his grandfather, the German sculptor Christian Gottlieb Kühn (1780–1828), who became famous for his grave sculptures and was in close contact with great artists such as Caspar

David Friedrich (1774–1840).510

However, before Kühn found art, he, like Stieglitz, was actually destined for another career path. He spent his childhood in Dresden and, after graduating from high school in 1885, served several months of military service in Lindau, a town on Lake

509 Diether Schönitzer, email to author, January 10, 2020.

510 Astrid Mahler, “Heinrich Kuehn, Life and Work: A Biographical Sketch,” in Heinrich Kuehn and His American Circle: Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Steichen, ed. Monika Faber (New York: Prestel, 2012), 117.

256

Constance in Bavaria in southern Germany.511 Kühn also had a supportive relationship with his parents and they left the choice of his education to him.512 Kühn enrolled at the

University of Leipzig to study medicine. He then went on to study at the Albert-Ludwigs-

University in Freiburg im Breisgau and the Hygiene Institute which had been opened in

July 1885 by the German physician and microbiologist Robert Koch (1843–1910).513

Stieglitz also lived in Berlin in the 1880s and studied at the Technical University, which was only five kilometers away from Kühn’s institute. Like Stieglitz, Kühn first came into contact with photography in Berlin under the care of his professor. Kühn studied with

Robert Pfeiffer (1858–1945) at the Institute for Hygiene and continued his interest in microphotography of bacteria in Innsbruck under Professor Gustav Adolf Pommer.514

Kühn learned the tools of the trade, although his studies focused on microscopic photography.515 It is interesting that both Stieglitz and Kühn lived in the same city and initially studied different academic subjects that led them to deal more intensively with the medium of photography, albeit in a scientific way and not with artistic intentions.

511 Astrid Mahler, “Heinrich Kühn—His Life and Work,” in Heinrich Kühn: The Perfect Photograph, ed. Monika Faber and Astrid Mahler (Ostfildern: Hantje Cantz, 2010), 225.

512 Diether Schönitzer, email to author, January 10, 2020.

513 Judith Hahn, Ulrike Gaida, and Marion Hulverscheidt, eds., 125 Jahre Hygiene- Institute an Berliner Universitäten. Eine Festschrift (Berlin, 2010), 8; and Mahler, “Kühn – Life and Work,” 225. According to Mahler, 251n8, “Because the archive of the Institute for Hygiene was destroyed, there is no record of his enrollment available.”

514 Diether Schönitzer, email to author, January 10, 2020.

515 Mahler, “Kuehn: Biographical Sketch,” 117.

257

Kühn struggled with health problems, primarily in the form of asthma. Allegedly, a German-based doctor advised Kühn to spend more time in the Alpine region as the quality of the air there was much better than in the city.516 This led Kühn to join a group of mountaineers and, in 1886, he became a member of the German and Austrian Alpine Club of the Dresden section.517 This activity, popularized in the Romantic period, became an integral part of bourgeois life at the end of the nineteenth century. Kühn’s active membership in the club underscored his lifelong affinity for hiking and mountaineering, but more importantly, it might have been his first experience with an organized group. In the summer semester of 1888, Kühn enrolled at the medical faculty of the University of

Innsbruck for two years and continued to participate in the local Alpine Club.518

A staged photograph of the so-called Wilde Bande of 1888–1889 shows Kühn

(middle row, second from the left) with eighteen other Tyrolean mountaineers and other academics, all of whom shared a passion of mountaineering (fig. 4.1).519 Equipped with hiking poles, maps, climbing ropes, and pipes, they embody in their contemporary hiking costumes of lederhosen what the discovery of the alpine landscape meant in the nineteenth century. Kühn took numerous glacier pictures during these hikes, which was only made

516 Diether Schönitzer, email to author, January 10, 2020.

517 Membership Confirmation, April 14, 1886, collection of Diether Schönitzer.

518 Peter Goller, University of Innsbruck, email to author, January 14, 2020.

519 Diether Schönitzer, email to author, January 10, 2020.

258

possible with the help of Kuhn’s servant and carrying assistant, Johann, as the heavy load of camera, tripod, and glass plates could not have been lifted by Kühn alone.520

A similar group photograph also exists of Stieglitz. It was taken before his 1887 journey with his three friends and his two brothers in the same costumes, posing as discoverers of the world (fig. 2.14). A comparison of the two photographs clearly shows that Kühn belonged to an established group that undertook their travels and mountain hikes with seriousness. Stieglitz’s group, on the other hand, looks much more unprofessional and testifies to the fact that he and his travel companions likely only pursued the goal of photographically capturing the image of explorers which seems to have been en vogue at the time.

A further commonality shared by Kühn and Stieglitz is the fact that they both ended their educations without a degree (Kühn in 1890521 and Stieglitz a few years earlier around

1886–1887522) and instead devoted themselves to their real passion, photography. While

Stieglitz returned to the United States in 1890, Kühn was again drafted by the military for the remaining period of his service and was finally discharged due to his poor health. This did not, however, prevent Kühn from continuing with his strenuous mountaineering activities.523

520 Schönitzer to author, January 10, 2020.

521 Goller to author, January 14, 2020.

522 Sabrina Rübisch, Humboldt University Berlin, email to author, January 16, 2018; Dagmar Spies, Technische University Berlin, email to author, December 8, 2017.

523 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 226.

259

Like Stieglitz, Kühn documented his travels photographically. On a trip to the

Austrian crown lands of Dalmatia and Herzegovina in 1891, Kühn made the acquaintance of the head of the photographic department of the technical-administrative military committee in Vienna and one of the founding fathers of the Vienna Camera Club, Giuseppe

Pizzighelli (1849–1912).524 Art historian Astrid Mahler has conjectured that Pizzighelli was the decisive initiator who first introduced Kühn to artistic photography and taught him how to produce platinum prints, the technique with which Stieglitz later created many of his masterpieces.525

In summary, Stieglitz and Kühn shared similar biographies as they both came from wealthy backgrounds that uniquely allowed them to pursue fully their educations and passions. One of the key benefits Stieglitz and Kühn enjoyed given their priviledged upbringing was the ability to begin their academic careers in science but the ultimate flexibility and support of their families to focus their studies on photography. It is interesting that science created the bridge as initially both Stieglitz and Kühn fell into photography from a scientific perspective before it lead to their artistic approach.

524 Astrid Mahler and Monika Faber, eds., Liebhaberei der Millionäre. Der Wiener Camera-Club um 1900 (Vienna: Photoinstitut Bonartes, 2019), 36; and Mahler, “Kühn— His Life and Work,” 226.

525 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 227.

260

1.1.2. Formation of the Trifolium

The year 1894 was a decisive one for both Stieglitz and Kühn. With his new wife

Emmeline, Stieglitz came to Germany as part of a journey lasting several months. During this time Stieglitz created the most important works of his early oeuvre. In the autumn of

1894, Kühn decided to settle permanently in Innsbruck. Kühn bought a house and married

Emma Rosa Katzung (1870–1905) with whom he had four children in the following ten years.526 In the same year of 1894, Kühn presented his photographs to the public for the first time in four exhibitions.527 He submitted his works to the Milan International United

Exhibition and was shown in the Photographic Section, where Stieglitz’s photographs were also hung.

Prior to meeting him personally, Stieglitz became aware of Kühn and wrote a two- page article on Kuhn’s works in the sixth issue of The American Amateur Photographer.

In his article, Stieglitz described the photographers participating in the exhibition from his subjective point of view and classified them qualitatively. Among the Austrian photographers, he mentioned Carl Srna (1853–1917) only by name but paid more attention to Kühn and praised his exhibited works: “Next in order of merit we come to the exhibit of

526 Mahler and Faber, Liebhaberei der Millionäre, 36. Walther Karl Heinrich (1895– 1970), Edeltrude Grete Margarethe (1897–1980), Hans Hugo Heinrich (1900–1970), and Anneluise Rosemary, called “Lotte” (1904–1993).

527 Mahler, “Kuehn: Biographical Sketch,” 117.

261

Dr. Heinrich Kühn (Innsbruck) whose work is full of quality. His landscapes and architectural studies are especially fine.”528

During Kühn’s wedding trip, he took part in the Christmas exhibition of the Camera

Club in Vienna, where he presented his platinum prints for the first time.529 According to a personal note by Kühn, he met photographers Hugo Henneberg (1863–1918) and Hans

Watzek (1848–1903), who would later become colleagues and friends, in the salon of the clubhouse on December 22, 1894 (fig. 4.2).530

Hugo Henneberg was a doctor of physics from Vienna who had been involved in photography since 1887 and was in correspondence with Stieglitz from 1890 until 1909.531

However, Stieglitz and Henneberg must have met for the first time in 1907, as a letter from

Kühn to Stieglitz proves. Kühn wrote about introducing Henneberg to him: “So next summer you must come for sure, that can be wonderful. You will also like Henneberg very much, he is a brilliant person.”532 In 1891, Henneberg was the first of the future Trifolium members to join the Club of Amateur Photographers in Vienna. Additionally, and in 1894

528 Alfred Stieglitz, “Photographic Section of the Milan International United Exhibitions,” The American Amateur Photographer 6, no. 6 (August 1894): 377, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024235858&view=1up&seq=401.

529 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 228.

530 Written in margins of A. Horsley-Hinton, “Unser Club,” Wiener Photographische Blätter 1, no. 10 (October 1894): 211, collection of Diether Schönitzer (previously in the collection of Heinrich Kühn). For an unannotated copy see http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi- content/anno-plus?aid=wpb&datum=1894&page=218&size=45.

531 Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 110n10.

532 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, July 31, 1906, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 679. For original quote, see Appendix.

262

he became a member of the English association the Linked Ring which was founded two years earlier by Henry Peach Robinson.533

Johann Josef Watzek was an artist originally from Bilin who lived in Vienna from

1875 and worked there as a drawing teacher at the Staats-Oberrealschule.534 He first began his artistic career as a painter and draftsman with an education at the Academy of Fine Arts in Munich and switched to photography in 1890 when he was forty-two years old. Watzek became a member of the Club of Amateur Photographers in Vienna in 1891 where he subsequently met Henneberg. From 1893, when the association changed its name to the

Vienna Camera Club, to 1902, Watzek was a member of the board.535 In 1894, he became a member of the Linked Ring (Stieglitz joined in 1894 as well, and Kühn joined in 1896).536

Watzek corresponded with Stieglitz by letter on photographic subjects from 1898 to 1902 but never met him personally.537

Kühn, Henneberg, and Watzek dedicated themselves to pictorial photography and took part in the activities of the Vienna Camera Club (at that time still called the Klub der

Amateur-Photographen). Of the three, it was Kühn who was the last to join as an official

533 Otto Hochreiter and Timm Starl, eds., “Lexikon zur österreichischen Fotografie,” in Geschichte der Fotografie in Österreich, vol. 2 (Bad Ischl, 1983), 127.

534 Inge Maria Kimeswenger, “Der Kunstfotograf Hans Watzek” (Master's thesis, University of Vienna, 1994), 13.

535 Kimeswenger, 14.

536 Hochreiter and Starl, “Lexikon zur österreichischen Fotografie,” 190.

537 Kimeswenger, “Der Kunstfotograf Hans Watzek,” 15.

263

member in 1895538—at a time when the Camera Club reached its highest membership of almost 400 and collected dues of thirty Austrian crowns per year.539 This steep membership fee alone testifies that the club wanted to serve only a very special, elite clientele, to which at least Henneberg and Kühn felt they belonged. Watzek, on the other hand, came from comparably modest circumstances and had to earn his living as a teacher.540 The high dues meant that not everyone who wanted to take photographs or had artistic intentions could automatically join this club. The rented premises were reminiscent of the exclusive, luxuriously furnished gentlemen’s clubs of the late nineteenth century. For the affluent men who formed this club it was particularly important to restrict membership to a close and familiar circle among the wealthy of the country.

Kühn, Henneberg, and Watzek participated in a trend that emerged in the late nineteenth century to join clubs and attend club life. The social aspect of club life, enlivened by joint excursions and regular club meetings, played an important role. It promoted a feeling of belonging and a connection with other photographers and like- minded people, allowing close friendships to develop. These connections within the upper middle class expanded internationally.

Part of the public relations work of the Vienna Camera Club was the organization of exhibitions as a means of self-presentation as well as a monthly magazine,

538 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, May 15, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 678.

539 Mahler and Faber, Liebhaberei der Millionäre, 43.

540 Kimeswenger, “Der Kunstfotograf Hans Watzek,” 27.

264

Photographische Rundschau (from 1894 Wiener Photographische Blätter, from 1899

Photographische Centralblatt, and from 1905 Jahrbuch des Camera-Klubs in Wien; the magazine was discontinued in 1915 due to the war),541 which was available as a platform for exchange, discussion, and information.542 In this way, members were able to participate in national and international debates on theory and aesthetics and were thus informed about current trends.

Initially, the pictorialists were keen to express their feelings for nature in pictures.

Therefore, it is not surprising that Kühn, Henneberg, and Watzek in particular, mostly photographed landscapes. Their artistic aim was to create something atmospheric in order to express different moods in the picture, and they were always in search of overcoming technical difficulties with new developments. Embedded in the context of the photographic scene in Austria, it is notable that Kühn, Henneberg, and Watzek did not resign from the

Vienna Camera Club to form a new group but formed a subgroup within the club (fig. 4.3).

The roots of this formation are closely linked to a technical photographic process, the gum bichromate printing process, that they picked up in 1895.543

In the same year, Stieglitz broke away from the Photochrome Engraving Company in New York and primarily advocated for the merger of the two New York-based

541 Mahler and Faber, Liebhaberei der Millionäre, 52.

542 Mahler and Faber, 51–52.

543 The inventor of the process was the Frenchman Louis-Alphonse Poitevin in the year 1855 and the Englishman John Pouncy (1818–1894). Especially important representatives of the gum bichromate printing process in France were Robert Demachy, Constant Puyo, and the Hofmeister brothers, and in Vienna was the Viennese Trifolium of Heinrich Kühn, Hans Watzek, and Hugo Henneberg.

265

photographic associations. With the popularization of the gum bichromate print, Stieglitz became interested in that process in the late 1890s as well. Although he supported the platinum print process, on which he wrote many articles throughout the 1880s and 1890s,544 he also experimented with the gum print process.545

It remains largely unclear whether the trio learned about the gum bichromate printing process through the French photographer Robert Demachy (1859–1936)546 or earlier through club colleague Friedrich Vellusig, who drew attention to it in the Wiener

Photographische Blätter.547 In any case, Demachy had been using the technique since 1894 and presented his results with great success for the first time in Vienna at the Camera Club’s

Christmas exhibition in December 1895.548 Kühn, Henneberg, and Watzek immediately became enthusiastic about this technique, since the photographs looked like paintings and watercolors. As discovered in a handwritten note obtained from Kuhn’s relative (fig. 4.4),

Kühn wrote in his issue of the Wiener Photographische Blätter of October 1894, “In this room (lecture hall), on a Sunday afternoon at Christmas 1895, H.W. [Hans Watzek], H.H.

544 Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 257–63.

545 Greenough and Whelan, xiii.

546 Kimeswenger, “Der Kunstfotograf Hans Watzek,” 37. The English art photographer Maskell exhibited gum bichromate prints in the London Salon as early as 1893.

547 Friedrich Vellusig, “Modificiertes Pigmentverfahren,” Wiener Photographische Blätter 1, no. 6 (June 1894): 128, http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno- plus?aid=wpb&datum=1894&page=134&size=45.

548 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 228.

266

[Hugo Henneberg] and myself made the plan to train G-printing [gum bichromate printing].”549

Two years later, in 1897, the three men decided to intensify their passion for artistically motivated photography and their great interest in the gum bichromate printing process by creating an official working group to further perfect their work.550 They called their independent artists’ association Wiener Kleeblatt and were also known as the

Trifolium. Together they undertook photographic journeys in Europe and published numerous articles on photographic technique and representation possibilities which influenced the recognition of photography in the field of art.551 From then on, as a sign of their attachment and loyalty, they signed their works as well as letters and other documents with a three-leaf clover. Their first collective exhibition as the Trifolium took place in 1900 at the art gallery Hofkunsthandlung Schulte in Berlin. Two years later, the art critic and publisher Friedrich “Fritz” Matthies-Masuren published a portfolio accompanied by texts, which contained most of the works shown in Berlin.552

Their exchange of letters confirms the intensive examination of the procedure that they sought to explore further. Within two years, they developed a large number of variations of gum bichromate printing. At the time, this became the most important printing

549 Written in margins of Horsley-Hinton, “Unser Club,” 212.

550 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 229. They worked on a tricolor gum bichromate print in which different pigments could be blended in a single image.

551 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 229. They traveled to Hamburg in 1896, to Venice, Lake Constance, and Lake Garda in 1897, and to the Danube region in 1898.

552 Kimeswenger, “Der Kunstfotograf Hans Watzek,” 47.

267

process for the Trifolium as this technique enabled the photographers to intervene particularly well in the image design of the photograph. Importantly, accusations that photography was only a purely technical and mechanical medium could be countered by this process in particular. In no other printing technique was it possible for the artist to affect the decisive criterion in the process and create a unique specimen. With gum bichromate printing, the photographer had the freedom to choose any paper with any type of surface and format to produce the desired result. The same applied for the color of the image.553 This freedom of choice created individual results. In their experiments, Kühn,

Henneberg, and Watzek first developed a combination gum bichromate print with several layers and later even a multicolored gum bichromate print with up to three colors.554 The

Trifolium aimed especially for large formats which were compared to paintings and praised as decorative.555

Kühn wrote later:

I had just about to overcome the stage of doing the visual thing when I became acquainted with Watzek and Henneberg at the Vienna Camera club. They exercised a great influence. I drew my inspiration chiefly from frequent visits to art galleries and specially to the exhibitions of the Munich Secession. The landscape of Petersen, Dill, and others opened my eyes. I began to understand what they were striving for. This realization I then endeavored to utilize in my own work. I sought

553 Stieglitz, “Pictorial Photography,” 532.

554 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 228.

555 Andreas Gruber, “Glossary of Photographic Terms,” in Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 125–29.

268

to give correct values, to arrive at a more interesting grouping of masses, and to study nature more closely.556

Kühn showed his first gum print at the Vienna Camera Club in February 1896 and, together with Henneberg and Watzek, he exhibited work at the International Exhibition of

Amateur Photography in Berlin that same year.557 The works shown at both exhibitions had an incredible impact on the pictorialist scene of the time, similar to that of Demachy, who showed his works in Vienna only a few months earlier in December 1895.558 The tight time frame of only three months testifies to how intensely the three Austrian photographers must have studied the works of Demachy and the technique of gum bichromate printing.

The joint experiments and further developments brought the three men together, and they showed their results to the public at subsequent exhibitions in 1896 and, at the same time, published theoretical articles on the process.559 In 1897, they showed their first three-color

556 Quoted in Friedrich Matthies-Masuren, “Hugo Henneberg—Heinrich Kühn—Hans Watzek,” Camera Work 13 (January 1906): 28.

557 Mahler “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 228–29.

558 Mahler, 229.

559 Hans Watzek, “Der Pigmentgummidruck,” Wiener Photographische Blätter 3, no. 4 (April 1896): 70–73; Hans Watzek, “Aus der Praxis des Gummidrucks,” Wiener Photographische Blätter 3, no. 7 (July 1896): 133–37; Heinrich Kuhn, “Neuere Erfahrungen im Gummidruck,” Wiener Photographische Blätter 3, no. 10 (October 1896): 181–87; and Heinrich Kuhn, “Zum Gummidruck,” Wiener Photographische Blätter 3, no. 12 (December 1896): 229.

269

print at a September exhibition in Hamburg, followed by many other successful exhibitions.560

How the execution of gum bichromate printing and its further development by the

Trifolium was viewed by other photographer colleagues at the beginning of the twentieth century is made clear in an article by Matthies-Masuren: “Kuhn, Henneberg, Watzek. They mastered this process [gum bichromate process] in every sense, and developed it by endless experiments, the value of which, at that time, they themselves hardly realized; but these led to the invention of the multiple gum-print . . . the most important printing process at present.”561 He especially emphasized Kühn’s contribution: “Heinrich Kuhn is the most productive of the ‘Three.’”562

Therefore, it can be noted that the gum bichromate printing process was the main catalyst for the creation of the Trifolium consisting of the three photographers Heinrich

Kühn, Hans Watzek, and Hugo Henneberg. With their specialization in the relatively new and evolving process they played a distinctive role in its further development. However, even after witnessing the success of the Trifolium, it would take Stieglitz another seven years to elevate art photography through his own organization in America.

During the time the Trifolium was gaining international recognition for their achievements, Stieglitz was seeking to establish himself in the United States and struggling due to the lack of art photography traditions. By the end of the century, Stieglitz understood

560 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 229.

561 Matthies-Masuren, “Henneberg—Kühn—Watzek,” 23.

562 Matthies-Masuren, 27.

270

the artistic implications of the gum bichromate printing process and how important it would be for the future of art photography.563 While the idea of pictorialism had existed, it was precisely the gum print technology which aided the photographer in achieving painterlike qualities in their photographic artworks. This technology would blur the lines between art and photography and create the opportunity for Stieglitz to gain recognition he sought for photography as a medium.

1.2. A Perfect Match

In the existing scholarship, Stieglitz’s connection to Austria and Vienna has been inadequately described and this subchapter enhances the historical record with new facts.

Stieglitz was in contact with the photography clubs in Vienna in the 1880s and 1890s and successfully participated in their exhibition activities.564 Although at that time, photographers in England and France were regarded as the pioneers of the medium, it was the southern German and Austrian regions with which Stieglitz found his greatest connections. Stieglitz’s experiences in Vienna will be described in more detail in the following subchapter. Furthermore, this section also addresses the situation in which

563 Alfred Stieglitz, “The Progress of Pictorial Photography in the United States,” in The American Annual of Photography and Photographic Times Almanac for 1899, ed. Walter E. Woodbury (New York: Scovill & Adams, 1899), 158–59.

564 See Medal, Award Club of Amateur Photographers Vienna, n.d., YCAL MSS 85, Series V, Box 152, Folder 2833. Stieglitz won the prize of honor. The medal is not dated, but it contains the inscription “Alfred Stieglitz in Berlin,” which suggests that Stieglitz was already submitting his works in Vienna in the 1880s when he lived in Berlin and winning prizes for them. See also Medal, Camera-Klub Wien, 1898, YCAL MSS 85, Series V, Box 152, Folder 2831.

271

Stieglitz and Kühn found themselves shortly after the turn of the century that finally led to their first meeting. They could not have known at the time that this meeting would create such an important impact on each of their artistic careers and personal lives.

1.2.1. An American Photographer in Vienna

Stieglitz was involved with photography in Austria and especially Vienna quite early in his photographic journey. In the mid-1880s he became more interested in photography under the influence of Hermann Wilhelm Vogel in Berlin. With the financial support of his father, Stieglitz was able to undertake extensive study trips in those years.

Among other places, he stayed in Vienna with and without his family in 1882, 1884, and

1890. Stieglitz also traveled to other Austrian cities, such as Innsbruck, Salzburg, and

Igls.565

In February 1890, an evening school for photography opened in Berlin.566 While

Stieglitz might have been interested, he instead made the decision to travel to Vienna.567

There he studied at the Lehr- und Versuchsanstalt für Photographie und

Reproduktionsverfahren (Teaching and Experimental Institute for Photography and

Reproduction Processes), founded two years earlier by the Austrian photochemist Josef

565 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 379–87.

566 Hermann W. Vogel, ed., Photographische Mitteilungen. Zeitschrift des Vereins zur Förderung der Photographie, vol. 26 (Berlin, 1890), 337.

567 Josef Maria Eder, “Die Fortschritte der Photographie und Reproductionstechnik in den Jahren 1889 und 1890,” in Jahrbuch für Photographie und Reproductionstechnik für das Jahr 1891, ed. Josef Maria Eder, vol. 5 (Halle a. S.: Wilhelm Knapp, 1891), 335.

272

Maria Eder (1855–1944).568 At that time, the school consisted of two departments, the

Lehranstalt (educational institution) and the Versuchsanstalt (research institution), which dealt intensively with photography and reproduction processes. Students received theoretical and practical training and had ample opportunity to improve their technical skills in the richly equipped rooms of the three-story building.569 It may well be that

Stieglitz went to Vienna on the recommendation of Prof. Vogel. Vogel was not only intensively involved in the world of photography at the time but was also in direct contact with Eder, in whose Jahrbuch für Photographie und Reproduktionstechnik (founded 1887) he published numerous articles.570

Through Eder, who in turn became an icon in Austria, Stieglitz not only fostered his technological skills but also participated in the elite art scene in Vienna. Pizzighelli, who introduced Kühn to art photography and was the cofounder of the Klub der

Amateurphotographen in Vienna, worked intensively with Eder beginning as early as 1881.

In collaboration, they pioneered the development of the chlorosilver-gelatin-process and chlorobromide-gelatin-process.571

568 Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 99.

569 Eder, “Die Fortschritte der Photographie,” 333–34.

570 Josef Maria Eder, ed., Jahrbuch für Photographie und Reproductionstechnik für das Jahr 1887, vol. 1 (Halle a. S.: Wilhelm Knapp, 1887), https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/jbpr1887. Vogel wrote an article in almost every issue. The journal existed until 1914.

571 Josef Maria Eder, ed., Jahrbuch für Photographie und Reproductionstechnik für das Jahr 1890, vol. 4 (Halle a. S.: Wilhelm Knapp, 1890).

273

In 1890, Stieglitz wrote an article in Eder’s yearbook describing his technical and chemical working processes, which aimed to challenge his former teacher Vogel. Stieglitz wrote, “My figurative pictures, which were exhibited at the anniversary exhibition, were largely made in this way, and I was particularly pleased when Prof. Vogel, one of the greatest opponents of Aristo paper, asked me whether my pictures were platinum prints? and he was not a little surprised when I answered: ‘They are Aristo pictures toned with platinum.’ Artists liked the tone immensely.”572

Also in 1890, Stieglitz became a member of the Klub der Amateur-Photographen, founded in Vienna in 1887.573 At the time, Stieglitz was interested in Austria’s photographic activities and recognized the progressive potential of the Vienna Camera

Club. In a later edition of Camera Work (1906), Stieglitz included an article about the

Vienna Camera Club by Matthies-Masuren. It is important to note that, as an editor,

Stieglitz likely would have not approved the article if he had not been of the same opinion.

Matthies-Masuren wrote, “At the end of the eighties there was a great activity in the Vienna

Camera Club, well known even abroad. Those days abounded with animated debates for and against unsharpness, for and against the pinhole-camera, the monocle, self-prepared papers, plein air effects, and the conception of nature of the modern Munich and Paris

572 Alfred Stieglitz, “Das Chlorsilber-Gelatine-Papier (Aristo und Obernetter) mit Platin getont,” in Jahrbuch für Photographie und Reproductionstechnik für das Jahr 1890, ed. Josef Maria Eder, vol. 4 (Halle a. S.: Wilhelm Knapp, 1890), 111. For original quote, see Appendix.

573 Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 99.

274

painters. They were the best days of the club, the days of raising talents and of the most brilliant development ever experienced by such an organization.”574

Although Stieglitz did not return to Europe until 1894, he participated actively in international photographic exhibitions. From May 4 to June 14 of 1891, for example, the

International Exhibition of Artistic Photography took place in Vienna, the selection criteria for which was artistic rather than technical. Stieglitz was one of twenty-five photographers selected from 350 entrants to show their work.575

When he finally spent several months in Europe on his honeymoon in 1894, he was not interested in showing his new wife Austria or Vienna. On the contrary, they undertook a route from the southern German Black Forest via Switzerland to Italy. Only in 1904 did

Stieglitz return to Austria, where Kühn was waiting to make his personal acquaintance. As

Stieglitz was now artistically more mature and ready to take art photography to the next level, the timing of the meeting with Kühn and Stieglitz would prove to be serendipitous.

1.2.2. Secession Movements in Austria

The sources from which the pictorialists enjoyed inspiration and influence go far beyond the boundaries of photography. Contemporary art movements in Austria and

Germany are directly linked to the development of artistic photography in German-

574 Matthies-Masuren, “Henneberg—Kühn—Watzek,” 22–23.

575 Sarah Greenough, “NGA Online Editions: Alfred Stieglitz Key Set,” National Gallery of Art, accessed April 27, 2020, https://www.nga.gov/research/online-editions/alfred- stieglitz-key-set/lifetime-exhibitions/1891-vienna.html. He showed photographs from his 1887 trip to Italy with Frank S. Herrmann.

275

speaking countries. In April 1897, ten years after the Club of Amateur Photographers (from

1893 the Vienna Camera Club) separated from the Photographic Society, Gustav Klimt

(1862–1918), Koloman Moser (1868–1918), Josef Hoffmann (1870–1956), and several others initiated the separation from the Wiener Künstlerhaus (Vienna Artist House) by forming an independent association they called the Vienna Secession.576 Their model was the Munich Secession which had split from the Münchner Künstlergenossenschaft (Munich

Artists’ Cooperative) five years earlier in 1892.577

All of these secession movements essentially had the same goal to resist old conventions. The Secessionists by rejecting naturalism and the photographers by rejecting commercial photography created a resistance to the state of the art establishment and its inherent conservatism. The conservatism the Secessionists were rejecting was related to exhibition policies as well as to the traditional concept of art. In addition, they were seeking to propose new, progressive ideas—the Secessionists the spiritual and the photographers the artistic—without restrictions.578 Since the beginning of the 1890s, the endeavor to reform the arts had been widespread and had gradually gained ground in the course of ten years from 1890 to 1900. Kühn’s artistically motivated photographic career was, therefore, inevitably interwoven with the art movements of the 1890s.

From a purely geographical point of view, these centers are relatively close to each other. It is also evident from the Secessionists’ correspondence that they were all interested

576 Faber and Mahler, Perfect Photograph, 32.

577 Faber and Mahler, 32.

578 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 229.

276

in each other’s activities and followed them through visits to exhibitions. These events created the opportunity for networking and increased contacts and friendships between these artistic circles exponentially. It is known, for example, that Kühn, Henneberg, and

Friedrich Viktor von Spitzer (1854–1922)—another pictorialist of the Vienna Camera

Club—were friends with members of the Vienna Secession such as Klimt and Moser.579

Joint journeys as well as photographic recordings and artistic works confirm this. For example, Klimt portrayed Henneberg’s wife in his portrait Marie Henneberg from 1901–

1902580 and Josef Hoffmann designed the Villa Henneberg on Hohe Warte, located in the hills in the nineteenth district, which the couple moved into in 1902.581 Spitzer in turn portrayed Klimt, Moser, and Hoffmann in his photographs.582

Kühn supported the idea of the Gesamtkunstwerk (total work of art), which was already formed in the Romantic period and was embraced by the Secessionists. The

Secessionists recognized photography as an artistic medium and opposed the separations between applied art, decorative art, graphic design and other practices. In 1898, the Munich

Secessionists exhibited international pictorial photography for the first time in their First

International Elite Exhibition of Pictorial Photographs. The German painter, publicist, and art photographer Matthies-Masuren was the one who selected the works to be shown. As a

579 Mahler, 229–30.

580 Mahler, 230. Together with gum bichromate prints by Henneberg and Kühn, it was shown at the Vienna Secession exhibition in 1902.

581 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 231.

582 Mahler, 252n37.

277

result, the Trifolium was particularly well represented, including thirty-four works by

Kühn.583 The Vienna Secession reported on the gum bichromate printing process of Kühn,

Henneberg, and Watzek in the fourth issue of its association magazine, Ver Sacrum,584 and exhibited works by them as well as by Spitzer around 1902.585

Exchanges between these artistic and photographic movements was inevitable.

Monika Faber has specifically discussed similarities in composition and tonal values in the female representations of Kühn and Klimt. For example, she compared Kühn’s photograph of Mary Warner, whose cut-off feet almost seem to float in the space of the picture, with

Klimt’s portraits of Margarete Stonborough-Wittgenstein from 1905 and Marie Henneberg from 1901–1902.586 These pictures were shown at the exhibition of the Vienna Secession in 1902, where Kühn’s works were presented for the first time.587 It, therefore, makes sense when Astrid Mahler described the gum bichromate print portraits of Kühn, Henneberg, and

Watzek as emphasizing a graphic quality. They are, in contrast to Demachy’s three- dimensional modeling, closer to Klimt’s flattened surfaces in their artistic approach.588

583 Faber and Mahler, Perfect Photograph, 30.

584 Kimeswenger, “Der Kunstfotograf Hans Watzek,” 46.

585 Mahler and Faber, Liebhaberei der Millionäre, 71.

586 Faber and Mahler, Perfect Photograph, 26.

587 Faber and Mahler, 26.

588 Mahler and Faber, Liebhaberei der Millionäre, 84.

278

Indeed, Kühn began to concern himself with artistic photography at a time when the art world was experiencing an awakening. Introduced by Pizzighelli to art photography in 1891, Kühn followed the activities of the Munich Secession, established the following year, rather closely.589 In 1893 he joined the Vienna Camera Club and discovered the gum bichromate printing process for himself. After he came together with Henneberg and

Watzek to further develop the process in 1895, the Vienna Secession established itself in

1897.

In view of the similarities between these successive developments within the artistic movements of the 1890s in the German-speaking world, it is clear that the spirit of the idea was intended to be completely progressive. The Secessionists embraced separation in order to liberate themselves from what they saw as the ignorant structures embedded in academia at the time. In addition, they sought to achieve the Gesamtkunstwerk, so that, for example, photography could be elevated to a recognized medium of fine art. It should be noted that

Stieglitz had a priviledged seat to observe the secessions in Europe and Kuhn’s vision for photography which he would internalize and later benefit from as he would ultimately lead his own Secession in America.

However, the execution of these ideals contradicted their premise, as they could not be carried out without the application of the Secessionists’ own restrictions. While the

Secessionists achieved their goal of releasing the restrictions of the old structures and broadening the concept of art, they also applied their own restrictions in their progressive approach. Nevertheless, the break was achieved, as the word “secession” already attests.

589 Faber and Mahler, Perfect Photograph, 32.

279

Interestingly, the protagonists who advocated for secessions and new beginnings were mostly educated men who grew up in the middle class of the late nineteenth century.

Quite apart from the individual backgrounds and the socioeconomic status of the members, the titles of their exhibitions (Internationale Elite-Ausstellung Künstlerischer

Photographien (International Elite Exhibition of Artistic Photography), Munich, 1898;

Internationale Ausstellung Ausgewählter Künstlerischer Photographien (International

Exhibition of Selected Artistic Photography), Vienna, 1905) which incorporated the words

“elite” and “select,” testify that only a small, elite circle of artists was recognized. Within the association structures of the Camera Club in Vienna, the Trifolium developed and took on a pioneering role.590 In order to sift out the elite of the elite, Kühn had the idea of forming a “super club,” which would accept only the best photographers from each country as members.591 In his understanding, the existing groups were a suitable starting point but not the ideal end point. It was out of this “super club” that Kühn sought to create a new hierarchy in the world of art photography. Stieglitz had similar ambitions and, in his first issue of Camera Work, he made it clear to which clientele his magazine was aimed by saying that it was “a magazine for the more advanced photographer.”592

590 Mahler and Faber, Liebhaberei der Millionäre, 80.

591 Faber and Mahler, Perfect Photograph, 33.

592 Alfred Stieglitz, “An Apology,” Camera Work 1 (January 1903): 16.

280

1.2.3. An International Alliance

As early as 1897, Watzek’s health deteriorated dramatically, followed by attacks of suffocation presumably brought on by asthma beginning in 1900. Three years later, in May

1903, Watzek died in Vienna at the age of 55.593 He made a handwritten testament in

November 1902 listing exactly into whose possession certain artworks should pass after his death. Shortly before he died in 1903, Watzek added that “all my framed and unframed pictures in my possession become the property of Dr. Hugo Henneberg . . . and Heinrich

Kuhn.”594

Watzek remained in the memory of the photographic community. Matthies-

Masuren wrote about him in Camera Work in 1906:

He was a drawing-teacher in a school. This shows what may be done if there is a strong enough desire. His apparatus again was of the simplest, for it was his theory that we must free ourselves from the tyranny of the material. He was one of the most striking figures among the artist-photographers . . . His camera, constructed by himself, which he alone knew how to handle; . . . the magnificent pictures which he produced with such primitive means show that artistic feeling and not ingenious apparatus are the basis of artistic production . . . He was a rare phenomenon among the amateurs in that he was equally efficient in landscape, portraiture, and still- life.595

593 Kimeswenger, “Der Kunstfotograf Hans Watzek,” 48.

594 Testament of Hans Watzek, November 1902, collection of Diether Schönitzer. For original quote, see Appendix.

595 Matthies-Masuren, “Henneberg—Kühn—Watzek,” 26–27.

281

With the death of Watzek, the Trifolium broke up, and Henneberg increasingly devoted himself to woodcuts and painting and gave up photography.596 As the achievements of the other Camera Club members gradually receded, it was only Kühn who continued to work on the ideas of the Trifolium and oriented himself increasingly toward international events.

In the meantime, Stieglitz had established himself as an internationally renowned photographer in New York. He resisted the control of the so-called “Rationalists” in the

United States and founded his own group.597 While, in 1900, he was one of the jury members of the annual Philadelphia Salon and considered the works shown there to be an advance in American photography, the following year the event was a step backward in his mind. In 1902, when the Rationalists, who had a conservative attitude toward photography wanted to take control, Stieglitz boycotted the Salon and it was subsequently canceled and only resumed in 1910.598 This event provides evidence of how much influence Stieglitz already had in America at that time in matters of photography. After the boycott, Stieglitz founded the Photo-Secession, “a seceding from the accepted idea of what constitutes a photograph.”599 The inception of Stieglitz’s group coincided with the dissolution of the

596 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, May 15 and August 2, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 678.

597 Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 128–29. The Rationalists were the conservative members of the Philadelphia Photographic Society.

598 Alfred Stieglitz, “The Photo-Secession at the National Arts Club, New York,” in Photograms of the Year 1902 (London: Dawbarn & Ward, 1902), 17–20, quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 128–29.

599 Stieglitz, “Origin of Photo-Secession (II),” quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 120.

282

Trifolium and this created an opportunity for Stieglitz to benefit from Kühn’s knowledge and network. With his own group in mind, Stieglitz significantly increased his correspondence with Kühn—which was conducted exclusively in German since Kühn could not speak English.600

For Stieglitz, it was particularly valuable to have a trusted ally in Europe whom he respected as a photographer and leader and with whom he shared a similar vision for photography. Stieglitz knew that the photographic art world in the United States still had some catching up to do. Therefore, he looked to the place where photography had achieved a level of maturity in terms of its acceptance. The relationship was also a win-win situation for Kühn, as he found in Stieglitz an ally in the American market. What Stieglitz would later become in New York is comparable to what Kühn had achieved with his Trifolium in

Europe. The Trifolium, therefore, served as a smaller-scale model of what Stieglitz wanted to implement in America on a grand scale. It is important to note, that without Stieglitz’

German roots and his fluency of the German language it would have been impossible for these collaborations to have occurred as strongly as they did.

Stieglitz and Kühn arranged to meet in 1904 in Igls, a rural village in the Tyrol that became a popular destination for Innsbruck’s citizens in the course of the nineteenth century and also became known as a climatic health resort. Stieglitz, therefore, combined two concerns, namely the improvement of his health problems and the photographic exchange with Kühn, who lived nearby. This first meeting of Stieglitz and Kühn would

600 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, January 2, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680.

283

solidify their collective vision for photography and materially change both men’s lives in a relevant way.

2. Refinement of Vision

Stieglitz traveled to Europe four times at the beginning of the twentieth century— in 1904, 1907, 1909 and 1911—meeting Kühn on each visit. The first two meetings in 1904 and 1907 were of particular importance as this was before Stieglitz’s interest turned toward advancing and dealing in modern art. The meetings of Stieglitz and Kühn testify to the deep engagement of the two men in their common subject of photography. They devoted themselves to photography in individual sessions, in which only the two of them took part, and in group sessions, in which—for example in 1907—they experimented with new techniques in a larger group.

During their meetings, they always worked together artistically and these experiences created deep impressions on both Stieglitz and Kühn. Their strengthened bond helped to facilitate the exchange of information about their photographic progress.

Additionally, they agreed to introduce each other into their respective networks in service of elevating artistic photography according to their ideals. It was through these interactions that Stieglitz and Kühn would further refine their perspectives on the future of art photography.

In the following subchapter, their first meeting will be presented and how the resulting photographs memorialized their direct collaboration will be discussed. Among the photographs are some that were published, exhibited, and known worldwide. Even with

284

the photographs that were not used, Stieglitz and Kühn were always experimenting together and continually refining their artistic vision.

During 1904 and 1907 Stieglitz and Kühn maintained intensive contact, continued to influence each other and refined their individual photographic approaches. Sharing their networks in Europe and America served as a platform to achieve the global acceptance of their ideals. The second meeting of 1907 focused primarily on the subject of color photography, a breakthrough finally developed and distributed commercially by the French

Lumière brothers. The introduction of color photography created another opportunity for

Stieglitz and Kühn to further refine their vision of what artistic photography could become.

Similar to the impact that gum bichromate had on pictorialism the ability to use color was perhaps the greatest catalyst in allowing Stieglitz and Kühn to elevate photography to fine art. Since the creation of the camera, the inability to produce with color created an easy way for the conservative old guard to distinguish between art and photography. Again, the advent of new technology continued to blur the lines between art and photography and opened the door for Stieglitz and Kühn to foster their shared vision.

2.1. Artistic Implications

Stieglitz may have been a recognized photographer and author by 1904, but at that time he was still at the beginning of his career as the leader of a group with which he was now trying to realize his vision for photography. He was aware that Europe, which in his eyes had made much more progress in terms of art photography, was still the role model, writing that “in Continental Europe . . . enormous strides in the right direction have been

285

made within the last few years. Vienna, with its influential club, full of enthusiastic workers like Henneberg, Bergheim, Watzek, Kuehn, Strakosch, and many others, has led the way in founding a new school of pictorial photography, tearing itself away from the accepted conventionalities and bringing out individualism whenever possible.”601 He continued, explaining that “the gum bichromate printing process did much to arouse this dormant talent, for by means of this method the artist has at last found an unlimited means of expression.”602

Stieglitz associated the Europeans’ success with their excellent execution of the technique of gum printing. For him, this technique opened up “a new field of possibilities,”603 which lead him to the conclusion that “gum printing is bound to revolutionize pictorial photography.”604 Stieglitz was clearly aware that gum printing would play a significant role in his aspiration to establish photography as a fine art form.

Next to the Austrian pictorialists, the French photographer Robert Demachy was one of the great masters of gum printing. However, it was Kühn with whom Stieglitz built a special relationship. Although Stieglitz was in contact with Demachy, valued him as a photographer and showed his appreciation by publishing his photographs in Camera Work, their connection could not match the one Stieglitz had with Kühn.

601 Stieglitz, “Progress of Pictorial Photography,” 158.

602 Stieglitz, 158.

603 Stieglitz, 158.

604 Stieglitz, 159.

286

One practical reason why Stieglitz sought to deepen his relationship with Kühn in

1904 was the simplicity of communication. Stieglitz was much better suited to writing and speaking German than French. Moreover, among the Austrian masters of gum printing,

Kühn was the only one left of the Trifolium practicing the process and, in contrast to

Demachy, Kühn was an advocate of “honest” photography. The Trifolium had agreed that they had a different approach to the gum print than their French colleague. Kühn, like

Stieglitz, pursued the credo that artistic effects should not be achieved by retouching in the darkroom but by pictorial means during shooting and printing.605 Initially enthusiastic about Demachy’s method of working with the gum bichromate printing process, Kühn later expressed extreme concern about Demachy’s approach in letters to Stieglitz:

If Demachy didn’t want to paint so uselessly for empty effects—I’ll come back to the subject again because I’ve just seen something like this from him again—he would be quite excellent. It’s a pity that he makes such excellent paintings, but the brush stroking back and forth with the brush gives us the effect; why all this fumbling? Is a calm background so horrible that one has to enliven it with straight or wavy lines without motivation, lines that completely fall out of the character of the picture. Sometimes he may think of something, want to express something with it; but always this brushing, that is a quirk. After all, the manner is irrelevant for the artistic value; In a photo-exhibition people say: but that’s painted! And you stand next to it and don’t know what to say.606

Demachy was, at first, regarded by Kühn as an inspiration but Kühn soon realized that he had a different approach to the process and was trying to find an alternative way of expressing himself. Kühn pursued photography in an artistic way just like Demachy but he

605 Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 78; and Stieglitz, “Pictorial Photography,” 537.

606 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, January 13, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677. For original quote, see Appendix.

287

felt strongly that it was not to be achieved with a brush. Kühn rejected direct painting on photographs but this did not mean that he rejected Demachy per se. On the contrary, Kühn appreciated him as a fellow photographer and made this clear in a remark to Stieglitz when he wrote that in “the last issue [of Camera Work], the French, are, in my opinion, quite characteristically given. They do not impress me very much, the only expert remains

Demachy, and he is very ‘faiseur.’”607

In Kühn, Stieglitz found the ultimate partner who saw photography in the same light as he did. Both based their views on the writings of Emerson whose explanations were grounded in physiological perception and the research of Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–

1894). Emerson noted that “retouching is the process by which a good, bad, or indifferent photograph is converted into a bad drawing or painting.”608 Accordingly, Stieglitz called retouching “invariably inartistic, generally destructive of values, and always unphotographic” 609 and “with the appreciation of the plastic nature of the photographic processes . . . the art-movement, as such, took a more definite shape.”610

Building on this common ground between Stieglitz and Kühn, the next section will present the meeting between the two men in Igls in 1904, as this was the crucial start of their future joint collaboration. It was at this meeting that they realized they had a common

607 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, October 26, 1906, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 679. For original quote, see Appendix.

608 Emerson, Naturalistic Photography, 184.

609 Stieglitz, “Pictorial Photography,” 533.

610 Stieglitz, 533.

288

vision for photography and became closer as photographers and friends. The photographs presented here are not the result of their experiments but rather stand as evidence of their initial personal encounter. Therefore, these photographs primarily show ordinary motifs and compositions. These pictures from their first meeting should be understood with the perspective that Stieglitz and Kühn presented their understanding and execution of art photography to each other with the skill sets they had already acquired.

After this meeting, the intervening period saw intensive contact between the two photographers. Their influence on each other is briefly illustrated with a few examples of pictures taken before their second meeting in 1907. The second meeting is important in that the elevation of photography at that time could only have been realized through another important technological invention—color photography with the autochrome process presented by the Lumière brothers in Paris earlier that same year. Celebrating and exploring the long-awaited process was a special moment for Stieglitz and Kühn which they shared in Tutzing alongside other selected photographer colleagues.

2.1.1. First Meeting

In 1904, shortly after publishing the sixth issue of Camera Work, Stieglitz traveled to Europe with his wife Emmeline and daughter, Kitty, in mid-May.611 While Emmeline and Kitty traveled on to Stuttgart shortly after their arrival to visit relatives, Stieglitz spent

611 Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 312.

289

a month in the Berlin clinic of Dr. Isidor Ismar Boas (1858–1938) because of his health situation.612

The only photograph preserved from Stieglitz’s stay in Berlin during this time is a photograph called Snapshot—From My Window, Berlin (fig. 4.5).613 Stieglitz showed a section of a street from a high perspective and a structure that contains neo-Romanesque sacred elements. Stieglitz did not reveal where exactly he took the picture; however, it can be assumed that he took this snapshot from the window of his sickroom at Dr. Boas’s clinic at Friedrichstraße 10 in Berlin.614 Stieglitz was particularly interested in capturing a street view from an interior perspective as he took a similar photograph two years earlier from his home in New York at 1111 Madison Avenue (fig. 4.6).615 During his treatment, he also visited the International Art Exhibition in Dresden,616 where he had arranged a show with works of the Photo-Secessionists.617 Stieglitz found the photographs of Kühn, Henneberg,

612 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 122.

613 In the literature, the picture is often dated 1907, but due to Stieglitz’s hospitalization it only makes sense to date it to 1904. It could not have been taken earlier, since all of Stieglitz’s registered residences in Berlin in the 1880s do not allow for any conclusive findings from contemporary city maps—the buildings depicted in the photograph are not compatible with the buildings that stood near his various 1880s residences.

614 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 179.

615 Greenough, 167. Stieglitz lived with his wife at 1111 Madison Avenue in New York from 1898 to 1918.

616 Alfred Stieglitz, “Some Impressions of Foreign Exhibitions,” Camera Work 8 (October 1904): 34.

617 Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 220. It was one of the six shows of the Photo- Secession that Stieglitz organized abroad.

290

and Watzek presented at the Dresden exhibition particularly fascinating. In the October

1904 issue of Camera Work, Stieglitz wrote, “Here on the one hand were the Viennese, artistic powerful, daring and broad in their treatment, masterful in their knowledge of multiple-gum technique, sensuous in their strength, yet displaying great taste . . . Watzek,

Henneberg, Kuehn and Spitzer, although each a strong individual, were yet so complementary to each other that the whole impression was due mainly to the more or less uniformity of size and medium.”618

Enthusiastic about his visit to the exhibition, Stieglitz, accompanied by Dr. Boas, traveled further across Germany to Igls in the south near Innsbruck where they stayed for several weeks in early July at the luxurious Hotel Igler Hof.619 Many of Stieglitz’s friends were expecting his arrival, among them the photographer Frank Eugene (1865–1936) who announced a visit from Munich for the beginning of August.620 Friedrich “Fritz” Raab, a medical doctor, family friend, and hobby photographer who treated Stieglitz and his parents, decided to also come to Igls with his family to meet Stieglitz.621 Raab was also a friend of Eugene, Kühn, and the painter Wilhelm Hasemann. Whereas Hasemann could not participate in the meeting in Igls, Kühn was eager to meet Stieglitz and vice versa.

618 Stieglitz, “Some Impressions of Foreign Exhibitions,” 35.

619 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, July 10, 1904, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 676.

620 Frank Eugene to Alfred Stieglitz, August 3, 1904, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 18, Folder 407.

621 Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 220; and Friedrich Raab to Alfred Stieglitz, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 39, Folder 952–957.

291

Stieglitz and Kühn had been admiring each other’s photographic work for nearly ten years, showing their mutual respect for each other as photographer colleagues through correspondence for about five years,622 and were now ready to take the next step in their relationship.

Portraits

While this first experiment between Stieglitz and Kühn was not as much a collaboration as it was designed to gain an early understanding of each artist’s techniques it is interesting that one can observe the intermediality of painting and photography in the pictures they took together. Throughout Stieglitz’s stay in Austria, he and Kühn met several times in two locations—in Igls, where Stieglitz stayed, and in Innsbruck, where Kühn lived.623 During these meetings, they photographed together and took portraits of each other as visual evidence of their experience. While there are numerous examples, in one picture Kühn photographed Stieglitz in the interior of his home in Innsbruck (fig. 4.7). The portrait-format shows Stieglitz in his usual formal dress with white, high-necked shirt, dark bow tie, vest, and blazer. He is depicted sitting on an armchair with wooden armrests, which is still owned by the Schönitzer family.624 Stieglitz places his right arm in his lap

622 Frank Eugene to Alfred Stieglitz, November 2, 1898, YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 35, Folder 800. This is the first direct written communication between Kühn and Stieglitz before 1899, in a postcard from Eugene to Stieglitz also signed by Kühn.

623 Diether Schönitzer, email to author, January 23, 2020.

624 Schönitzer to author, January 23, 2020.

292

and holds glasses in his hand.625 With his left hand he casually supports his face on his index finger and thumb. He retracts his chin somewhat, allowing his eyes to stare out from below his heavy brows directly at the observer. The background shows a simple light wall with the corner of a framed picture, which Kühn positioned in the upper-left half of his composition. He knew how to distribute the shadows in his photograph in a balanced way so that a harmonious overall impression is created. While Stieglitz’s clothing is dark in the foreground, the background as well as his face and hands appear bright.

Kühn also captured Stieglitz outside. This time, however, Stieglitz is pictured with a camera (fig. 4.8). Kühn portrayed Stieglitz as a working photographer whose craft required the utmost precision and physical effort. In a series of three photographs626, Kühn placed Stieglitz in the middle of a tall meadow with grass that reaches above his knees. In one photograph of the set, Stieglitz is placed centrally in the middle of the picture plane holding the large apparatus of the camera, which is presumably aimed at his subject. In a letter to Stieglitz the next day, Kühn wrote about their time spent together: “Yesterday I probably tormented you a little too much! One or two things are good, the others are temperless. So, it was good that I had tried several records after all. I sincerely wish that you did not catch a cold in the wet grass. Yesterday you also saw me nervously once, I was

625 Schönitzer to author, January 23, 2020.

626 See Heinrich Kuhn, Alfred Stieglitz with Graflex, 1904. Gelatin silver print, 4 1/4 x 3 9/16 in. Yale University Art Gallery, acc. no.: 2016.101.407.

293

then upset with myself. If you are in a good mood, please come on Tuesday, so that I can torture you for the last time; I must get a good picture together.”627

Landscapes

Close collaboration with other photographers was a matter of course for Kühn.

Beyond written letters and verbal exchanges about photographs and techniques, he photographed side by side with his colleagues and friends. In 1897, for example, Kühn photographed a motif of closely spaced poplars in an open plain with his freshly united

Trifolium.628 All three photographers created their own versions of the same landscape, showing their different pictorial inventions. While Kühn chose a landscape format629,

Henneberg (fig. 4.9) and Watzek (fig. 4.10) shot their motif in portrait format. Henneberg aligned the vertical course of the poplars with the narrow format and shifted the horizon upward. Watzek worked in a similar way to Henneberg but made the pictorial area more spacious, whereas Kühn set his motif in extremely soft focus.

The same applies for Kühn’s Children on the Banks of a Creek from 1898 (fig.

4.11), elements of which Paul Pichier (1873–1955), a photographer colleague of Kühns

627 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, August 28, 1904, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 676. For original quote, see Appendix.

628 Faber and Mahler, Perfect Photograph, 56.

629 See Heinrich Kuhn, Summer Landscape, 1897. Gum bichromate print. Kunstbibliothek Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, Berlin, acc. no.: 1914,268. http://www.smb-digital.de/eMuseumPlus?service=direct/1/ResultLightboxView/result. t1.collection_lightbox.$TspTitleImageLink.link&sp=10&sp=Scollection&sp=SfieldValu e &sp=0&sp=0&sp=3&sp=Slightbox_3x4&sp=0&sp=Sdetail&sp=0&sp=F&sp=T&sp=0

294

from the Vienna Camera Club, adopted in his photograph Arkadien (fig. 4.12). Both photographs are in landscape format and show a flat landscape interspersed with poplars and a stream. Kühn depicted two naked boys playing next to the creek, while Pichier chose a group of six children holding hands and dancing in a circle. The theme of playing or resting children in harmony with nature was taken up especially by visual artists. Motifs of longing referred to ancient Arcadia, which was a synonym for an earthly paradise, a blissful life without hardship in an idyllic setting. Especially during the turmoil of industrialization, the need for a peaceful and intact world was particularly great. Viewing the German painter

Arnold Böcklin’s (1827–1901) Der Sommertag (The Summer Day) of 1881630, it quickly becomes clear that Kühn and Pichier oriented themselves to his work. Böcklin, who received profound inspiration above all from the Mediterranean landscape and the rich heritage of Italy’s antiquity and Renaissance, showed in his work a river landscape with children swimming and a city lying in the indefinite distance. The city appears as a dreamlike vision also alluding to the Arcadian motif.

Kühn also implemented this way of working with Stieglitz in the summer of 1904.

Both of them photographed the same landscape in Igls (figs. 4.13 and 4.14), a motif more familiar to Kühn at this time as Stieglitz had been concentrating on urban views in New

York in the years leading up to his European trip. Both photographs, in landscape format, show a group of birch trees and scattered bushes spread over a slope. In both pictures, the

630 See Arnold Böcklin, Der Sommertag (The Summer Day), 1881. Oil on mahogany wood, 24 x 20 in. Staatliche Kunstsammlung, Dresden, acc. no.: 2534. https://skd- online-collection.skd.museum/De- tails/Index/240131.

295

horizon line is centered, the lower half of the picture is occupied by a meadow with scattered groups of leaves, and the upper half is covered by a cloud-filled sky. Both capture the motif from the same line of sight; however, Stieglitz moved his version closer to the viewer than Kühn, who included two figures at the lower edge. Although Kühn and

Stieglitz did not seem to have had much of an interest in these photographs, as they were rarely exhibited, this endeavor provides evidence that both experimented with camera and nature side by side.631

Ploughing

In contrast, the series of a ploughing farmer seems to have captured the interest of

Stieglitz (fig. 4.15) and Kühn (fig. 4.16). The perspective in Stieglitz’s horizontally oriented photograph is determined by a multitude of diagonal lines. The lower part shows several parallel strips of arable land which run diagonally from the lower left to a vanishing point at the back right. The individual strips of field also differ in their tonal values. The front field has already been ploughed and, therefore, appears very dark with some light accents, the still unprocessed strip behind it is brightly set off and the third field at the very back is darker again. The background is dominated by a mountainous landscape that seems to almost dissolve in the cloudy sky. The silhouettes of the two hills drop down to the lower right to meet the boundary lines of the fields in the middle of the right-hand edge of the picture. A dark object to the far right, perhaps a hut, creates a compositional counterbalance

631 Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 56. Stieglitz exhibited his picture once; Kühn did not produce a positive from his negative.

296

to the group dominating the picture in the left foreground. It consists of a farmer with a plough pulled by two draft horses preparing the field for the coming cultivation. He turns his back to the viewer. His face is also turned away.

If one did not know that it is a photograph, one might almost think that Ploughing is a genre painting typical of the time. The whole picture is slightly blurred, as if processed with a soft focus. The group of figures at the front left appears most clearly. The lower half of the picture is dark and gives the photograph a certain heaviness. A balancing effect is achieved by the contrast with the bright sky in the upper half of the picture. Bright accents in the front field seem to reflect the clouds in the sky. They seem almost like impressionistic brushstrokes and give the photograph an additional painterly character. In general, the photograph appears very balanced and calm due to its composition and tonal range.

Stieglitz deliberately avoided showing the sweat-inducing hardship of rural fieldwork. He wrapped the central motif in a kind of landscape cocoon that depicts the work with and in nature more beautifully than the corresponding reality. Stieglitz exhibited this photograph in numerous exhibitions both in New York and in Europe between 1905 and 1914632 and he also included it in several publications, including the October 1905 issue of Camera

Work.633

Kühn understood his ploughing farmers similarly and yet differently. Like Stieglitz in Ploughing, he arranged his photograph in a landscape format. It can be assumed that these are the same farmers and horses that did their work in the same landscape of Tyrol.

632 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 180.

633 Alfred Stieglitz, ed., Camera Work 12 (October 1905): 18.

297

While Stieglitz captured them from the rear right side, Kühn must have been standing to their left side because the farmers walk with their equipment from the lower right to the upper left in his image. The entire picture is crossed by diagonal lines. The foreground is covered with a meadow landscape, which takes on a slight upward slope on the right side.

The background, much brighter than the foreground, is filled with the mountain landscape except for a small, white triangle in the upper right corner—the sky.

Kühn’s diagonally oriented composition appears much more restrained than that of

Stieglitz, who took it to extremes. Kuhn’s work approaches the horizontal, which emphasizes the picture’s format. The entire photograph is interspersed with tonal values that show the most varied gradations from white to black. The two horses, with the farmer leading to the left in front, form the darkest part of the entire image space, pulling the already ploughed strip of field behind them as a dark part that reaches to the lower right corner. The foreground meadow stands out in a medium tonal range, and the background provides the brightest area of the composition. The farmer, holding the plough in both hands, appears in the center, and in his person, wearing a light shirt, dark trousers, and hat, he combines all the tonal values of his immediate surroundings.

Kühn’s photograph is much more softly focused than that of Stieglitz, so much so that the viewer cannot make out any precise details of the individual elements. He thus distanced himself even more from the actual work going on in the scene. Kühn used the motif formally without any further social examination of the image content. Stieglitz must have been taken with Kühn’s photograph as he included it in a 1906 exhibition at 291 and

298

made it accessible to the public.634 As proof of their collaboration, one photograph discovered during the research for this dissertation is particularly interesting because Kühn captured Stieglitz as Stieglitz photographed his Ploughing images (fig. 4.17).635

Other contemporaries of Stieglitz and Kühn dealt with the same topic approximately twenty years earlier, in 1885. The photograph A Stiff Pull by Peter Henry

Emerson shows in landscape format farmland in the lower half and a cloudless sky in the upper half.636 On the horizon on the right, a blurred treetop protrudes. The farmland rises toward the rear, with the result that the plough lines run diagonally from bottom left to top right, thus determining the composition of the lower half of the picture.

The differences in tonal values of the individual strips of arable land in the Emerson as well as the Stieglitz show that the working direction of the ploughing is the same in all three photographs—from right to left. Even more pronounced than in Stieglitz’s and

Kühn’s works is the dominance of the group of figures, which is centrally positioned and moved closer into the foreground. A farmer in dark trousers and a light jacket with a hat on his head steers the plough with two harnessed horses. The photographer or observer looks diagonally to the right at the back of the team, so that here, too, no individual is recognizable. The group is an anonymous representation of working farmers. Their

634 Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 57.

635 This photograph has also been reproduced as a ‘Correspondenz-Karte.’

636 See Peter Henry Emerson, A Stiff Pull, 1880s. Photogravure, 8 3/16 x 11 3/8 in. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no.: 48.105.69. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/269197.

299

direction of movement, from bottom left to top right, supports the compositional scheme; both the farmer and horses, however, break through both halves of the picture by projecting beyond the horizon.

The title of the picture refers to the direction of movement—the horses have to pull uphill to accomplish their ploughing. Emerson emphasized this aspect of the work in both the title and the composition in a very distinct way. He positioned the figures very close to the viewer and revealed many details such as the structure of the plough and the texture of the overturned soil. Toward the back, the forms become blurred, and a slight blurring in the figure of the farmer makes the movement clear. In contrast to Stieglitz’s and Kühn’s pictures, however, this soft drawing characteristic does not have a romanticizing effect but supports the central theme of laborious field work pre-Industrialization. In using the new photographic technology, Emerson aimed to preserve the old ways of country life. He wrote the following about this photograph: “Our plate shows us a still [sic] pull, such as is life for many. Like the horses and the ploughman in the plate, they must look neither to the right nor to the left, but straight before them, putting all their strength into their work.”637

Emerson published A Stiff Pull in Pictures of the East Anglian Life (1888).638 In this book, he captured the life and work of rural society in the east of England. Emerson included in his publication Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art the opinion of

637 “Photographic Society,” National Media Museum Bradford, January 12 2016, http://www.nationalmediamuseum.org.uk/collection/photography/royalphotographicsocie ty/collectionitem.aspx?id=2003-5001/2/20179.

638 Hannavy, Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography, 1:483.

300

the press, which, among other things, described A Stiff Pull as “successful enough to make us wish that Millet had painted in Suffolk instead of at and about Chailly-en-Biere.”639

Since Stieglitz and Kühn had studied Emerson’s photographic and literary works, they were familiar with this photograph. Stieglitz had been in contact with Emerson since

1887, when they met through the award ceremony of an exhibition.640 Stieglitz even received an inquiry from Emerson about translating Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art from English into German, which he declined.641 Stieglitz explained later to

Nancy Newhall that he refused Emerson’s request “because I didn’t want to take the time from my own work.”642

Emerson’s photographs are often based on common genre motifs from painting.

Therefore, it is quite conceivable that the photographs of ploughing by Stieglitz and Kühn were an homage to Emerson, especially as their photographs were visual realizations of

Emerson’s idea that “sharp outlines” are “untrue to nature”.643 Emerson’s guidelines in artistic photography demanded that “the principle object in the picture must be fairly sharp,

639 Quoted in Emerson, Naturalistic Photography, 314.

640 Homer, Stieglitz: American Avant-Garde, 12.

641 Norman, Stieglitz: American Seer, 30.

642 Stieglitz quoted in Newhall, From Adams to Stieglitz, 98.

643 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 32.

301

just as sharp as the eye sees it and no sharper, but everything else, and all other planes of the picture, must be subdued . . . slightly out of focus.”644

That Emerson was still relevant for Stieglitz around 1904 is confirmed in their correspondence;645 in a letter to Emerson, Stieglitz wrote, “Not long ago I had your portfolio of gravures in my hand and also your book Naturalistic Photography. Both took me back many years and both seem still alive.”646 In addition, Stieglitz wanted to publish photographs by Emerson in Camera Work in 1904, but Emerson declined.647

These pictures evidence the early stages of the artistic collaboration between

Stieglitz and Kühn in 1904. Perhaps more importantly Kühn, who had a history of collaborating with other European art photographers, welcomed Stieglitz into his circle.

For Stieglitz to be able to experiment with his camera in the presence of a similarly talented photographer further enhanced Stieglitz’ artistic progression and vision of what photography could become.

644 Emerson quoted in Greenough, 32.

645 Nicole Dussol, “Die Bedeutung der Zeitschrift ‘Camera Work’ fur die Geschichte der Kunstphotographie” (PhD diss., Christian-Albrecht-Universität of Kiel, 1993), 20.

646 Stieglitz quoted in Tammy Pleshek, “Peter Henry Emerson and American Naturalistic Photography,” Minneapolis Institute of Art, April 1, 2008, http://new.artsmia.org/press/peter-henry-emerson-and-american-naturalistic- photography/.

647 Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 153.

302

Horses

Another motif that Stieglitz exhibited and published is shown in a photograph called Horses (fig. 4.18) that he also took with Kühn in 1904. It is a close-up of the two horses depicted in the photographs of the ploughing farmers. The landscape-format picture shows both animals, the left one dark, the right one white, in three-quarter profile. They are depicted with snaffle bridles on their heads and working harnesses consisting of pointed collars, which in turn are connected to the plough behind them. In this photograph, Stieglitz focused only on portraying the two horses and left out the farmers and ploughing equipment. In doing so, he paid them respect for the hard work that they do in the field for their master day after day. Horses were the only animals Stieglitz photographed.

Stieglitz used the motif of the horse in several of his photographic works, including galloping along the snow-covered streets as in Winter Fifth Avenue, resting as in The

Terminal, working as in Ploughing, or standing for a portrait as in this picture. While

Stieglitz chose different titles for his other photographs, this is the only work that directly references the horses, which seem almost human here.

The motif was also chosen by fellow art photographers. From the Trifolium, only

Watzek made a portrait of two horse heads and this was a gum bichromate print in 1903 that was one of his last works (fig. 4.19). There is also a dark horse on the left and a light horse on the right. They are not connected as a team of draft animals but wear only a loose bridle and bend forward to drink water from a trough.648

648 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, July 21, 1912, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 68.

303

Kühn sent Stieglitz a letter with eight sketches of Watzek’s works, four of which have never been reproduced before. One of these is the horse portrait, which Stieglitz anticipated publishing in Camera Work.649 Whether Kühn also took a photograph of the horses is not known; however, he must have been fascinated by Stieglitz’s photograph because he wrote to him in the winter of the same year, “Your two beautiful pictures that came with your letter yesterday give me the greatest pleasure. The nags are wonderful, I would like to take this picture for the catalogue. The ploughman is also excellent—but perhaps not as important as the monumental horses—the silvery tone of your print will be difficult to bring out in engraving and, as we can only take one, I am in favor of the

Tyrolean horses being included in the catalogue.”650 Stieglitz exhibited Horses five times in the following year (1905) and published it four times—including in his own journal

Camera Work in October 1905.651

In two previous issues of Camera Work, he had published a similar photograph by his fellow Photo-Secessionist Gertrude Käsebier with the words, “Mrs. Gertrude Käsebier is one of our most prolific photographers as well as one of the foremost pictorialists.”652

Her photograph entitled My Neighbors from 1905 does not show two horses, but two cows

(fig. 4.20). Käsebier’s intention in taking these pictures was not to depict the cows as draft

649 Alfred Stieglitz, “To Our Subscribers,” Camera Work 40 (1912): 46.

650 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, December 24, 1904, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 676. For original quote, see Appendix.

651 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 180.

652 Alfred Stieglitz, “Our Illustrations,” Camera Work 10 (April 1905): 50.

304

animals—although it is clear from the harness that they were at work—but to capture them as individuals worthy of being portrayed. She also photographed the cows in a three-quarter profile, mirror-inverted to that of Stieglitz’s horses. While one of the them looks forward and opens its mouth, the one in front turns directly toward and looks at the viewer. Stieglitz must have enjoyed this photograph, otherwise he would not have included it in his magazine. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Stieglitz, perhaps in an homage to

Käsebier, was guided to first publish his photograph of horses in Tyrol, which was taken before Käsebier’s My Neighbors. Even if the animals and the prints are different, the motifs, compositions, and the ideas behind them are similar.

All the presented photographs refer to the same themes and motifs and only differ slightly from each other in their compositions, focus, and lighting. Therefore, Stieglitz and

Kühn proved that they were acquainted with “nearly every field that the painter treads . . . portrait work, genre-studies, landscapes,” and “with the laws of composition as is the landscape or portrait painter.”653

The collaboration between Stieglitz and Kühn during their first meeting in Igls was significant as it deepened their relationship personally and artistically. As the previous photographs show, the meeting included an exchange about their previously acquired skill sets and their views on pictorial photography. Stieglitz and Kühn found a commonality in their artistic interests and the images that were created reflect well-known landscape, portrait, and genre motifs and compositions. Even though the work was not entirely groundbreaking, their meeting made a significant impression on both artists. In letters that

653 Stieglitz, “Pictorial Photography,” 536–37.

305

followed, Kühn and Stieglitz often shared their thoughts about their influence on each other. While it can never be precisely determined the probable impact of this first meeting on the history of pictorialism cannot be underestimated.

2.1.2. Intervening Period

Between Stieglitz and Kühn’s first and second meeting, the intervening period was marked by an almost daily exchange of letters. Both were aware that their personal encounter in Igls left strong impressions for their further approach to photography. In a letter to Kühn, Stieglitz wrote his friend, “I am very interested to hear what you had to say about the mutual influences after Igls. . . . No doubt the so-called American school after

Igls had an influence on you, but you always remained Kuhn.”654

It is to be noted that before 1904 Kühn was mastering gum prints in large formats.

After 1904 Kühn continued to exhibit his large-format gum prints, which were still praised for their decorative character; however, he no longer produced any new ones.655 Kühn adopted Stieglitz’s approach and instead worked with smaller formats that showed more detailed scenes. Monika Faber has posited that this change in Kühn’s body of work was certainly no coincidence but was most likely catering to Stieglitz’s preferences as to be included in his selection of works to show.656

654 Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, May 22, 1912, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 682. For original quote, see Appendix.

655 Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 58.

656 Faber, 63.

306

Moreover, Kühn devoted more attention to portraiture which occupied a dominant place in his future work, especially by photographing his children and their nanny, Mary

Hannah Warner (1881–1933). Warner was fifteen years younger than Kühn and originally from England. Kühn employed her to support raising his children as Kühn’s wife, Emma, was suffering from illness and eventually died.657 Later, Warner was Kühn’s life companion, although they never married.

Kühn’s portraits of children can be attributed to his private circumstances in addition to the influence of Stieglitz. The loss of his wife was the catalyst for devoting himself to the two most important things in his life—family and photography. Through photographs Kühn realized he could immortalize the ones he loved. The pictures of his children are characterized by great intimacy—they turn toward each other, embrace, and play with each other in the group pictures.

Creating a picture of an ideal world where he had total control was extremely important to him. Kühn focused closely on composition, as the many preliminary studies and sketches prove (figs. 4.21–4.24). He also required his children to pose in front of the camera for hours at a time and would punish them if they disobeyed. He even ordered special clothing of certain colors and textures in order to control the pictures’ tonal values.658 Mary Warner experienced the same treatment in the many photographic sessions

657 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 236.

658 Diether Schönitzer, conversation with author, April 12, 2018. The clothes were worn exclusively for the photographs.

307

together with the children or in Kühn’s series of nude studies of her.659 Whereas Kühn had previously included figures purely as staffage in the composition of his pictures, from 1904 on he strove to address the relationship between the figures portrayed and their immediate surroundings. As a result, three of the four works Stieglitz published two years after their meeting in his Camera Work issue from 1906 were portraits.660

Directly after Stieglitz and Kühn’s meeting in Igls, Stieglitz continued his journey to London, where he stayed until the end of October;661 Kühn decided to travel to the small

Dutch fishing village of Katwijk aan Zee, where he had stayed before in 1898 and 1901.662

In analyzing Kühn’s photographs from his stays in Katwijk, his motifs and pictorial concepts show similar elements to those of Stieglitz. One example is a photograph that

Kühn called Dutch Women on the Beach from 1898 (fig. 4.25). Kühn, just like Stieglitz, admired the work of James Craig Annan. Both were clearly influenced by Annan’s photograph On a Dutch Shore from 1892 (fig. 2.43). Stieglitz took his version of women and children waiting on the coast for the men returning home in The Landing of the Boats

659 Boldly influenced by the works of the Viennese Secessionists (Klimt) and Photo- Secessionists (Steichen), he was a role model for Stieglitz, who realized his nudes of Georgia O’Keeffe some years later in the style of straight photography. Kuhn’s focus was more on tonal value studies.

660 Alfred Stieglitz, ed., Camera Work 13 (January 1906): 11–19.

661 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 385.

662 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, September 17, 1904, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 676.

308

in 1894. Kuhn knew Stieglitz’s and Annan’s works and he even acquired the original photograph directly from Annan which is documented in a written exchange.663

Kuhn’s Hollänerin in der Düne [Dutch woman in the dune] (fig. 4.26) from 1901 presents his own interpretation of Stieglitz’s Mending Nets from 1894 (fig. 2.48). Kühn was familiar with Stieglitz’s photograph which Stieglitz declared his “favorite picture” in a publication in 1899.664 Kühn subsequently realized this picture which was so important to his friend, a few years later in his own way in a large-format gum print of a net-patching woman sitting in the dunes.665 The similarities not only in the motifs but also in the compositions and chiaroscuro distribution in the pictures is astonishing. The fine tonal gradations and the elaboration of the atmospheric effects establish a direct connection between the two pictures.

When Kühn returned to Katwijk in 1904, he once again turned his attention to the net-mending women. This time he didn’t isolate them but tried to capture them with their work in their surroundings, which is shown in a series of variations. For example, Women

Repairing Nets on the Beach of Katwijk aan Zee (fig. 4.27) presents a portrait-format work in which Kühn set the horizon line high, with the result that the lower two-thirds of the image is covered with the dark dune and one-third with the bright sky. In total, the composition comprises three seated net menders and a fourth woman who is cropped at the

663 Collection of Diether Schönitzer. Inscribed on the reverse side of the photograph: “On a Dutch Shore, Original from J. Craig Annan Glasgow, In possession of Hein. Kühn Innsbruck (by exchange/trade).”

664 Stieglitz, “My Favorite Picture,” 11–12.

665 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 127.

309

left edge of the picture. The arrangement of the women guides the viewer’s eye from the foreground into the depths of the picture to a standing figure in the background. This standing figure is the only one to break through the horizon line and rise into the vastness of the sky while the other women bend forward over their work and linger in the lower part of the picture. This photograph attests to the fact that Kühn was subject to the influences of Stieglitz as well as those of fine art role models, such as Max Liebermann, whose Die

Netzflickerinnen from 1887–1889 also shows great similarities.

These examples bear witness to the fact that both Stieglitz and Kühn oriented themselves to the masters of open-air painting and implemented their artistic heritage in photographs. In Kühn’s oeuvre, his Katwijk photographs show the beginning of a compositional technique that later became increasingly purist and reduced. Kühn continued the development of this shift in his traveling photographs from 1910 onward. These pictures contain photographs of his children and Mary Warner in the mountains hiking over meadow landscapes (fig. 4.28). Here, too, Kühn set the horizon line very high or excluded it completely. The individual figures dance on the ground which no longer contains any depth but only surface. Through the use of the figures, Kühn guided the eye of the viewer through the picture but in a far more modern, two-dimensional way distinct from a soft, pictorialist atmosphere. Kuhn’s focus is now entirely on the composition.

On his 1904 trip to Katwijk, Kühn also pursued some other photographs that have been preserved either as positives or glass negatives.666 They document—similar to those

666 Faber and Mahler, Perfect Photograph, 60–61. Original glass negatives in the collection of Diether Schönitzer.

310

by Stieglitz—the everyday life of local fishermen and their families, who were already accustomed to having themselves portrayed and photographed by artists. Monika Faber described the pictures by Kühn from Katwijk as follows: “These pictures derived a unique appeal from the clash between traditional attire—which was presumably regarded as somewhat exotic—and modern variations of genre themes featuring dynamic framing devices with an emphasis on random gestures.”667

While Stieglitz affected Kühn’s work, Kühn had an effect on the Americans as well.

Stieglitz wrote to Kühn in 1912 reflecting on the respective influences brought about by their meeting in Igls in 1904. Stieglitz’s opinion was that “Steichen, on the other hand, found a larger format to work in early 1904, in January, and immediately began to approach strength and juiciness. In the London Salon of the same year I was surprised when I went to see his new work. It is this work with the Viennese work (You and Henneberg) that later influenced Coburn, Seeley, White, etc.”668 Kühn’s large gum prints, with their praised decorative effect, were picked up by Steichen and others to foster their photographic careers. There can be no doubt that during this period even though Stieglitz and Kühn were separated by distance Kuhn remained one of Stieglitz’s key collaborator and the men also continued to build their common vision. The strength of their relationship to endure the separation is an indication of the commonality of their goal and their respect for each other as artists. As pictorialism continued to captivate the photographic artworld it seemed that it would be inevitable that Stieglitz and Kühn would meet again.

667 Faber and Mahler, Perfect Photograph, 58.

668 Stieglitz to Kühn, May 22, 1912. For original quote, see Appendix.

311

2.1.3. Second Meeting

At the time of their first meeting, Stieglitz and Kühn were already regarded as masters of their craft of photographing in black and white. However, with the advent of color photography in 1907, the new technology gave them an opportunity to elevate their artistic ambitions. This highly anticipated and seminal moment in the history of photography was shared between Stieglitz and Kühn. The autochrome technique presented by the French brothers Auguste and Louis Lumière in Paris fulfilled a long aspiration of photographers to reproduce and capture natural colors.669 It was above all their invention that simplified the execution of color photography. Stieglitz wrote in the October 1907 issue of Camera Work that the invention of Professor Lippmann, who had already worked with color photography before the Lumière brothers, developed a method that was unfortunately too difficult and expensive and; therefore, “his invention is only of scientific value.”670 Now the commercial distribution of the autochrome process drew Stieglitz back to Europe with the result that he, together with Kühn, temporarily lost interest in black- and-white photography.671

This subchapter does not attempt to describe the technical subtleties of color photography, nor is it possible to reconstruct Stieglitz’s entire journey of 1907 due to lack

669 Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 238. The process had already been developed by 1904.

670 Alfred Stieglitz, “The New Color Photography—A Bit of History,” Camera Work 20 (October 1907): 10.

671 Mahler, “Kuehn: Biographical Sketch,” 120. Kuhn used the process until 1918; Stieglitz was only interested in the autochrome process for two years.

312

of available research. As the group consisting of Stieglitz, Kühn, Steichen, and Frank

Eugene experimented together, it is impossible to attribute the twenty remaining photographs to individual photographers.672 However, this event is important as it gave

Stieglitz and Kühn hope of convincing even the last doubter that photography is indeed a worthy medium of fine art. It was also the first of two group collaborations between four internationally successful amateur photographers whom Stieglitz referred to as “scientific experts.”673 On Stieglitz’s penultimate trip to Europe, in 1909, the same group met again to continue experimenting with the autochrome process. While the first meeting took place in Tutzing, the second meeting was held in Munich.674

Experimenting as a Collective

Stieglitz, Kühn and Steichen all evaluated color photography through their own experiments. Stieglitz was particularly interested in color photography in the early 1890s through his participation in the Photochrome Engraving Company.675 Although the company specialized in black-and-white prints, Stieglitz developed a three-color process for printing halftone illustrations in color.676 In the January 1894 issue of The American

672 Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 87.

673 Stieglitz, “The New Color Photography,” 11.

674 Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 106.

675 Stieglitz, “The New Color Photography,” 11.

676 Stieglitz, 25.

313

Amateur Photographer, Stieglitz’s photograph The Last Load was reproduced as a colored platinotype which had been produced by his company to capture the effect of a natural environment (fig. 4.29).677 Conversely, Kühn and Steichen experimented with color photography through the multiple gum printing process that “made it possible to peel off several layers of transparent color from a black-and-white negative to create a color image that virtually mimics the colors of nature.”678 It was an ideal prerequisite for becoming acquainted with the autochrome process which simplified all this by automatically mapping the plate to the natural color rather than having to add to it.

At the beginning of 1907, Stieglitz found himself in a difficult situation in New

York. In addition to his private affairs and disputes with his wife, who lived beyond her means, his work within the Photo-Secession also experienced difficulties. Many of his

Camera Work subscribers dropped out, did not pay, or canceled their memberships after

Stieglitz decided at the beginning of the year to organize a solo show for the artist Pamela

Coleman Smith at his gallery 291.679 For photographers waiting to be exhibited in his

677 The Philadelphia Museum of Art also holds a colored photograph by Stieglitz: Chianti, 1887, hand-colored halftone, acc. no. 1973-194-9, https://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/68933.html?mulR=1096782104|46.

678 Markus Heltschl, ed., Das bedrohte Paradies. Heinrich Kühn fotografiert in Farbe, (Schloss Tirol: Südtiroler Landesmuseum für Kultur- und Landesgeschichte, 2014), 16. For original quote, see Appendix.

679 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 219. An exhibition for F. Holland Day was actually planned, but he withdrew, so one slot was open, and Stieglitz decided to exhibit Smith. In the literature, it is often described that her pictures reflected Stieglitz’s mental state at that time, and that’s why he felt so attracted to her pictures. “To Stieglitz, the work

314

rooms, this decision to move in a new direction was incomprehensible. According to

Davidson-Lowe, “By May 1907, the financing both of the two-year-old gallery, for which

Alfred had such high hopes, and of Camera Work, began to seem doomed.”680

It is obvious that Stieglitz was much needed in New York at that time but the hope of being able to awaken new enthusiasm for art photography through color photography prompted him to travel to Europe again. Once again, his European contacts were eagerly awaiting his return as numerous letters between him and Kühn, Friedrich Raab, Frank

Eugene and Friedrich Götz testify.681 When Stieglitz set off for Le Havre in mid-May 1907, together with Emmeline and his daughter,682 he supposedly took his famous photograph

The Steerage683 which scholars have judged as the turning point of his photographic career.684 It is widely regarded as one of the greatest photographs in history and one of the first examples of artistic modernism. What differentiates the photograph from those of

powerfully represented his own mood and symbolized the unhealthy spirit that had infected the Photo-Secession.”

680 Davidson-Lowe, 134.

681 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, January 6, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677; and Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, April 28, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677. For original quote, see Appendix.

682 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 386.

683 See Alfred Stieglitz, The Steerage, 1907. Gelatin silver print, 4 7/16 x 3 5/8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.291. https://www.nga.gov/collection/ art-object-page.35442.html.

684 Greenough, Stieglitz: Key Set, 190. I write “supposedly” because Anne McCauley, in her 2012 publication The Steerage and Alfred Stieglitz, expressed doubts about its authenticity.

315

Stieglitz’s earlier repertoire was that Stieglitz accepted it as a photograph per se and did not judge its artistic quality by the likeness of paintings. Random objects, such as hats and suspenders, that he saw on the ship suddenly appeared to him as individual geometrical forms, which he later connected with the movement of the Neue Sehen (New Vision).685

Therefore, Stieglitz’s European journey of 1907 started out with The Steerage as an enormously formative work, especially for his later approach to photography. This was followed by his experimentation with autochrome photography that, at least for a certain period of time, excited Stieglitz regarding the progress of art photography.

After Stieglitz’s arrival in Le Havre, he went to Paris to meet Steichen, who had been living there with his wife since the spring of 1906 to devote himself more to his photography and painting.686 Kühn was supposed to meet his two colleagues, together with

Robert Demachy, in Paris. Stieglitz eagerly awaited Kühn as evidenced by his following quote: “Hopefully you will be able to arrange to come to Paris for a week, such an opportunity, you, Steichen Demachy + I together, will not be found again too soon. We’ll

685 Davidson-Lowe, Stieglitz: Memoir/Biography, 386; Alfred Stieglitz, “How the Steerage Happened,” Twice A Year 8/9 (Spring-Summer/Fall-Winter 1942); and Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 233–37.

686 See Stieglitz’s photographs of the interior of Steichen’s home and studio in Paris, YCAL MSS 85, Series IV, Box 49, Folder 2797.

316

probably stay in Paris from May 28 to June 20.”687 Unfortunately, Kühn canceled for financial reasons.688

The presentation of the autochrome process of the Lumière brothers at the Photo-

Club Paris on June 10, 1907, was ultimately attended only by Steichen who initially described the process as “pretty good only.”689 His first experiments in Paris convinced

Stieglitz who was unable to attend the event for health reasons. Stieglitz was immediately enthusiastic about the procedure690 which “would rank in the history of photography with

Daguerre’s ‘startling and wonderful’ invention.”691

In the first days of July, Stieglitz traveled from Baden-Baden to Tutzing, a small village on Lake Starnberg not far from Munich.692 There the Stieglitz family was accommodated in the prestigious Hotel Simson until the end of August at the request of

687 Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, March 10, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680. For original quote, see Appendix.

688 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, April 17, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680.

689 Stieglitz, “The New Color Photography,” 21. “[I]n less than a week Steichen had a series of pictures which outdid anything that Lumière had had to show.”

690 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, September 23, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680.

691 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 226.

692 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, July 8, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680.

317

the Raab family.693 During this two-month stay, Stieglitz went away several times—among other places, he was drawn to Munich and Innsbruck where he met with countless friends and photographer colleagues.694 Stieglitz and Kühn also met several times in Tutzing,695

Innsbruck696 and Munich697 where they continued their one-on-one photographic sessions from 1904.

The famous meeting in Tutzing was actually a sequence of several sessions that took place in July 1907. Therefore, it can be assumed that not all of the preserved autochromes came from only one meeting but were produced over the entire period.698

Only the small circle of Stieglitz, Steichen, Kühn, and Eugene participated. The fifth person to take part in this meeting was Friedrich Raab who, as an amateur photographer, was

693 Friedrich Raab to Alfred Stieglitz, February 29, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 39, Folder 953.

694 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, undated, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680.

695 They met from Tuesday, July 9 to Thursday, July 12, 1907.

696 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, August 25, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680.

697 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, July 14, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680.

698 Hoffman, Stieglitz: Beginning Light, 243. It is not clear who attended this meeting in 1907. Hoffman also included Dorothy Schubart as well as Alvin Langdon Coburn and Adolph de Meyer. However, these three protagonists are nowhere to be seen on the available photographic material.

318

enthusiastic about the other gentlemen’s activities. They met either at the Hotel Simson,699 where Stieglitz resided, or at Raab’s house in Tutzing to study the autochrome material

Steichen previously acquired in Paris.700

Like daguerreotypes, autochromes were a unique positive that did not produce a negative and, therefore, could not be multiplied. The autochrome print was not on paper but on glass which produced subtle color images and soft contours. It was transparent and could best be seen through bright light.701 Stieglitz speculated that “no print on paper will ever present the colors as brilliantly as those seen on the transparencies.”702 The impression of color resulted from the mixing of adjacent, differently colored dots when viewed from a sufficient distance as in pointillist paintings. Due to the fragility and transparency of the glass plates, autochromes were kept in cases and displayed in light boxes.

Embracing Technology

One photograph stands as evidence and as a memento of the meeting of this elite circle dedicated to the new technology with great seriousness and expertise.703 Stieglitz,

699 Uwe Schögl, “Heinrich Kuhn und die Erfindung der kunstlerischen Farbfotografie,” in Heltschl, Das bedrohte Paradies. Heinrich Kühn fotografiert in Farbe, 20.

700 Stieglitz, “The New Color Photography,” 21.

701 Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 207.

702 Whelan, Stieglitz: Biography, 226–27.

703 See Frank Eugene, Stieglitz, Steichen, Smith and Kuehn Admiring the Work of Frank Eugene, 1907. Platinum print, 4 x 6 3/8 in. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no.: 1979.633.132. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/260140.

319

Steichen, Eugene and Kühn sit together at a table and attentively look at a photograph made by Eugene. Once again, Stieglitz is the one to hold the photograph in his hands as he did in his group photos with Joseph Obermeyer and Louis Schubart from the 1880s (see

Chapter 2). With this pose, he presents himself among his colleagues as the leader who examines and critiques the picture at hand. Eugene peeks over Stieglitz’s right shoulder to compare Stieglitz’s commentary with the picture. To Stieglitz’s left, Kühn leans forward with an interested gaze at the photograph, and Steichen, who casually leans back, balances on his thighs more photographs to be examined by the experts. All four men are dressed very formally in light and dark suits and personify the social elite of the expert photographer circle. When Stieglitz wrote, “It was in the beginning of June that the plates in small quantities were put on the market in Paris; a few plates had been sent to Germany to be tested by scientific experts,”704 he was referring to his group, which shows that they saw themselves as experts and as the chosen ones who alone could judge the value of such an invention.

While the photographers were experimenting the women and children socialized.

Stieglitz’s wife Emmeline, Raab’s wife Käthe, and daughters Kitty, Sophie, and Kätie enjoyed themselves and acted as models for the gentlemen’s photographic experiments.705

This resulted in numerous photographs of Emmy and Kitty Stieglitz that were not only

704 Stieglitz, “The New Color Photography,” 21.

705 Friedrich Raab to Alfred Stieglitz, July 29, 1906, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 39, Folder 953; Friedrich Raab to Alfred Stieglitz, July 3, 1908, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 39, Folder 953. The girls liked each other and wrote letters to each other. Even over a distance, Kätie and Kitty kept in touch by sending each other postcards daily.

320

taken by Stieglitz but also by Eugene.706 In this photograph, Emmy Stieglitz sits on a bench facing the viewer, while her eleven-year-old daughter, dressed in a blue smock and hat, stands beside her and places her right hand on her mother’s shoulder. In her left hand Kitty holds a net with a red frame, which she used to play with her friend Kätie. This landing net, leaning against the wooden bench, appears in another photograph of Emmy Stieglitz who was portrayed by her husband surrounded by newspapers and magazines like

Simplicissimus.707 A joint shot of the Stieglitzes was taken by Eugene on the same day, showing Emmy Stieglitz still sitting on the same bench in her robe and hat while Alfred joins her in his white outfit and leans casually over to her with one leg and arm raised.708

In addition to the photographs of the Stieglitz family, a series of photographs was taken that attests to the amusing time the “lords and ladies” spent together in Tutzing. For example, there is a broken autochrome photograph of Raab with his wife Käthe (fig. 4.30), who play a game of chess together. While Raab ponders his next move, directing his gaze

706 See Frank Eugene Smith, Emmy and Kitty – Tutzing, Bavaria, 1907. Auto- chrome, 7 x 5 in. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no.: 55.635.11. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/271736.

707 Alfred Stieglitz, Emmeline Stieglitz, 1907, autochrome, Art Institute Chicago, acc. no. 1952.308, https://archive.artic.edu/stieglitz/portfolio_page/emmeline-stieglitz-1907. Another autochrome of Emmeline Stieglitz (taken by Alfred Stieglitz, YCAL MSS 85, Box 130, Folder 2523, https://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3520012) was erroneously dated 1910. This photo was taken on the same day as the others in 1907, which can be seen from the clothes and the bench.

708 See Frank Eugene Smith, Stieglitz and Emmy, 1907. Autochrome, 5 x 7 in. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no.: 55.635.12. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/271737.

321

to the pieces in front of him, Käthe turns to Stieglitz and looks directly into the camera.

Raab wrote to Stieglitz after their meetings in Tutzing about the pictures taken there: “He

[Eugene] gave me three more pictures, the two chess games which gave my wife and me much pleasure and a big head of me with the grey hat, a picture of you—Eugene showed me a most successful picture of Mrs. Emmy in a white dress with his scarf in front of the roses on the terrace.”709

Except for the two chess games, none of the other mentioned pictures are preserved in public institutions. The other picture of a chess game Raab wrote about in his letter shows him sitting on the terrace with another man.710 It is evident that Raab is the one sitting on the right side of the table, looking down again, while the second player, probably

Eugene or Friedrich Götz, is shown on the left side. Stieglitz made several more photographs that day of Raab,711 his wife Käthe, and his youngest daughter, Kätie.

Not only are the game of chess and the hats and beards of the men striking but the table at which they sit is draped in a bright red tablecloth. It, in turn, appears in some of

Raab’s and Eugene’s photographs, which, judging by the clothing and surroundings, must all have been taken on the same day. For example, Stieglitz took two pictures of Eugene

709 Friedrich Raab to Alfred Stieglitz, September 8, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 39, Folder 953. For original quote, see Appendix.

710 See Alfred Stieglitz, Two Men playing Chess, 1907. Autochrome, 3 1/2 x 4.7 in. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, acc. no.: 2005.100.476. https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/285938?searchField=All&sortBy =Relevance &what=Autochromes&ft=*&offset=0&rpp=20&pos=9.

711 The grey hat with white ribbon lying on the bench next to Raab is the same one that Raab wears in the photograph of the two men playing chess.

322

smoking a cigarette, reading the newspaper, and drinking a beer at the same table and again a similar scenario with Eugene sitting on the bench with hat and beer mug.712 Raab’s oldest daughter, Sophie, who already modeled for Stieglitz in 1904 (fig. 4.31), continued as a subject in Stieglitz’s photographs three years later (fig. 4.32). This time he showed her sitting at a round table with a cup of tea. She is wearing a blue dress and a hat with a big black bow. While she reaches for the cup with her right hand, she holds a piece of cake in her left. Her gaze wanders past the viewer and her mouth is slightly open—similar to the

1904 photograph.

The photographs mentioned here, which are only a sample of many others, show that the group was very actively engaged in using the autochrome medium during this meeting. The mutual photographs, including the women and children, attest to a close private connection between the individual families and also indicate that the photographers collaborated closely with each other. Up to now, they created their photographic works with their most familiar methods—Kühn using gum bichromate printing, Stieglitz making platinum prints—but with autochrome photography they were all exposed to a new technical challenge requiring close examination to master the process.

At the end of July 1907, Stieglitz wrote a letter from Tutzing to the editor of the magazine Photography in London in which he reported on the experiments there. He declared, “All are amazed at the remarkably truthful color rendering; the wonderful

712 See Alfred Stieglitz, Frank Eugene Seated at Table, 1907. Autochrome, 5 x 7 in. Art Institute of Chicago, acc. no.: 1952.311. https://archive.artic.edu/stieglitz/portfolio_page/frank-eugene-seated-at-table-1907/.

323

luminosity of the shadows, that bugbear of the photographer in monochrome; the endless range of grays; the richness of the deep colors. In short, soon the world will be color- mad.”713 Steichen described his impression in a similar way when he wrote that

“personally, I have no medium that can give me color of such wonderful luminosity as the

Autochrome plate. One must go to stained glass for such color resonance, as the palette and canvas are a dull and lifeless medium in comparison.”714 He also mentioned that “the fine, irregular grain of this plate gives a beautiful, vibrant quality to the light, that I do not think any of the mosaic or line screen-plates, with their absolute regularity, can give.”715 A later letter from Kühn to Stieglitz also recalls the events from Tutzing: “Just to refresh dear old memories, I am now in Tutzing and sitting at Simson on the terrace. Those were once good times—Steichen’s first color plates, Eugenes funny attempts by the three of us, where one of us was always laughing so hard that he couldn’t join in.”716

A few days after his return to New York in the fall of 1907, Stieglitz called a press conference at 291 to demonstrate the autochrome process by means of photographs taken in Tutzing.717 Stieglitz’s appeal to the press attracted attention because “these pictures are

713 Stieglitz, “The New Color Photography,” 22.

714 Edward Steichen, “Color Photography,” Camera Work 22 (April 1908): 24.

715 Steichen, 13.

716 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, June 18, 1913, YCAL MSS 85, Box 29, Folder 683. For original quote, see Appendix.

717 “Color photography . . . will be demonstrated at an exhibition, reserved exclusively for the Press, in the Photo-Secession Galleries, 291 Fifth Avenue, on Friday and Saturday,

324

the first of the kind to be shown in America.”718 According to Stieglitz, the exhibition was a great success and showed that “the possibilities of the process seem to be unlimited.”719

Although Stieglitz did not stick to color photography for long, he saw in it the chance to get a little closer to his vision and took advantage of it by teaming up with the best photographers, mastering the process, writing about the innovation, and being the first in

America to present it to the public. For Stieglitz, “the effect of these pictorial color photographs when up to the Secession standards will be revolutionary, and not alone in the photographic circles. Here then is another dream come true. . . . How easily we learn to live our former visions!”720 For Stieglitz, color photography was a breakthrough in his vision of raising photography to a fine art. He wrote, “It is a positive pleasure to watch the faces of the doubting Thomases—the painters and art critics especially—as they listen interestedly about what the process can do. You feel their cynical smile. Then, showing them the transparencies, one and all faces look positively paralysed, stunned.”721 This is one example of how Stieglitz used the technological innovation to be of the forefront of the industry. In that way he could assume authority for the elevation of photography as an art form.

September 27 and 28, between the hours of 10 and 12 A.M., and 2 and 4 P.M.” Stieglitz, “The New Color Photography,” 25.

718 Stieglitz, 25.

719 Stieglitz, 22.

720 Stieglitz, 25.

721 Stieglitz, 22.

325

2.2. Attention Through International Collaboration

In addition to their artistic approach to elevating photography, Stieglitz and Kühn pursued another method for realizing their vision—the international dissemination of the ideals they had already established in their home countries. This was to be realized through intensive cooperation between New York and Austria. The meeting in Igls in 1904 can, therefore, be regarded as the starting point that set the ball rolling and ushered in a new phase. This new phase, between 1904 and 1907, brought about a close collaboration between the two that resulted in important exhibition activities. The following subchapter will first explain how Stieglitz brought Kuhn’s works to New York and introduced the

American public to the gum prints of Austrian photographers through his new magazine and gallery. Afterward, the extent to which Stieglitz’s contact with Kühn helped him to exhibit in Austria and to obtain information for his activities in New York will be discussed.

2.2.1. Trifolium in New York

Although Stieglitz admired Kühn’s works before their meeting in Igls and had published them while he worked as the editor of Camera Notes, the deepening of their relationship certainly helped to get Kühn’s photographs back to New York and included in

Stieglitz’s new magazine. Two years later, in 1906, Kühn, who had subscribed to Camera

Work from the beginning, now became part of the magazine as one of—in Stieglitz’s eyes—the most important European representatives. Stieglitz manifested his respect for

Kühn’s achievements in a 1905 issue which he sent to Kühn from New York. As referred

326

to in the introduction to this chapter, Stieglitz’s handwritten inscription on the first page notes, “To my friend Heinrich Kuhn, one of the very few who really takes art photography seriously—with greetings Alfred Stieglitz” (fig. 4.33).722 This statement shows that Kühn had slipped into the narrow circle that Stieglitz built around himself at the beginning of the twentieth century.

Kühn in return was enthusiastic about Stieglitz’s work and expressed his respect for the excellent quality of the Camera Work editions when he wrote to Stieglitz, “But you know what impresses me enormously with every issue is the engravings, the type of engraving. It doesn’t get any higher than that. I only want to be able to have my work reproduced by you. Don’t despair Stieglitz: with this Camera Work you are setting yourself a monument! I can’t judge text yet, but the engravings are simply fabulous. It is not flattery, but my most sincere, complete and heartfelt satisfaction.”723

When Stieglitz first showed Kühn in Camera Work, it was in an issue that he dedicated to the Austrian Trifolium.724 Although they no longer existed as a group around

1906, and Stieglitz probably only knew Watzek and Henneberg through correspondence, they together represented the Austrian achievements in pictorialist photography. It is safe to assume that it was also important for Kühn to be shown together with his former cloverleaf companions as he felt a certain loyalty to them even after the dissolution of the

722 Camera Work issue dated September 20, 1905, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg. For original quote, see Appendix.

723 Kühn to Stieglitz, April 28, 1905. For original quote, see Appendix.

724 Alfred Stieglitz, ed., Camera Work 13 (January 1906).

327

group. Kühn expressed this loyalty, for example, by continuing to sign letters to Stieglitz and others with a cloverleaf and making it part of his brand.

Henneberg was represented with three pictures, Kühn with four, and Watzek, who had died three years earlier, received the largest number of reproductions with five pictures.725 The photographs contain landscapes, genre scenes, and portraits and show a cross section of their masterpieces. The works from Kühn include Washerwomen on the

Dunes, which he took after meeting Stieglitz in 1904. The original large-format gum prints were reproduced in the magazine as smaller photogravures. Stieglitz wrote about the illustrations: “The pictorial section of this number of Camera Work is devoted entirely to the work of that celebrated Viennese triumvirate, Heinrich Kühn, Hugo Henneberg, and

Hans Watzek. Each one of these photographers merits a whole number of our magazine being devoted to his work, but as these men have always worked, and always exhibited, as a group, we simply act in their spirit in representing them as we do.”726

The spirit Stieglitz referred to is described by Matthies-Masuren, who wrote an extended article about the Trifolium for the magazine. He explained:

It is impossible, even approximately, to reproduce in a picture, the scale of tones which we observe in nature. . . . Photography does not give a true picture of nature as it appears. . . . The facility with which photographers are enabled to give the smallest and most unimportant details with wonderful accuracy is very seductive, and is the great obstacle in the way of the employment of photography as a means of artistic expression. . . . The aim of the artist is to recreate the impression which

725 Stieglitz, Camera Work 13 (January 1906). Henneberg: Villa Falconieri, Villa Torlonia, Pomeranian Motif; Kühn: Roman Campagna, Girl with Mirror, A Study in Sunlight, Washerwomen on the Dunes; Watzek: Poplars and Clouds, Mountain Landscape, A Village Corner, The White Sail, Sheep.

726 Alfred Stieglitz, “Our Illustrations,” Camera Work 13 (January 1906), 58.

328

the aspect of nature reproduced upon him. . . . We see far more detail in nature than is possible to put into a picture . . . .To give the true relation between the several intervals in light and color, to soften sharp lines and modify details in accordance with the impression, to obtain breadth and a unit of pictorial effect—were the problems to be solved by the pictorial photographer; and they were solved by the ‘Kleeblatt’: Henneberg, Kuhn, and Watzek.727

Matthies-Masuren continued, “a real work of art should give us nature but it must give us more than a mere clipping from nature, more than the picture which we all see with our natural eye. . . . Art is not nature, for it is a liberation from those conditions by which . . . our consciousness of the visible world is bounded; . . . Nature is art—art is photography!”728 According to Matthies-Masuren, to depict only the appearance or a detail of nature is not enough to be understood as a work of art. He wanted to convey that it is not enough for photography to capture the literal details of nature, but to go beyond it, to

“capture the impression” that nature had on the photographer. The Trifolium embraced that spirit.

Within the fifty issues of Camera Work that Stieglitz published over a fifteen-year period, only five issues were dedicated to individual photographers. These include the first issue in 1903, which he dedicated to Käsebier, and later issues devoted to Steichen and

Annan. Stieglitz decided in 1911 to dedicate the thirty-third publication of Camera Work entirely to Kühn. The fifteen works selected by Kühn himself were printed in different processes and show a wide range of motifs to which Kühn had devoted himself over the

727 Matthies-Masuren, “Henneberg—Kühn—Watzek,” 23–24.

728 Matthies-Masuren, 24.

329

past years. This edition can be seen as a summary of Kühn’s best works and as an appreciation by Stieglitz of his longtime friend.

For Stieglitz, Kühn’s photographs resembled “photography in the purest sense.”729

He recalled the achievements of Kühn and the Trifolium and hailed them as “the founder[s] of the so-called ‘German-Austrian’ school in photography.”730 Stieglitz sent the edition to

Kühn with the inscription, “To my dear friend Heinrich with a thousand greetings from the old warhorse! At last, once again, a magazine pretty much put together; hopefully it will give you some joy. New York, November 27, 1911.”731

In 1906, three months after the presentation of the Trifolium in Camera Work,

Stieglitz showed their photographs in his gallery 291 (fig. 4.34). Among them were landscapes, seascapes, and portraits that decorated the walls and even the doors. The walls were divided into two zones by protruding strips; the lower zone was draped with textiles, while the upper zone contained the photographs, each hanging separately at a large distance from the others. The hanging was done exclusively within a framing, which partly continued on the walls and doors—even the round, black door handle was framed with a white strip. Isolated elements—mainly round and Japanese in appearance—such as a vase with a cherry blossom shrub, or a small casket (also the round lights hanging from the

729 Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 106.

730 Alfred Stieglitz, “Our Illustrations,” Camera Work 33 (January 1911): 71.

731 Alfred Stieglitz, ed., Camera Work 33 (January 1911), Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg. For original quote, see Appendix.

330

ceiling)—complemented the room decoration and balanced the angular forms of the photographs.

The art critic Charles H. Caffin described his viewing of the exhibition: “I have never seen an exhibition presented with so discreet a taste, even by the Viennese and

Germans, who are adepts at such ensembles. . . . the secret of its discretion—and it is worth making a note of—consisted in adopting the photographic print itself as the unit of the scheme of arrangement.”732 The exhibition of the German-speaking pictorialists was a great success as the sixth show at 291. Not only as an artist but also as an organizer did

Kühn contribute to the fact that the exhibition took place at all in cooperation with Stieglitz and to the success it achieved. Matthies-Masuren already revealed in the Camera Work issue published three months earlier: “Taken all in all, Kuhn is the most diligent and competent of the German-Austrian; and the success of an exhibition has frequently been decided by his participation or non-participation.”733

Joseph Keiley reviewed the exhibition for Matthies-Masuren’s German publication, writing about its relevance, “The bold, powerful work by the Viennese has always had a magical influence on (their) American colleagues. Likewise, their bold, independent viewpoint in favor of Pictorial photography, regardless of ridicule and resistance, has aroused the admiration of the Americans and inspired them to create their own world. The dimensions of the images, most of which are relatively large, has also

732 Charles H. Caffin, “The Recent Exhibition—Some Impressions,” Camera Work 16 (October 1906): 33.

733 Matthies-Masuren, “Henneberg—Kühn—Watzek,” 28.

331

attracted attention, and these prints have left a deep and favorable impression on art lovers in the city, as well as on photographers who were previously not familiar with this work.”734

It is important to understand that Kühn, Watzek, and Henneberg achieved the success they enjoyed up to the first years of the twentieth century without the American influence under Stieglitz. They were the ones who pertinently shaped pictorialist photography in central Europe through their photographic activities and shared these with their colleagues and the interested public in both exhibitions and publications. Stieglitz, who was attracted to Europe throughout his life, must have felt the same way about their work and especially about the work of Kühn.

Watzek and Henneberg were also clearly at the forefront of German-language art photography in 1906. Stieglitz, who himself worked with such dedication and determination, surrounded himself with only the best artists—and that was the case with

Austrian and German photographers. Matthies-Masuren summed it up when he wrote,

“These three men deserve the entire credit for the development in Germany of pictorial photography as that term is understood to-day.”735 He went on, “Ten years ago they [the photographers of Germany and Austria] copied the silvery gray platinotypes of the English photographers, now Kühn and Henneberg are the models.”736

734 Joseph J. Keiley, “Die kunstlerische Photographie in America und die Photo- Sezession,” in Die Photographische Kunst im Jahre 1906, ed. Friedrich Matthies- Masuren (Halle a. d. S.: Wilhelm Knapp, 1906), 115, quoted in Faber and Mahler, Perfect Photograph, 108.

735 Matthies-Masuren, “Henneberg—Kühn—Watzek,” 28.

736 Matthies-Masuren, 28.

332

Although this status quo was maintained for the time being, Matthies-Masuren saw quite clearly that European artists were beginning to be influenced by the movements of the Americans. Therefore, his emphasis was on “to-day,” but he continued, “tomorrow they

[Kühn and Henneberg] will be imitating the Americans.”737 Stieglitz was obviously aware of the recognition given to the Trifolium as a result of their mastery of their artistic and technological contributions to art photography. Surely, Stieglitz desired the same type of recognition in America and realized that being innovative with the rapidly changing technology was key for him to create a platform to elevate photography to a form of fine art in America. It is important to know that Stieglitz’s contribution was not the invention of photographic processes or equipment but the application of innovations to artistic photography.

It is evident that formerly non-existent American art photography was gradually moving up and even seen as a pioneering force due to the activities of Stieglitz.738 This process can be described in terms of Kühn’s works, whose formats under the influence of the Americans would change from large (as they could still be seen at 291 in 1906) to small.739 These small-format works were not initially well received by everyone. In the eyes of some European critics, Kühn had “completely changed. . . . [T]he large pictures

737 Matthies-Masuren, 22.

738 Alvin L. Coburn, “Artists of the Lens: The International Exhibition of Pictorial Photography in Buffalo,” Harper’s Weekly, November 1910, 11, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015033848071&view=1up&seq=607&size= 125.

739 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 231–32.

333

have become smaller, the technique has changed completely, strong frames have become narrow strips. Intentional blurriness partly dominates the picture, a blurriness that might have been justified in a larger format. A blur should never appear visible, it should lead to a greater calm and not to restlessness in the picture.”740

So while the Europeans stuck to their large-format prints, the Americans argued for the opposite. In Caffin’s review of the Trifolium show, he criticized that some of the works shown—especially the landscape pictures—were much too large for the very low-lying rooms. He wrote:

[T]he purpose of the artist, apart from satisfying his own desire of expression, is to convey an impression to the imagination of others, and it is jejune to try and stir the imagination deliberately by bigness. . . . so, If alone on this score, I should think a photographer who works thinkingly, mentally conceiving his composition before he exposes the plate, must from the start take this question of size into consideration, and be chary of enlargements and reductions. . . . I have not hesitation in saying that the smaller rather than the larger print is, as a rule, most full of meat for the imagination.741

Despite sporadic criticism, the Trifolium exhibition in New York, like the photographers’ previous exposure in Camera Work, went down in the history of German- language art photography in America as a success. With the backing of Stieglitz, it was celebrated as bringing “a revolution on the conception and photographic expression of nature which raises high expectations for the future. Let us hope that among the followers

740 Dr. Bachmann, “Internationale Ausstellung ausgewählter Kunstphotographien in Wien,” in Photographische Mitteilungen. Halbmonatsschrift für Amateur-Photographie, ed. P. Hanneke (Berlin: Gustav Schmidt, 1905), 42:85, https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_4xo_AAAAYAAJ/page/n3/mode/2up. For original quote, see Appendix.

741 Caffin, “Recent Exhibition—Some Impressions,” 35–36.

334

of these three masters there will be other serious workers and new productive talents whom the discoveries of the ‘Three’ will lead to a still deeper artistic insight.”742

By 1901, Kühn had become acquainted with the works of Gertrude Käsebier,

Edward Steichen, and Clarence White who later joined the Photo-Secession.743 As a result of his relationship with Stieglitz the door to Stieglitz’s network also opened for Kühn and resulted in written exchanges and meetings between Kühn and other Photo-Secessionists.

For example, Kühn, who was enthusiastic about the works of Steichen, took photographs with him in Tutzing.744 Kühn also developed a relationship with Gertrude Käsebier. In a letter to Stieglitz, he confessed that he had a favorite picture by Käsebier, which he later even owned.745 “Once I hang a picture of the Käsebier in my new house, it should be Happy

Days. This immediate freshness is splendid; I like the boldness. In the field of bright sunny momentary pictures Mrs. K. is excellent; independent.”746 In his correspondence with

Käsebier, Kühn enthused, “[I] take this opportunity to pay my respect to you and to explain my admiration for your beautiful work. I go from Munich to Carlsruhe, Wiesbaden, Paris,

742 Matthies-Masuren, “Henneberg—Kühn—Watzek,” 41.

743 Hochreiter and Starl, “Lexikon,” 143.

744 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, May 12, 1906, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 679.

745 Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 71.

746 Kühn to Stieglitz, April 28, 1905. For original quote, see Appendix.

335

London. If it is feasible we shall be glad to stop over a train to call upon you.”747 Although

Kühn and Käsebier did not end up meeting in person, their connection continued via mail and by sending each other their photographs.748

What appears evident is that when the Trifolium was born, Kuhn and his group’s aspirations were primarily focused on the European art community. It is interesting to note, that at the beginning of the relationship between Stieglitz and Kühn, it was Kühn who was inviting Stieglitz into his world in Europe. Perhaps in acts of reciprocity Stieglitz included

Kühn prominently in his gallery and publication in America. This shared enterprise and vision of Stieglitz and Kühn would have a unique and powerful implication on the history of pictorial photography.

2.2.2. Photo-Secession in Austria

In addition to reading the countless reviews of individual exhibitions in the numerous magazines of the time, Stieglitz learned firsthand about the Austrian exhibition industry and exchanged ideas with Kühn through their correspondence. In the increasing exchange between the two photographers after 1904, they not only discussed artistic issues, photographic techniques, and other photographer colleagues but Kühn also reported in great detail on the exhibition scene in Vienna, especially on the Vienna Camera Club. Kühn assured Stieglitz of his commitment to him and to America’s participation in Viennese

747 Gertrude Käsebier to Heinrich Kühn, August 22, 1905, collection of Diether Schönitzer.

748 Gertrude Käsebier to Heinrich Kühn, January 2, 1906, collection of Diether Schönitzer.

336

exhibitions.749 He also forged plans with Matthies-Masuren to organize German-American exhibitions.750 Kühn wrote to Stieglitz in August of 1905, “I give you my word that

Matthies is a thoroughly decent person in whom you can have every confidence. Now it’s time that we in Germany . . . take the exhibition business into our own hands, maybe we started with the Dresdner Ausst.[ellung] 1906 (great arts and crafts exhibition), but I’m also thinking of doing a German-American exhibition in Vienna this winter, again with

Miethke. So far this is just my thought. I hope we will always go hand in hand in the future.”751 Kühn, therefore, tried to build a force in central Europe by uniting with other influential people in addition to the critic, photographer and author Matthies-Masuren.

While in the 1880s photography was vying for a place within fine art exhibitions, in the 1890s the Vienna Camera Club pursued a new concept that established aesthetic standards to make the selection process for inclusion in exhibitions more discerning in order to increase quality.752 By the early years of the twentieth century, small, intimate exhibition circles that presented their work in modern galleries with limited exhibition space became the norm. In Vienna, the Miethke Gallery was the hub of modern art, promoting the group around Gustav Klimt especially in the 1890s. It was originally founded in 1861 by Hugo Othmar Miethke (1834–1918) and Carl Josef Wawra (1839–

749 Kühn to Stieglitz, April 28, 1905.

750 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, August 18, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 678.

751 Kühn to Stieglitz, August 18, 1905. For original quote, see Appendix.

752 Mahler and Faber, Liebhaberei der Millionäre, 67.

337

1905), who separated in 1875. Miethke continued to run the gallery until Paul Bacher (d.

1907), a friend of Klimt, bought it in 1904. After the death of Bacher, the Austrian painter

Carl Moll (1861–1945) took over management. From 1904 the gallery was still called by its former founder, Miethke, and opened a branch in the first district to organize these intimate exhibitions.753 In addition to photography, Moll presented the art of Gauguin,

Picasso, and Cézanne.

In the spring of 1905, Kühn’s endeavors of organizing an exhibition for Stieglitz in

Vienna bore fruit. The Kunstsalon H. O. Miethke agreed to exhibit photographs by Stieglitz and the Photo-Secessionists754 under the title International Exhibition of Selected Artistic

Photographs for a period of four weeks, officially organized by the Vienna Camera

Club.755 The exhibition showed exclusively photographs from Austria, England, France and America.756 While Kühn selected the works of the Austrian photographers, Stieglitz did so for the Americans.757 Among Stieglitz’s exhibited works were some New York motifs as well as the ploughing farmers and horse heads that he photographed together with

753 Mahler and Faber, 71; Tobias G. Natter, Die Galerie Miethke. Eine Kunsthandlung im Zentrum der Moderne (Vienna: Jewish Museum, 2003), 36.

754 Bachmann, “Internationale Ausstellung,” 42:84. Steichen, White, Coburn, Reiley, Käsebier, and Stieglitz exhibited.

755 Sarah Greenough, “NGA Online Editions: Alfred Stieglitz Key Set,” National Gallery of Art, accessed May 28, 2020, https://www.nga.gov/research/online-editions/alfred- stieglitz-key-set/lifetime-exhibitions/1905-vienna-kunstsalon.html.

756 Bachmann, “Internationale Ausstellung,” 42:82.

757 Mahler, “Kühn—His Life and Work,” 238.

338

Kühn the year before.758 Stieglitz himself could not be present at the exhibition, just as

Kühn never came to the Trifolium show in New York the following year.

In an essay about the exhibition, the American representatives were evaluated as follows: “In the beginning were the Americans. And even today, they are still the ones who are best at harmonizing the tonal values of a picture to achieve a harmonious overall effect, with unparalleled perfection.”759 Among the jurors were artists belonging to the pre-war

Vienna Secession, including Koloman Moser, Julius Hofmann, and Emil Orlik, who worked closely with the Miethke Gallery.760 Matthies-Masuren also contributed in the form of a volume accompanying the exhibition that included ten heliogravures.761 In the foreword, he made clear that the exhibition “is not like other, earlier events on the

758 Works exhibited by Stieglitz included 29 Spring (1902), 40 In Tyrol (1904), 41 The Street—Winter (1902), 42 The Hand of Man (1902), 43 Pferde (1904), 44 Winter—Fifth Avenue (1892), and 45 Going to the Start (1904). Sarah Greenough, “NGA Online Editions: Alfred Stieglitz Key Set,” National Gallery of Art, accessed May 29, 2020, https://www.nga.gov/research/online-editions/alfred-stieglitz-key-set/lifetime- exhibitions/1905-vienna-kunstsalon.html.

759 Josef Maria Eder, “Stimmen uber die internationale Ausstellung des Kamera-Klubs bei Miethke,” Photographische Correspondenz 42, no. 534 (April 1905): 150, https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_4DQyAQAAMAAJ/page/n185/mode/2up/search/Stim men+über+die+internationale+Ausstellung+des. For original quote, see Appendix.

760 Josef Maria Eder, “Internationale Ausstellung des Kameraklubs im Salon Miethke: Kameraklub-Ausstellung 1905,” Photographische Correspondenz 42, no. 534 (April 1905): 131, https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433060402215&view=1up&seq=161.

761 Eder, “Internationale Ausstellung des Kameraklubs,” 132.

339

photographic trade . . . but it shows reproductions of moods, impressions of nature with consideration of the line, the tone and the distribution of light and dark in space.”762

When Stieglitz started with the Little Galleries of the Photo-Secession (291) in the summer of 1905, Kühn tried to assist him from afar in building the gallery. Although

Steichen and his wife mainly designed the rooms, it was Kühn who gave instructions through letters on how Stieglitz could equip and prepare the rooms for exhibitions that took place beginning in November 1905.

As a point of reference, he used the exhibition rooms of the Miethke Gallery. Kühn described how Miethke’s rooms were outfitted and how the works were hung or attached to the walls. For example, he wrote, “The upper edge of the picture should form a straight line, that looks very good. Add some greenery—a few no laurel trees . . . in the room and a cold grey floor covering, and the pictures look warm and lively. I liked the exhibition room at M.[iethke] so much that I took steps to get a very good exhibition there again soon, which should be much better.”763 Kühn’s letters also contained small sketches with estimated dimensions from nail to nail to illustrate his writings. They were explicitly intended to help Stieglitz, as Kühn expressed, “I am writing to you in detail about this, because you may now be able to use this arrangement very well for your rented rooms.”764

762 Josef Maria Eder, “Vorwort des offiziellen Kataloges von Herrn F. Matthies-Masuren in Halle a. d. S.,” Photographische Correspondenz 42, no. 534 (April 1905): 154, https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_4DQyAQAAMAAJ/page/n189/mode/2up/search/Stim men+über+die+internationale+Ausstellung+des+. For original quote, see Appendix.

763 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, April 7, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677. For original quote, see Appendix.

764 Kühn to Stieglitz, April 7, 1905. For original quote, see Appendix.

340

The Miethke Gallery, like the Vienna Secession, no longer made any distinction between media in their exhibitions and represented the principle of the Gesamtkunstwerk, which Stieglitz also took up in his own way with Camera Work and 291. Stieglitz later turned to other art forms, such as painting, literature, and poetry, apart from photography as well. In his organizational experience, Stieglitz was still in his infancy in 1905. With his already established, internationally successful group, he could indeed teach Europeans something artistically. However on an institutional level, it was Kühn who led Stieglitz through his experiences at the Miethke Gallery, beyond the generally known Secession movements.

What Stieglitz found in Kühn was an artistic equal but it was their shared vision and the commingling of their network of relationships that lead to the elevation of photography as a form of fine art. Stieglitz and Kühn worked collectively to use their positions of authority in each of their respective countries to promote each other and through those efforts they achieved their common goal of advancing their collective ideals.

3. Vision Realized

As seen in previous subchapters, Stieglitz and Kühn were two men who not only had much in common but also found themselves in the right place at the right time, as if they were meant for each other. They both turned to the same medium and pursued it out of passion and not out of commercial interests. This was made possible by the financial security provided by their parents. They also agreed on the practice of true photography,

341

both being against retouching in the darkroom. These perspectives were the basis of their relationship and created a foundation upon which they could build a collective vision.

As described in this subchapter, the international connection, in this case between the United States and Austria, created a platform for the dissemination of their photography and ideals. Stieglitz had a defined view of what he considered to be high-quality photography. He had been rigorous in this respect since the 1890s with his occupation with

Camera Notes which caused conflicts with those around him. Even in his Photo-Secession group, his autocratic leadership style and his uncompromising attitude lead to tensions among his followers. Kühn was not in the same position as Stieglitz but had many of the same personality traits. Kühn was also judgmental and sought to define and categorize what constituted quality in the world of amateur photography. His solution was to form a subgroup, an elite circle of the best photographers in the art world. The following subchapter explores Kühn’s vision of an elitist group which Stieglitz shared and ultimately succeeded in realizing in America.

3.1. An International Association of Art Photographers

Club foundations were the results of contemporary historical and political conditions in the nineteenth century. Due to industrialization, the population grew rapidly and was increasingly closely networked with the hinterland on a national and international level through road construction, railway lines, and shipping routes. This resulted in global mass movement which culminated in innovative centers, especially in the metropolises.

342

Additionally, the universal scholar gave way to scientific specialization. This new specificity manifested itself in the formation of associations, among which were numerous photography clubs. The exploration of the medium by individuals and in the collective accelerated the progress of the technology.

In addition, the cult of genius flourished in the humanities, philosophy, and literature. This had already been a subject of science in antiquity and was taken up again in the eighteenth century in the period of Sturm und Drang. Many scholars and humanists, such as Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749–1832),765 Arthur Schopenhauer (1788–1860),

Jean Paul Friedrich Richter (1763–1825),766 and Immanuel Kant (1724–1804), were intensively involved with the cult of genius. In Kant’s philosophy, originality is the essential characteristic of the genius and coupled with talent produces ideas that can be described as non-imitative. Kant wrote, “Genius is a talent for producing something for which no determinate rule can be given, not a predisposition consisting of a skill for something that can be learned by following some rule or other; hence the foremost property of genius must be originality.”767

765 In the case of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, a distinction must be made between his early concept of genius, expressed in the poem “Prometheus,” characterized by Sturm und Drang, and his late, humanistically clarified concept of genius in “Faust II.”

766 Jean Paul focused on the question of the concrete conditions for the creation of an ingenious work of art.

767 Immanuel Kant, “Critique of Judgment,” trans. Werner S. Pluhar, in Philosopher on Art from Kant to the Postmodernists: A Critical Reader, ed. Christopher Kul-Want (New York: Columbia University Press, 2010), 38.

343

Stieglitz undoubtedly knew the writings of Kant and referred to them indirectly in his own writings about photography when he reflected that originality is a required quality.

In 1892, Stieglitz wrote an essay distinguishing a photograph from a picture by saying that a photograph is the result of the camera without artistic value, and a picture, on the other hand, possesses artistic value.768 In order to create a picture and not a photograph, in his opinion, two key ingredients are needed: “Originality, hand-in-hand with simplicity, are the first two qualities . . . to produce artistic pictures.”769 For Stieglitz, originality was one of the major elements in creating a work of art. Stieglitz believed his pictures possessed originality. Twelve years later, he proposed in his 1905 article “Simplicity in Composition”

“to study the best pictures in all media—from painting to photography—. . . until they unconsciously become a part of yourself.”770 He had followed that advice himself, as his early photographs are clearly based on works by other fine and photographic artists. He had studied them and incorporated them into his works with the aim of achieving originality.

This desire to strive for the ultimate form of what photography could be is based on the technological circumstances of the late nineteenth century. Due to the progress of scientific development, almost every social class could afford photographic equipment and companies like George Eastman’s Kodak took over the difficult processes of developing

768 Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 32.

769 Alfred Stieglitz, “A Plea for Art Photography in America,” Photographic Mosaics 28 (1892): 135–37, quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 30.

770 Stieglitz, “Simplicity in Composition,” 162.

344

the film, printing the photographs, and reloading the camera. Therefore, amateur photographers like Stieglitz and Kühn who pursued photography in a serious manner with artistic intentions felt forced to find a way to distinguish themselves from the rest of the crowd. Joining or creating like-minded organizations was, in their opinion, an adequate method of surmounting their circumstances at that time.

The first photographic association in the German-speaking countries, founded in

1861, five years before Kühn was born, was called the Photographische Gesellschaft in

Wien (Photographic Society in Vienna).771 Due to the social and political conditions around the middle of the nineteenth century, its members were scientists, commercial photographers, and private individuals, mostly from aristocratic or upper-middle-class circles.772

Vienna, like other large cities including Berlin, enjoyed an enormous increase in population due to industrialization. As a result, the city center had to be expanded and restructured. The newly planned Ringstrasse was designed to be lined with monumental residential and commercial buildings of several stories. The local schools, institutes, and universities generated a higher educational stratum in Vienna’s bourgeois circles, which had certain intellectual aspirations and showed interest in the arts, including photography.

Internal unrest increasingly developed within the first two decades of the founding of the Photographic Society in Vienna. This can be attributed to the competing interests of various photographer groups within the association. The disparate needs of the members

771 Mahler and Faber, Liebhaberei der Millionäre, 31.

772 Mahler and Faber, 32.

345

could not be satisfied completely, and coupled with quarrels over power and influence, a separation took place. In March 1887, one group seceded from the Photographic Society and formed an independent association called the Klub der Amateur-Photographen (Club of Amateur Photographers) of which Giuseppe Pizzighelli was a founding member. Six years later, in 1893, the association renamed itself the Vienna Camera Club.773

In their use of the word “amateur,” which at the time was not understood as

“layman” in today’s sense, the Club of Amateur Photographers made it clear that they focused on the artistic demands of photography. They clearly wanted to separate themselves with their name from the professional photographers who carried out their activities for economic reasons. The amateur photographers pursued photography seriously without drawing financial benefits from their work.774 Therefore, the Viennese club

“rejected the commercial interest in photography, and was the first such association on the continent that had set itself the goal of awakening the understanding of ‘pictorial photography’ in wide circles.”775

Furthermore, the association ensured the social homogeneity of its members through elaborate admission procedures and high membership fees. Five members, including industrialist Baron Nathaniel Meyer von Rothschild (1836–1874) and entrepreneur Philipp Wilhelm von Schöller (1797–1877), were among the wealthiest

773 Mahler and Faber, 31–33.

774 Mahler and Faber, 33.

775 Monika Faber, “Photographie in Wien 1890 bis 1920,“ in Wien um 1900, Kunst und Kultur (Vienna: Brandstätter, 1985), 289. For original quote, see Appendix.

346

inhabitants of the Habsburg monarchy at that time. This led to the unofficial designation of the Vienna Camera Club as the Millionaire Club, an elite club for the elite social class.776

This designation clarifies that they were not only aware of their social status but also wanted to be seen as an elitist club. Their goal was to distinguish themselves from other organizations with their work and views on photography and also through the selection of members with a level of economic status.

Until shortly after the turn of the century, further photographic associations were founded in Vienna, including the Amateur-Photographen-Klub (Amateur Photographers’

Club; founded in 1897, renamed the Wiener Photo-Club in 1899) and the Wiener

Amateurphotographenklub (Vienna Amateur Photographers’ Club), founded in 1903.777

Kühn and Stieglitz fit right into this male-dominated, wealthy, elite milieu. Overall, many members of photographic associations were studied chemists and physicists or had backgrounds in the natural sciences, which Kühn and Stieglitz had also pursued in their early fields of study.

After 1904 Stieglitz and Kühn decided to join together to surpass even the most elite of the photography clubs. Kühn wrote to Stieglitz, “But one thing remains: the coming together of America and us is the most important thing, at least for us! For we fit together very well, our views are always related and we pursue the same goal.”778 Furthermore,

Kühn expressed his respect for Stieglitz when he said that “You, Steichen, Eugene—they

776 Faber and Mahler, Perfect Photograph, 32.

777 Mahler and Faber, Liebhaberei der Millionäre, 33.

778 Kühn to Stieglitz, January 13, 1905. For original quote, see Appendix.

347

are the ones to whom I want to show my experiments, the results of hot wrestling and whose criticism I care about.”779 In return, Stieglitz offered Kühn the informal “Du” when he wrote that “from now on it is you. It’s the first time in my life I’m making this suggestion.”780 Clearly these letters prove that the relationship between Stieglitz and Kühn was more than just a collegial friendship. They overcame interim disagreements, which, by affirming their trust in each other, made the bond ever closer.

During this period, they must have become aware of the importance they had assumed on an international level within the artistic-photographic community. Not only did they judge other photographers and their works directly and harshly and classified them qualitatively from their subjective point of view. They also consciously distinguished themselves from those art photographers who, in their eyes, were less artistically significant. In doing so, they stood up to their photographer colleagues from the clubs in which they were still members. They pursued the goal “to be represented in the most extensive collections possible”781 and to create an international association of the crème de la crème in art photography. They believed this exclusive, elite club should not be bound to a school or to a nation but should include only the best international art photographers of its time.

779 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, July 14, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680. For original quote, see Appendix.

780 Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, September 23, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680. For original quote, see Appendix.

781 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, December 7, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680. For original quote, see Appendix.

348

Kühn and Matthies-Masuren were asked to curate a section of the International

Photographic Exhibition in Dresden in 1909.782 Following a lecture by Matthies-Masuren in Dresden, he and Kühn jointly came to the conclusion that this exhibition should no longer be held in the form of a salon but rather as “an exhibition in its own right, even by amateur photographers . . . Group III a: ‘International Association of Art Photographers’.

No jury, no prizes; first place in the catalogue. Without any supremacy. Absolutely independent. Exhibition management does nothing, absolutely nothing, but pay the full cost.”783 In Kühn’s vision, the exhibition in Dresden should serve as the debut of the elite group that he and Stieglitz had longed for. This group, which they called the Internationale

Vereinigung (International Association of Art Photographers), was initially formed in secret and not disclosed to the public. They were convinced that the success of the association would prove that they “only belong to art exhibitions”784 with their photography—which is why they included “art photographer” in the name of the association.

The photographers they selected for the exhibition were to be the members of this special, elite group. It consisted exclusively of the “forerunners” of photography whom

Kühn included in his proposal to Stieglitz: “for America: Stieglitz, Steichen, White;

England: Annan, [George] Davison; France: Demachy; Germany: me. According to my

782 Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 113n91.

783 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, December 9, 1908, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681. For original quote, see Appendix.

784 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, October 10, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 682. For original quote, see Appendix.

349

proposal, these 7 would have to be considered the leading international exhibitors . . . , who would continue to attract the best of their countries: You’ll bring your Secession, I’ll bring

[Friedrich] Spitzer and Kurz, and by that I mean we’d have the foundation.”785 Similarly to the formation of the Photo-Secession, which also grew naturally out of an exhibition, they wanted to use the Dresden exhibition for a similar purpose and hoped that a lasting union among the exhibited would remain.786 Kühn’s ideas went so far as wanting to found an “international Photo-Secession” with its own magazine.787 He did not intend to compete with the work of Stieglitz’s Photo-Secession but “on the contrary, to pave the way for its international expansion.”788 He imagined the magazine as the mouthpiece of the association, although in agreement with Stieglitz, it would have been sufficient for him to use “Camera Work as the magazine of the Freie Internationale Vereinigung der

Kunstphotographen,” which would appear with German texts.789 Stieglitz and Kühn both believed in the realization of this association, which “for compelling reasons for which a

Dresden exhibition was constructed, really has an inner justification and can become a

785 Kühn to Stieglitz, December 9, 1908. For original quote, see Appendix.

786 Kühn to Stieglitz, December 9, 1908.

787 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, January 31, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681.

788 Kühn to Stieglitz, January 31, 1909. For original quote, see Appendix.

789 Kühn to Stieglitz, January 31, 1909.

350

lasting institution of the greatest importance.”790 The two were already planning the future of this association, which was to participate in the International Exhibition of Pictorial

Photography in Buffalo the following year, 1910.791

In the end, the exhibition in Dresden did not run as planned. The hanging failed among other details, and the audience was not convinced of the quality of the works because too many works had already been seen too often in other exhibitions. For instance, of Stieglitz’s twelve exhibited works, half were before the turn of the century, and there were only a few new works on display in total to inspire the public.792 Moreover, the organization of the exhibition caused misunderstandings between Stieglitz and Kühn, which they were ultimately able to work out.793

Even before the Dresden exhibition opened, Stieglitz’s lack of enthusiasm was palpable as he felt abandoned by members of his own Photo-Secession group. He hinted at this to Kühn by writing to him, “You will see that it is not possible with a constant

790 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, February 4, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681. For original quote, see Appendix.

791 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, March 22, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681.

792 Works by Stieglitz exhibited at the Internationale Photographische Ausstellung, Dresden (organized by the Internationale Vereinigung der Kunstphotographen), May 1– October 31, 1909: 164 Winter, Fifth Avenue (1893), 176 Goats along the Seine (also known as A Decorative Panel) (1894), 166 Gossip—Katwyk (1894), 177 The Net-Mender (1894), 167 Watching for the Return (1894), 175 The Landing of the Boats (1894). Sarah Greenough, “NGA Online Editions: Alfred Stieglitz Key Set,” National Gallery of Art, accessed June 1, 2020, https://www.nga.gov/research/online-editions/alfred-stieglitz-key- set/lifetime-exhibitions/1909-dresden.html.

793 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, November 9, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681. For original quote, see Appendix.

351

Internationale Vereinigung. The ‘greats’ won’t stick together when it comes to a ‘sacrifice,’ you’ll see.”794 Apparently, within their own imaginary elite group Stieglitz and Kühn again made distinctions: “yes, the newcomers who have no idea how their work was made easier by us; even Steichen, White, Coburn etc. found it easier by us.”795 These Photo-Secession members were extremely promoted and praised photographers of their time. They were still, however, regarded by Stieglitz and Kühn as their students, for whom they—as the older and more experienced ones—had worked hard to make successful.

Stieglitz published in Camera Work a review of the Dresden exhibition by Dr. Paul

Schumann, who in his article described the Internationale Vereinigung as follows: “The final impression that one carries away from this exhibition is that all these works represent art, an art which, although limited by imitative qualities, reveals good taste, avoiding exaggeration and photographic impossibilities; a well-trained eye that comprehends more than ordinary vision; technical strength capable of conquering all difficulties; and the note of individual temperament which guides and conquers at will the beauties of light” (fig.

4.35).796

Of course, Stieglitz chose an article that was positive for himself and for the other artists of the Internationale Vereinigung. Other reviews were less complimentary and

794 Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, March 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681. For original quote, see Appendix.

795 Stieglitz to Kühn, May 22, 1912. For original quote, see Appendix.

796 Paul Schumann, “The ‘International Group’ at the Dresden Exposition,” Camera Work 28 (October 1909): 48.

352

described the works as “stillness and monotony dominate today,”797 or criticism was sent directly to Kühn as his remark shows: “The paintings of the Internationale Vereinigung are good, but there are others that are at least as artistic.”798 For the next exhibition in Budapest, for which the invitation was addressed specifically to the Internationale Vereinigung, Kühn accepted but Stieglitz declined.799 Stieglitz still had his American club; however, the international, elite club that they had high hopes for never expanded.

As technology improved and access to the common man to photography became more widespread, perhaps in a desire to protect their vulted positions as masters of art photography and avoid the dilution of mass experimentation both Stieglitz and Kühn sought to preserve artistic photography for the elite. They attempted to accomplish this goal through clubs, exhibitions, and their critical publications. In this way the became the old guard fighting to preserve their perspectives in a changing world as much as they have fought to succeed from the bounderies created by the artworld earlier.

797 Anonymous, “Die photographische Kunst im Jahre 1909” (1909), 1–3, quoted in Faber, Kuehn and His American Circle, 106.

798 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, October 10, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681. For original quote, see Appendix.

799 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, November 24, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681. For original quote, see Appendix.

353

3.2. An Elite American Circle

The Photo-Secession, “a force for light” as Stieglitz would call it,800 can be understood as his first attempt to form an elite group in America. The Photo-Secession followed a distinctive goal that Stieglitz proposed in his first issue of Camera Work. As the mouthpiece of the group, the magazine “is proposed to issue quarterly an illustrated publication which will appeal to the ever increasing ranks of those who have faith in photography as a medium of individual expression, and, in addition, to make converts of many at present ignorant of its possibilities.”801 Stieglitz took his own goals and implemented them as the goals of the group.

Stieglitz invited to the group anyone who would agree to its objectives. He wrote in 1904, “The Secession admits to membership all who sympathize in its endeavors, regardless of their rank as picture-makers.” He continued by saying that “jealousy excludes even the greatest photographers, if these are not honestly in accord with its fundamental principles.”802 Therefore, Stieglitz invited every photographer no matter their social status as long as the person agreed to his principles as the core element. He did not understand

“elite” to mean a certain social status but rather the ability to practice and pursue photography according to his ideas—in an artistic way. Stieglitz wrote, “It is for these reasons that membership has been divided into Associateship and Fellowship, and the latter

800 Stieglitz, “Origin of Photo-Secession (II),” quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 122.

801 Stieglitz, “An Apology,” 15.

802 Stieglitz, “Origin of Photo-Secession (II),” quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 123.

354

bestowed only upon such of its adherents whose work in or for photography has entitled them to that distinction; and so strict has been the judgment upon those desirous of

Fellowship that it has become an honor not easy to secure. To Associateship all honest friends are welcome.”803 Although everyone was welcome in the first tier, he still made a distinction and categorized photographers through their membership status. Members with the status of “fellowship” were more accepted in Stieglitz’s circle as they were considered to be more serious and better photographers than the people who belonged to the

“associateship.”

As the leader and founder of the group, Stieglitz used the fame and influence that he had gained over the course of recent years. His clout in the American photography scene was especially evident during the incident at the Philadelphia Salon of 1901. After Stieglitz did not agree with the selection of the jury, which consisted predominantly of conservative

Rationalists, he boycotted the exhibition and encouraged his friends from the United States and abroad to do the same, resulting in the Salon having to be canceled completely.804 In

Stieglitz’s view, “unless the conditions that I laid down were accepted without reservation.

Only this way, I felt, would the Art Institutions . . . respect the spirit of my endeavor.”

Stieglitz was aware of how he was perceived when he wrote that “[e]verywhere in the world where photography played any role I was looked upon the leading spirit in American photography.”805

803 Stieglitz quoted in Greenough and Whelan, 123.

804 Greenough and Whelan, 128–29.

355

When Stieglitz was attacked for his principles by other people like Curtis Bell, a photographer and steward of the Lotos Club in New York, he fought back. In Stieglitz’s view, Bell’s goal was to “save photography from Stieglitz and what Stieglitz represented.”806 Bell planned a photographic exhibition opposed to Stieglitz’s approach.

He insisted on exhibiting the work of photographers with “no favors to any and no discrimination against any,”807 which ultimately lead to exhibiting everyone “equally.”

Stieglitz derided Bell’s democratic approach, stating, “Popularization inevitably means low standards.”808 The result of Bell’s action was the foundation of Stieglitz’s gallery 291, which was “planned to make these rooms headquarters for all Secessionists” to bond the group even more.809

Compared to Stieglitz’s later modernist groups, the Photo-Secession can still be considered an experimental group. As art historian Wanda Corn put it, “The first circle was notably large, eclectic, open-ended, international, and experimental.”810 Most of the

805 Stieglitz, “Origin of Photo-Secession (II),” quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 119.

806 Alfred Stieglitz, “From the Origin of the Photo-Secession and How It Became 291 (I),” Twice a Year 8–9 (1942), quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 172.

807 Stieglitz quoted in Greenough and Whelan, 175.

808 Stieglitz quoted in Greenough and Whelan, 175.

809 Alfred Stieglitz, “Letter to the Members of the Photo-Secession,” Photo-Era 15 (October 1905), quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 178.

810 Wanda M. Corn, The Great American Thing: Modern Art and National Identity, 1915–1935 (Stanford: University of California Press, 1999), 16.

356

members of the Photo-Secession still belonged to the Camera Club in New York which was “founded to further the art and science of photography.”811 Even after switching to

Stieglitz’s group, they did not resign from the Camera Club but were members of both clubs. The main reason why many members stayed was “so that they could use its magnificent facilities. . . . Neither Stieglitz nor most of his friends had darkrooms of their own.”812

Similarly to the Trifolium, which was formed as a subgroup of the Vienna Camera

Club, the Photo-Secession can be seen as a subgroup of the Camera Club in New York.813

Whereas the Trifolium was dedicated to furthering the development of the gum bichromate process, the Photo-Secession followed more of an artistic goal than a scientific one.

Stieglitz never tried to further the technology of photography as he never invented or developed technological or scientific processes as Kühn had done, for example. Instead, as

Richard Whelan and Sarah Greenough explained in their notes to Stieglitz’s 1903 Camera

Craft article, “in its early days, the primary function of the Photo-Secession was to send collections of photographs to museums and expositions throughout the United States and around the world.”814 The activity of the group changed later on, especially after the founding of 291 in 1905. According to Whelan and Greenough, “‘291’ came to be the

811 Alfred Stieglitz, “The Photo-Secession—Its Objectives,” Camera Craft 8–9 (1903), 81–83, quoted in Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 117.

812 Greenough and Whelan, 159.

813 Greenough and Whelan, 159.

814 Greenough and Whelan, 159.

357

mystical, numerological symbol of the conflation of Stieglitz’s personality, the gallery, and all that it represented. One could never be quite sure, when Stieglitz uttered the pregnant trinumeric formula, whether he was referring to the gallery or to himself.”815

Stieglitz transferred his personal ambitions to the Photo-Secession, although he sought to achieve those goals as a collective. Similarly to Kühn’s idea of an elite group,

Stieglitz made clear distinctions between the quality and capability of photographers and actively evaluated them. He took advantage of the position he had achieved socially within the photography scene to assert his ideals, and he presented himself as the leader on the front line. Usually a group consists of different voices; however, Stieglitz effectively eliminated any dissention with his strong personality.

It should not be forgotten that Stieglitz was in an experimental phase with the

Photo-Secession, which was his first group. Ultimately, his views were not shared by all members which led to the breakup around 1917. Some members, such as Käsebier and

Steichen, turned to the commercial aspects of photography, with which Stieglitz of course did not agree at all, and anyone who turned against his ideals he rejected. A similar break came about with Heinrich Kühn, although this was not due to commercial ambitions but to changes within their approaches of photography. While Stieglitz moved on from pictorial photography and gradually turned to the new trends of the French avant-garde, Kühn only partially shared this enthusiasm.

But in 1907, Stieglitz and Kühn continued to photograph in Tutzing and Innsbruck, where Stieglitz visited Kühn at his villa. Portrait photographs that Kühn and Stieglitz took

815 Greenough and Whelan, Stieglitz on Photography, 177.

358

of each other prove that at that time they were still collaborating. Kühn took a portrait of

Stieglitz in front of the wall of his studio (fig. 4.36), and Diether Schönitzer assumes that a portrait of Kühn, which was taken using autochrome techniques, must be by Stieglitz

(fig. 4.37). The photo, previously declared a self-portrait, was taken in Kuhn’s study and shows him in a white suit sitting on a white bench in the middle of his white furniture, legs crossed, head resting, and eyes looking thoughtfully at the viewer. Next to him, red flowers and smaller vessels, which appear in Kühn’s still lifes, decorate the table. In 1909, Stieglitz and Kühn again devoted themselves to color photography and its experiments during

Stieglitz’s stay in Munich.

In 1911, Stieglitz dedicated a special edition of Camera Work to Kühn.816 While

Stieglitz published the works of Kühn which of course delighted and honored him, Stieglitz exhibited the works of Pablo Picasso at 291. For Stieglitz, the art of Picasso was related to photography, and the publication and the exhibition of these artists had something in common. He wrote to Kühn:

I want to achieve once and for all with Camera Work . . . mainly what photography means ethically, whether applied by the camera (photography in the purest sense) or by the painter with a brush (photography in the spiritual sense as much as if the camera was used). . . . I find that art today consists of the abstract (without subject) like Picasso, etc. and the photographic. The so-called art photography whether achieved with a camera or with a brush is not the highest art. Just as we are on the threshold of a new social era, so we are also on the threshold of a new expression in art—the real expression [abstraction].817

816 Alfred Stieglitz, Camera Work 33 (January 1911).

817 Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, October 14, 1912, YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 682. For original quote, see Appendix.

359

Kühn could not understand Stieglitz’s views, just like Frank S. Herrmann, who also rejected the art of Picasso together with his Munich group Sema. Kühn replied to Stieglitz,

I was very interested in what you said about abstract and naturalistic [photographic] art; we are very much of the same conviction except for one point. My view is that abstract art is nothing new. That, on the contrary, the high point was reached in ancient Egypt. This primitivism, which is taken completely from nature and therefore seems natural, shows the highest culture, style. What people are trying to do today, however, is a lot from nature. And they can’t do anything, but their primitivism is artificial. . . . And I’m convinced that it’s all about externalities, not art. . . . with today’s experimenters, the futurists and neo-futurists!!, I think that empty wishes without compelling ability—so let’s assume that there is a good will behind it at all—never lead to a result.818

Once again, Stieglitz wanted Kühn to be on board and be influenced by the avant-garde movement as much as he was influenced by it. With Kühn not sharing these views and not bending to Stieglitz’s opinions, their relationship drifted apart.

After 1917, with the dissolution of the Photo-Secession group, Camera Work, and

291, Stieglitz dedicated his time and efforts into building another group that, according to

Wanda Corn, could be called his “second circle,” which she described as “tighter and more rationalized.”819 This time it was not only a circle of photographers but also included other artists and writers who turned their attention away from art photography and toward the new modern, urban motifs found in the streets and waterways of New York City.

When Stieglitz talked in 1912 about a “new social era,” he was aware that the

Americans were the forerunners now and were being watched by Europe and the rest of the world. The group of intellectuals who gathered around Stieglitz had a decisive influence

818 Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, November 24, 1912, YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 682. For original quote, see Appendix.

819 Corn, Great American Thing, 16.

360

on artistic developments in America. Corn noted that “[o]f the one hundred exhibitions

Stieglitz organized in the twenty years after [World War I], only four included Europeans; almost all the others were dedicated to an inner core of American artists whom Stieglitz once conceptualized as six + X: Stieglitz himself, [Arthur] Dove, [Marsden] Hartley, [John]

Marin, [Paul] Strand, and [Georgia] O’Keeffe and then a changing member, X, who happened to be of interest at any one time.”820 They embraced the Americanness and the beauty that they found in the urban landscape, which was reflected in their artwork—from painting to photography to poetry.

Corn described the second circle of Stieglitz as “small, closed, white, mostly male, middle- to upper-class, and exclusively East Coast American . . . [in] its configuration, as well its aesthetic program, it replicated a nineteenth-century social pattern that was particularly adhered to by symbolist artists.”821 She compared it to Vincent van Gogh’s dream of founding a group in Provence or Stéphane Mallarme’s in Paris, or Paul Gauguin’s in Pont-Aven. But truly, it was the concept of Heinrich Kühn’s elite club that Stieglitz later realized—not in Europe but in America and not with photography but with all the arts and not with Kühn but with American artists.

Conclusion

As outlined in Chapter 4, the resulting legacy of Alfred Stieglitz cannot be fully understood without an analysis of the significant impacts of his relationship and

820 Corn, 16. Charles Demuth was often the X artist.

821 Corn, 17.

361

collaboration with Heinrich Kühn. Relative to the other important protagonists discussed in the previous chapters, Kühn’s contributions to Stieglitz’s progression as a photographic artist and leader were substantial. While Herrmann and Hasemann were important influences in Stieglitz’s formative years as an individual artist, it was Kühn who developed and shared with Stieglitz a vision for using their collective presence and networks to play leading roles in elevating the global art world’s regard for photography as a form of fine art.

The strong personal connection that evolved between Stieglitz and Kühn is not surprising given their German heritage, common upbringing, similar educational background and, of course, respect for each other’s capabilities as pictorial photographers.

Their relationship started with mutual admiration related to their artistic pursuits through letter correspondence which inevitably led to meetings and the development of a personal relationship. The serendipitous timing of the conditions under which they connected is also an interesting part of the history. The rapid changes in technology at the time not only brought Stieglitz and Kühn closer together but also generated a greater interest in photography by the general public. These events created an opportunity for Stieglitz and

Kühn to organize their followers in photography clubs in both Europe and America and use their influence to establish the basis for their respective artistic secessions.

When the Austrian Trifolium of Kühn, Watzek, and Henneberg disbanded shortly after the turn of the twentieth century, Kühn was the only one of the trio who continued to advance art photography. At the same time, Stieglitz founded the Photo-Secession in New

York and began with grand ambitions for his new group. With Stieglitz looking once again

362

to Europe for guidance, it was Kühn who interested him largely because of Kuhn’s previous successes. In many ways, both Stieglitz and Kühn needed each other and benefited from each other; however, the symbiosis that occurred between them professionally and personally was extraordinary and unique.

As a result of their commonalities, Stieglitz and Kühn entered into a productive transatlantic collaboration. The two advanced their craft together from opposite sides of the world and collaborated directly during Stieglitz’s stays in Europe in 1904 and 1907, with the goal of realizing their collective vision—to elevate photography as an internationally recognized form of fine art. At least three important exogenous factors converged to allow this goal of photographic elevation to be achieved: (i) the development of the gum bichromate printing process, (ii) the advent of color photography, and (iii) the proliferation of photographic exhibitions in America and Europe.

The gum bichromate process and the autochrome process were photographic techniques that Kühn devoted himself to intensively and became known as a master of. He worked meticulously on perfecting both processes and had a long planning phase in their execution, using sketches and making special clothes in certain colors and materials.

Stieglitz, on the other hand, practiced these techniques but did not master them. Stieglitz primary interest in these processes related to their ability to fulfill his and Kuhn’s joint vision. He saw in both techniques the key to convince the world of the artistry of photography. The gum print had a particularly painterly effect and the possibility of making large prints brought them closest to the format of painting compared to other techniques.

Color photography possessed the new element of color reproduction which was a long-

363

awaited wish of all photographers. Photography was historically viewed as limited aesthetically relative to painting because of the absence of color. However, in 1907, with the development of the autochrome technique, this distinction was eliminated.

While Kühn was the prolific photographer, Stieglitz at that time was the organizer of art photography—they made a perfect duo to approach the realization of their common vision. Through their international relationship, they supported each other in the spearheading of exhibitions. After the first meeting in Igls in 1904, Stieglitz, through

Kuhn’s networks, exhibited with members of the Photo-Secession at the Miethke Gallery in Vienna. Kühn gave Stieglitz tips for his shows at 291, where Stieglitz exhibited Kühn’s works one year later, in 1906. Kühn teamed up with Matthies-Masuren and decided to form a German-American alliance (by American he meant exclusively the Photo-Secessionists) with Stieglitz through which they participated in an international photography exhibition in 1909. In their collaboration at the beginning of the twentieth century, Stieglitz and Kühn were instrumental in taking photography to the next level internationally.

Even when Stieglitz had problems within his Photo-Secession group about the unreliability and refusals of other photographers in 1909, Stieglitz and Kühn continued to fight for the cause. Stieglitz assured Kühn, “I know that you work for the cause, as do I.

Everything else is secondary.”822

At that time, the effects of the First World War changed Kuhn’s and Stieglitz’s perspectives on the art world. As a result, Kühn remained in his “safe” pictorialist world

822 Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, March 1, 1909, YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681. For original quote, see Appendix.

364

while Stieglitz’s artistic taste continued to develop. It is important to note that pictorialism was still considered by the art establishment not as true art but as a derivative of art.

Stieglitz’s abstract tendencies clearly influenced his work and this resulted in the photographic style of straight photography. It was not until The Steerage and Stieglitz’s focus on straight photography that he received the recognition of photography as an art form that he was seeking. The relationship between Stieglitz and Kühn waned as Stieglitz focused more on the visual arts and became increasingly interested in the abstraction of the avant-garde in France. While they discussed their evolving artistic interests, Kühn did not promote the new art movements (including straight photography) as enthusiastically as

Alfred Stieglitz.

When Alfred Stieglitz formed his second circle after 1917 with a focus on American artists in photographic and fine art, Kühn and Stieglitz drifted further apart (Stieglitz had stopped visiting Europe in 1911). For Stieglitz, elevating photography and modernism in his home country of the United States became his complete focus and, for the first time, took precedence over his connections in Europe.

Marcel Duchamp declared in 1915 that “the art of Europe is finished—dead—and that America is the country of the art of the future.”823 Stieglitz accepted the role of artistic leader, not only of his group but of his country. The vision of building an elite group that had been promoted enthusiastically by Kühn was a concept that Stieglitz adopted and then realized—not with Kühn and art photography but with his second circle and American art.

While history would have likely always considered Alfred Stieglitz an important American

823 Quoted in Corn, Great American Thing, 43.

365

photographer based on his talent, his legacy as a pioneer in the modern art world may never have come to pass if it were not for the additional substance created through his relationship and collaborations with Kühn.

When Stieglitz and Kühn began their collaboration the movement of pictorialism was nearing its peak. Improvements in both the camera and development technology made it easier for the common man to execute aesthetic photographs. It is interesting that, as

Stieglitz saw the technology of the camera rapidly transform, he himself, continued to evolve in his artistic taste. While Stieglitz was an early proponent, of pictorialism as the world’s interest began to wane, Stieglitz once again seceeded from his focus on photography into a new interest—European modern art. Stieglitz’s keen sense of intermediality is what made him different from the others and is at the heart of why he was able to have such a broad impact on U.S. modernism.

366

CONCLUSION

The discipline of art history is often presented as a classical narrative structure in which individual artists form a chain of representatives of an epoch. Alfred Stieglitz is one of these “heroes” of art history and the history of photography of the early twentieth century. In this process of hero-making, personalities emerge and credit for outcomes is often unfairly divided and can overlook ordinary factors and less renowned influencers.

This dissertation proves that this is also the case with Stieglitz and it seeks to shed a wider light on the factors that contributed to his success and legacy. Through an in-depth examination of biographical details, the evaluation of letters, documents, and publications, and a comparative interpretation of images, this study uncovers and identifies the people who provided Stieglitz with inspiration and influence in his early development as a photographic artist, regardless of how they were considered in previous scholarship. Based on the findings, it becomes clear how European art and each of the presented individuals from Europe contributed to the formation of Stieglitz’s role in the emergence of artistic photography.

The creation of Stieglitz’s legacy was the product of a lifetime of his individual ambition multiplied by the collaborations he had with others. The result of this particular recipe is undisputed. Stieglitz’s portfolio of work is an integral part of modern art history, especially the history of photography, the effects of which are still recognized today.

Perhaps Stieglitz’s most important contribution was the bridge he helped build between the era of self-confident, aesthetic pictorialist photography with its soft-focus characteristics and the emerging trend toward a new, more linear photography. During

367

Stieglitz’s fifty-year career, he made a distinctive contribution to elevating photography to an accepted fine art form—which was reflected, among other things, in the fact that in 1924 the Museum of Fine Arts in Boston added twenty-seven photographs by Stieglitz to its art collection—the first significant cultural recognition of photography as fine art since the invention of the camera almost one hundred years earlier.

From the present research, it is apparent that Stieglitz certainly had grand ambitions from the beginning, but it was his interactions with certain key protagonists that allowed him to successfully form and execute his vision of elevating photography to a recognized form of fine art. After the artistic character of photography had long been disputed by the academic art establishment, a movement emerged around the middle of the nineteenth century that sought to go beyond the technical developments to the artistic demands of photography. Even though so-called pictorialism, whose aim was to achieve a symbolic representation of moods and fundamental values, was already recognized as an artistic photographic style, efforts to establish photography as a fine art form were still great at the fin de siècle. Stieglitz joined this movement as one of many and made it his primary goal to accomplish this status for photography.

Whereas most scholarship has focused on the analysis of his achievements in the

United States, one contention of this dissertation is that Stieglitz was not born a

Renaissance man but rather morphed into one. This was the result of his unique ability to embrace the rapidly changing technology and tap into the sentiments of the populous during his time in both America and Europe. Uncovering and explaining the relatedness of the internal and external forces that converged to drive Stieglitz’s artistic progression from

368

scientific photographer to pictorialist to secessionist to modernist are the key elements investigated here.

It is evident that, in addition to the general art movements of the nineteenth century,

Stieglitz’s early work was significantly influenced by specific contacts from Europe. In previous scholarship, Stieglitz has been viewed primarily from an American perspective, which is predominantly oriented toward his American heritage and his success in the

United States at the beginning of the twentieth century. In these studies, his early work from the 1880s and 1890s is, of course, mentioned but presented in a very generalized manner. It has been documented that Stieglitz spent almost ten years of his life in Europe, that he learned the craft of photography there, and that this European influence was important for his development as a photographer. His works have been largely associated with the general art movements of the nineteenth century—such as the Barbizon school and the Hague school—depending on the subject of the photograph. However, what has been excluded from the existing scholarship on Stieglitz is an in-depth analysis and understanding of the impact of the many European connections Stieglitz had theit ultimate impact on his success.

In analyzing the factors that contributed to Stieglitz’s successful ambition to become a unifying force for the elevation of photography, it becomes apparent that he was very much a product of his fortunate circumstances in regard to heritage, upbringing and influences. As detailed herein, while Stieglitz was clearly an American, his connections to

German-speaking Europe were extraordinarily strong. These connections were enhanced during his time as a student in the 1880s followed by several lengthy stays in Europe in the

369

1890s and 1900s. He later recalled his early life in Berlin as “congenial, free—the freest I have ever experienced.”824 Stieglitz took his own advice by studying not only “the best pictures in all media—from painting to photography”825 but also the people he surrounded himself with. In order to find his place within the history of photography, he created his own style by absorbing and adapting their characters, mindsets, inspirations, visions, networks and their execution. Of course, many events and people were involved in forming

Stieglitz’s persona; however, a few important European contacts contributed greatly to his legacy.

These main influences included first and foremost his father, Edward Stieglitz.

Edward Stieglitz contributed to his son’s legacy in multiple important ways, since he functioned as a financial supporter and artistic inspiration and provided the emotional and character foundation on which Alfred Stieglitz’s persona was built. Stieglitz grew up wealthy with an elite education, as his father was a successful entrepreneur who was not only well versed in business practices but also interested in art and culture. Even though most authors have claimed that Stieglitz “first favored the technical and scientific over the artistic . . . partly because his artistic tastes were relatively undeveloped,”826 Stieglitz was actually exposed to art from an early age, since his father, an amateur painter, surrounded himself with artists and collected art. This ultimately facilitated Stieglitz’s aesthetic access to a technological medium like photography. He was raised with an ingrained sensitivity

824 Quoted in Norman, Stieglitz: An American Seer, 31.

825 Stieglitz, “Simplicity in Composition,” 162.

826 Whelan, Stieglitz: A Biography, 76.

370

and love of culture given his parents’ interest in the arts. Stieglitz benefitted greatly from his father’s connections in the art world in America and Europe and surrounded himself with an international circle of artists—from painters, poets and philosophers to photographers and sculptors.

Stieglitz’s access to Europe’s elite society, educational system, cultural resources and progressive art communities deeply shaped his perspective. While it was the fateful introduction to photography professor Wilhelm Hermann Vogel during his studies in

Germany that led him to master the technical aspects of picture making, it was the combined influence of the main protagonists outlined in this dissertation that created the

Alfred Stieglitz that changed the world of art. When Stieglitz first moved to Berlin, he lived with the sculptor Erdmann Encke, who helped Stieglitz to initially progress in his studies and exposure to art, of which Stieglitz commented, “That’s the best you can do for a person—keep putting things in front of him.”827 This comment reflects Stieglitz’s state of mind during the 1880s which was marked by his fascination with the concept of photography as an art form and with what the photographer could and should do in order to turn a picture into art.

The 1880s also marked the blooming of his relationship with Frank Simon

Herrmann, an artist who has been largely overlooked up to now. Although he is mentioned by name in Stieglitz’s biographies, there is not a single monograph dedicated to Herrmann.

As this research reveals, Herrmann was a driving force behind Stieglitz’s beginnings in

827 Stieglitz quoted in Unsigned [Agnes Ernst], “New School of the Camera,” quoted in Whelan, 76.

371

photography. As a trusted friend from childhood, Herrmann was a committed artist who inspired, collaborated and traveled together with Stieglitz to the places in Europe where great art was being created. When Stieglitz at that stage felt compelled to validate photography as fine art, it was primarily Herrmann who helped Stieglitz by discovering and experimenting artistically together. They found a commonality in their shared love for artistic expression through motifs, compositions and lighting effects, even though they expressed themselves in different mediums.

While Herrmann initially showed interest in art photography by publishing his work and exhibiting alongside Stieglitz in the 1890s, it appears that Herrmann continued to use photography more as a tool to become a better painter. For Stieglitz, it was the opposite—he not only studied other photographers but also searched for inspiration from painters and expressed their style in his own way in his photographs. These divergent interests created a valuable synergy between Stieglitz and Herrmann rather than a sense of competition. This factor would enhance their productive lifelong collaboration.

Another interesting aspect of the Stieglitz-Herrmann collaboration that this dissertation reveals is Stieglitz’s influence on Herrmann’s attitude toward photography.

Herrmann had previously only been described as a painter. As uncovered in a text from the

1980s, there was a small exhibition of Herrmann’s works in a library in White Plains, New

York, that included two photographs by Herrmann but these were declared to be studies for his painting. In comparing these photographs with those of Stieglitz, it is confirmed that

Herrmann’s photographs were most likely taken as preparatory studies and not, as with

Stieglitz, for their own sake.

372

The resulting paintings from Katwijk were previously completely unknown. Quite apart from Herrmann’s photographic preliminary studies, certain photographs were uncovered that he made as artistic works. Stieglitz published them in photo magazines in the 1890s and exhibited them. This is proof that Herrmann also pursued artistic intentions with his photographic works. This fact was completely unknown in the scholarship until now. Stieglitz acted similarly with two other friends from his Berlin years—Joseph

Obermeyer and Louis Schubart. It would be interesting to find out more about them in future research.

Herrmann would become a prolific artist and member of the Munich group Sema before he moved back to New York and continued to pursue his art there. Contrary to the general opinion that Herrmann is not widely known because he lacked ambition for his art, his participation in numerous exhibitions speaks for itself. Although he did not belong to the official circle of modernists around Stieglitz, he did belong to J. B. Neumann’s New

American Circle gallery, through which he made his works accessible to the public.

A closer examination of Herrmann’s contribution to early modern influences in

America and especially New York is an important topic that goes beyond the scope of this dissertation and must, therefore, be addressed by future scholars in a separate study.

In regard to Stieglitz’s career, however, it was Herrmann’s early artistic influence and important network connections that Stieglitz leveraged to help create his legacy.

Accordingly, it should be made clear that Frank S. Herrmann was a uniquely important person for Stieglitz in his early years as a photographer. He acted as a friend and artistic idea generator who supported Stieglitz in his discovery of photography. Herrmann helped

373

Stieglitz embrace photography not only technically but also artistically. While the biographical history is undisputed, one needs to look further to find the proof of the influence of Herrmann and Stieglitz. This can be accomplished analyticaly by comparing

Stieglitz’s photographs with Herrmann’s paintings at the time. While many examples are outlined for purposes of this conclusion perhaps the best examples of this influence can be seen in comparing Stieglitz’s photographs from Venice and Katwyk to Herrmann’s paintings that both produced at the same time side by side. The resemblance in these pictures cannot be underestimated.

While the influence of Herrmann was largely artistic, the Black Forest artist

Wilhelm Hasemann played a dual role for Stieglitz—as a source of inspiration for his photographs and for his development of professional ambitions. In Stieglitz’s process of becoming a professional artist and prolific publisher, Hasemann played a distinctive role as one of Stieglitz’s early mentors.

Hasemann came from the generation of Stieglitz’s father. He was an artist from

Dresden who had studied in Berlin, Weimar, and Karlsruhe. He came to the Black Forest in the early 1880s, and dedicated his life to maintaining and preserving the traditions there.

Through his paintings, largely comprised of motifs of German landscapes and folk costumes, Hasemann shaped the image of the Black Forest and made it internationally known. Stieglitz met Hasemann in 1881 when he moved to Germany and he visited him regularly. Even when Stieglitz returned to America in 1890, he kept in touch with

Hasemann and visited the Black Forest when he traveled to Europe. It is well documented

374

that the contact between Hasemann and Stieglitz was intensive and led to the development of a large network of shared contacts in America and Europe.

Hasemann revealed directly to Stieglitz at an early age, through teaching his father,

Edward Stieglitz, the process of creating new art by replicating existing art. He also introduced him to the traditions and the landscapes of the Black Forest. As outlined herein, the similarities between Hasemann’s paintings and Stieglitz’s photographic works, even though expressed in different mediums, are both obvious and astounding. The photographs

Stieglitz took during his honeymoon in 1894 are among his most famous and most exhibited. A comparison of those photographs with Hasemann’s paintings and those of other artists within Hasemann’s artist network reveal striking similarities not only in regard to motif (like Herrmann) but also composition and hue. In addition, as an established

European painter, Hasemann shared with Stieglitz important connections to other artists.

Stieglitz also witnessed the collaboration between Hasemann and the painter Fedor Encke regarding the commercial aspects of the business of art.

However, Hasemann’s greatest influence on Stieglitz’s legacy was perhaps in the formation of Stieglitz’s early vision for photography. Their separate concerns arose out of the given circumstances of industrialization and resulting dissatisfactions. Hasemann was concerned about the loss of the Black Forest traditions and he expressed his form of

Heimatliebe through his art and by founding the Gutachter Künstlerkolonie. Hasemann, therefore, held on to an existing culture and used his art to preserve it individually and collectively. Stieglitz was confronted with a similar situation, since the recognition of photography as a fine art form was not a given even at the end of the nineteenth century.

375

Stieglitz’s vision was to establish this, and he implemented it—like Hasemann—as an individual artist and in the collective by founding the Photo-Secession. Stieglitz also felt a form of Heimatliebe for the United States which he expressed above all in his late work with his second circle and the promotion of American art through American artists.

Contrary to Hasemann, however, Stieglitz did not attach himself to existing culture but created something new in a country whose traditions and identification were still in the process of being established.

Hasemann was the only artist in Stieglitz’s early network who had a concrete organizational vision beyond his art and used his art for this overarching mission. One can say that Hasemann was a living example of what Stieglitz later pursued with his own vision, which was realized in the late 1880s and early 1890s.

To achieve their goals, Hasemann approached his project with a traditional art form, namely painting, and Stieglitz used photography. Both carried out their methods as individual artists but also recognized that advancing a vision by working collectively—that is, by forming a group of like-minded people—increased the chances of success and reach.

While for Hasemann, his studio (financed by Stieglitz’s father) functioned as a meeting place, and exhibitions were arranged in the local Kulturhaus, Stieglitz established his own gallery as a meeting place and exhibition venue for his group. Hasemann spread the Black

Forest traditions through his artistic postcards. Stieglitz, on the other hand, was influenced by the secessionist movements of Europe which used magazines to spread their images and thoughts.

376

The foundation of Stieglitz’s Photo-Secession group is mostly attributed in the literature to date to the secessionist movements in the German-speaking world at the end of the nineteenth century. Of course, Stieglitz was influenced by these currents, which he himself admitted by deriving his group’s title, Photo-Secession, from the European movements. However, Stieglitz’s connection to the Black Forest and to Hasemann obviously also contributed to the development of his concept. Hasemann acted as a mentor for Stieglitz and exemplified to him the creation and pursuit of a vision: art took on a crucial function for the overriding goal, which was realized individually and collectively with the help of various aids. Hasemann was, therefore, instrumental in shaping Stieglitz’s vision.

What is revealed from the research is the artistic progression that Stieglitz experienced first through Herrmann and improving through Hasemann created an Alfred

Stieglitz capable of leveraging the relationship with Heinrich Kühn. Kühn differs from

Frank Simon Herrmann and Wilhelm Hasemann in that he was not a painter but an art photographer and used the same medium as Stieglitz to express himself. Originally a natural scientist, Kühn was particularly interested in the further development of the technology of art photography. Both gum bichromate printing and autochrome photography were among the techniques to which he devoted particular attention and in which he was regarded as the master of his time. The particular advantage of gum printing was that it possessed special painterly qualities and it was possible to produce prints in very large formats.

Among all the techniques of the time, both processes were considered to be the ones that produced the most decorative effects—the prints looked almost like real

377

paintings. Although for Stieglitz gum printing as a means of artistic expression was not as important in his photography, he was aware that the general acceptance of photography as an artistic medium was only possible through an approach to painting. This effect was best achieved by gum printing. In his role, Kühn was pushing the limits of the available development technology while sharing Stieglitz’s approach to artistic photography and the vision of elevating photography as a legitimate form of fine art.

Based on the research, it becomes clear that Kühn exerted a significant influence on Stieglitz as a like-minded visionary, not in the early phase of Stieglitz’s photography career but in the early stages of his organizational activities. In contrast to Herrmann and

Hasemann, where the relationship between Stieglitz and the protagonists has not yet been fully examined in the available literature, the relationship of Kühn and Stieglitz has already been dealt with extensively by the Austrian art historian Monika Faber. This is based, among other things, on the fact that Kühn, unlike the other two, became a very well-known figure with regard to pictorialist photography and, therefore, had attracted worldwide attention. While Faber has examined this relationship from Kühn’s perspective, this dissertation explores the detailed findings from Stieglitz’s perspective.

Stieglitz and Kühn knew of each other as photographers from the 1890s, since they submitted their photographs to the same exhibitions and published them in the same magazines. One has to imagine a small circle of photographic artists who presented their work worldwide at the most diverse locations, made it public and, above all, in their own interest, analyzed and evaluated each other.

378

Letters from those years testify to the mutual esteem in which Stieglitz and Kühn held each other. Nevertheless, it would take until 1904 before they met in person. As Faber has written, Stieglitz approached Kühn and made his European tour in 1904 because he wanted to get to know Kühn. (It is common knowledge that Stieglitz was in correspondence with many photographers of the time but not necessarily in private contact with everyone.)

Stieglitz’s relationship with Kühn provides a perfect example of how Stieglitz was not only influenced by Europe during his education in the 1880s but also showed great interest in the photographic and artistic activities in Europe during his heyday at the beginning of the twentieth century. Another important point is that Kühn had already founded his own subgroup within the Vienna Camera Club in the 1890s. Kühn, Hans

Watzek, and Hugo Henneberg formed the so-called Trifolium to dedicate themselves to gum printing. Kühn, therefore, had experience organizing such a group even before

Stieglitz. Following Kühn, Stieglitz in principle also founded a subgroup of the New York

Camera Club with his Photo-Secession. Selected members of the club joined Stieglitz’s association, although they all remained members of the New York Camera Club during this time.

Stieglitz and Kühn also began to support each other professionally in order to achieve their common goal, especially in their exhibition projects. Stieglitz saw their geographical separation as an advantage, since it gave them a greater reach across both continents. They opened up their networks to each other in order to be able to perform collectively. Kühn brought the works of Stieglitz and his Photo-Secession to Vienna, and

Stieglitz brought the works of Kühn and his Trifolium to New York. Although this sounds

379

simple and linear, the work was difficult to realize given the demands on both sides. On the one hand, their audiences were different. They also faced resistance within the artistic photographer community with its different approaches and views—at the time not everyone shared Kühn and Stieglitz’s perspectives.

Another approach to the elevation of photography was Kühn’s idea of founding an elitist association, called the “Internationale Vereinigung,” that would bring together who they deemed the best art photographers. This is a topic that has not yet been explored in the Stieglitz research and has only been discussed in passing in the Kühn scholarship. The

Internationale Vereinigung was not just a visionary idea but was brought together for a joint exhibition in Dresden in 1909. Although this association did not exist on a long-term basis, Stieglitz took up Kühn’s approach and later implemented it for himself in his own form within his American circle of artists.

Stieglitz and Kühn shared a common ground as they both epitomized the amateur photographer. Since photography was not only time-consuming but also expensive, most amateur photographers came from wealthy families. Their financial freedom and flexibility allowed artists like Stieglitz and Kühn to discover and explore their photographic passion.

Weston J. Naef has commented that “[t]here is one pervading feature among amateur photographs—the strong evidence of their having been done for love . . . implying that the photographs made for money were somehow inferior.”828 Together, through artistic collaboration and by organizing exhibitions in both America and Europe, many of

Stieglitz’s and Kuhn’s pictures became recognized around the globe. It was the powerful

828 Naef, Collection of Alfred Stieglitz, 18.

380

combination of their shared vision and relationships that allowed Stieglitz and Kühn to realize their collective ambitions. It is possible that Kühn had the greatest impact on

Stieglitz’s legacy, since Kühn provided Stieglitz with this last ingredient of confidence and with the sense of authority to elevate himself as the leader of his cause.

Although in later years, Stieglitz would have liked to have been regarded as one who accomplished his life’s work without artistic training and ideally without any outside help, this dissertation clearly argues that his early European contacts played a significant role in his career by discovering, shaping, and elevating Stieglitz’s vision for photography.

It is noteworthy that in the 1920s and 1930s Stieglitz started to reprint the early negatives he took during his time in Europe. The resurrection of his old pictures attests to the fact that, although Stieglitz made the leap from pictorialism to modernism, the topicality and peculiarity of these early European motifs of farmers, fishermen, and land- and seascapes were undeniably important for his artistic progression and overall oeuvre.

As uncovered in this dissertation, even though Stieglitz was an American and chose to focus his last years on promoting American art from American artists in America through a gallery that he even called An American Place, he used the advantages of his

European resources to position himself in a leading role of the photographic secession in the United States. In many ways, Stieglitz’s legacy is a reflection of his passions. He not only captured pictures that were regarded as fine art but also captured the artistic movements in Europe and through his relationships, articles, exhibitions and leadership brought them back to America and made them his own. Kühn was particularly influential at the end of Stieglitz’s early phase in the reevaluation of photography as a medium of fine

381

art. Stieglitz used Kühn’s skills and success in working with him toward this common goal which they ultimately succeeded in doing.

In Dichtung und Wahrheit, the German philosopher Goethe stated that “[i]t was long before the time when it could be said that genius is that power of man which gives laws and rules through acting and doing. In those days it manifested itself only when it broke existing laws, overthrew established rules, and declared itself untrammeled . . . And

I so found an almost greater obstacle to developing and expressing myself in the false cooperation of those who agreed with me than in the opposition of those who disagreed.”829

This is a philosophy that helps to define Alfred Stieglitz, whose actions and disregard for opposition paved the way for photography’s acceptance by the art world and whose influence is still important to this day. In this way, Alfred Stieglitz’s contributions to art history will always be relevant and his recognition will forever be preserved. However, as the more complete history revealed in this dissertation shows, it is limiting and unfair to refer to him only as an “American”, as the impacts of his access to and experiences in

Europe cannot be underestimated.

829 Ernst Cassirer, Rousseau Kant Goethe, translated by James Jutmann, Paul Oskar Kristeller, and John Herman Randall Jr. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton Legacy Library, 1945), 88.

382

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Archival Collections

Public

Boston, Museum of Fine Arts (USA)

Chicago, Art Institue of Chicago (USA)

Gutach, Hasemann-Liebich-Museum (Germany)

Innsbruck, Tiroler Landesmuseum Ferdinandeum (Austria)

Munich, Zentralinstitut für Kunstgeschichte (Germany)

Munich, Stadtmuseum München (Germany)

New Haven, Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library (USA)

New York, New-York Historical Society (USA)

New York, Metropolitan Museum of Art (USA)

New York, Museum of Modern Art (USA)

New York, Museum of the City of New York (USA)

New York, Whitney Museum of American Art (USA)

Nürnberg, Germanisches Nationalmuseum (Germany)

Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art (USA)

Princeton, Princeton University Art Museum (USA)

Rochester, George Eastman House of Film and Photography (USA)

Vienna, Bonartes Photoinstitut (Austria)

Vienna, Albertina (Austria)

Washington, D.C., National Gallery of Art (USA)

383

Private

Private Collection, Heinemann

Private Collection, Schönitzer

Private Collection, Tracey

Secondary Sources

Bachmann. “Internationale Ausstellung ausgewählter Kunstphotographien in Wien.” In Photographische Mitteilungen. Halbmonatsschrift für Amateur-Photographie 42, edited by P. Hanneke, 82–85. Berlin, 1905. https://archive.org/details/ bub_gb_4xo_AAAAYAAJ/page/n3/mode/2up.

Barth, Ansgar, and Waltrud Heinemann, eds. Wilhelm Hasemann und sein Weg zum Schwarzwaldmaler. Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Liebich, 2012.

Barth, Ansgar. Curt Liebich. Ein Künstler seiner Zeit. Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann- Liebich, 2018.

Baumann, Joachim, and Peter Schäfer, eds. Wilhelm Hasemann. Künstlerpostkarten. Schonach/Trossingen: Baumann & Schäfer, 2016.

Baumstark, Brigitte. Schwarzwald Bilder. Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts. Karlsruhe: Städtische Galerie Karlsruhe, 2016. Catalog of an exhibition presented December 3, 2016–February 26, 2017.

Benndorf, Paul. Rotkäppchen und andere Märchen der Brüder Grimm. Leipzig: Abel & Müller.

Berger, John. Das Leben der Bilder oder die Kunst des Sehens. Berlin: Klaus Wagenbach, 1981.

Bilski, Emily. Berlin Metropolis: Jews and the New Culture 1890–1918. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.

Bohn-Spector, Claudia. “A Gentleman’s View: Das Bild von New York in der Fotografie Alfred Stieglitz.” PhD diss., Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität of Munich, 1997.

Brehm, Thomas, Frank M. Kammel, and Claudia Selheim, eds. Wanderland. Eine Reise durch die Geschichte des Wanderns. Nürnberg: Germanisches Nationalmuseum, 2018. Catalog of an exhibition presented November 29, 2018–April 28, 2019.

384

Bry, Doris. Alfred Stieglitz: Photographer. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1965.

Bunnell, Peter C., ed. A Photographic Vision: Pictorial Photography, 1889–1923. Salt Lake City: Peregrine Smith, 1980.

Caffin, Charles H. “Photography as a Fine Art: Alfred Stieglitz and His Work.” In Everybody’s Magazine 4 (April 1901): 359–71. Edited by John Wanamaker. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=umn.319510009010982&view=1up&seq=36 9.

Caffin, Charles H. “The Recent Exhibition–Some Impressions.” In Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 16 (October 1906): 33–37. Edited by Alfred Stieglitz. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1906_16/0041.

Caspar, Helmut. “Restauriertes Luisendenkmal zuruckgekehrt.” In Berliner Woche. July 8, 2013. http://www.berliner-woche.de/tiergarten/sonstiges/restauriertes- luisendenkmal-zurueckgekehrt-d31244.html.

Cassirer, Ernst. Rousseau Kant Goethe. Translated by James Jutmann, Paul Oskar Kristeller, and John Herman Randall, Jr. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Legacy Library, 1945.

Claros, V. L. “Ein Kunstlerheim im Schwarzwald.” In Die Kunst für Alle 3, no. 16 (May 15, 1888): 243–48. Edited by Friedrich Pecht. https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/kfa1887_1888/0316.

Coburn, Alvin L. “Artists of the Lens. The International Exhibition of Pictorial Photography in Buffalo.” In Harper’s Weekly, no. 26 (November 1910): 11. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015033848071&view=1up&seq=607 &size=125.

Corn, Wanda M. The Great American Thing: Modern Art and National Identity, 1915– 1935. Stanford: University of California, 1999.

Craig Annan, James. “Picture-Making with the Hand-Camera.” In The Amateur Photographer 23 (March 27, 1896): 275–77.

Craven, Thomas. “Stieglitz—Old Master of the Camera.” In The Saturday Evening Post. January 8, 1944, 14–15. https://ia800900.us.archive.org/33/items/the-saturday- evening-post-1944-01-08/the-saturday-evening-post-1944-01-08.pdf.

Crunden, M. Robert. American Salons: Encounter with European Modernism 1885– 1917. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

385

Davidson-Lowe, Sue. Stieglitz: A Memoir/Biography. Boston: Museum of Fine Arts, 1983.

De Wiveleslie Abney, William, ed. The Photographic Journal 27 (August 1903).

Doty, Robert. Photo-Secession: Stieglitz and the Fine-Art Movement in Photography. New York: Dover, 1978.

Dreiser, Theodore. “A Master of Photography.” In Success (June 10, 1899).

Dussol, Nicole. “Die Bedeutung der Zeitschrift “Camera Work” für die Geschichte der Kunstphotographie.” PhD diss., Christian-Albrecht-Universität of Kiel, 1993.

Eder, Josef Maria. “Dr. Hermann Wilhelm Vogel, Nachruf.” In Photographische Correspondenz, 36. Jahrgang (1899), edited by Ludwig Schrank, 68–72. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_jOkWAAAAYAAJ/page/n89/mode/2up.

———. “Internationale Ausstellung des Kameraklubs im Salon Miethke: Kameraklub Ausstellung 1905.” In Photographische Correspondenz 42, no. 534 (April 1905): 131–32. Edited by Wilhelm J. Burger. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id =nyp.33433060402215&view=1up&seq=161.

———, ed. Jahrbuch für Photographie und Reproductionstechnik für das Jahr 1891. Halle a. S.: Wilhelm Knapp, 1891. https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/jbpr1891/0349/image.

———. “Stimmen uber die internationale Ausstellung des Kamera-Klubs bei Miethke.” In Photographische Correspondenz 42, no. 534 (April 1905): 149–53. Edited by Wilhelm J. Burger. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_4DQyAQAAMAAJ/page/n185/mode/2up/sear ch/Stimmen+über+die+internationale+Ausstellung+des+.

———. “Vorwort des offiziellen Kataloges von Herrn Friedrich Matthies-Masuren.” In Photographische Correspondenz 42, no. 534 (April 1905): 153–54. Edited by Wilhelm J. Burger. https://archive.org/details/bub_gb_4DQyAQAAMAAJ/page/n189/mode/2up/sear ch/Stimmen+über+die+internationale+Ausstellung+des.

Emerson, Peter Henry. Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art. London: Sampson Low, Marston, Searle, and Rivington, 1889; New York: Scovill and Adams, 1889. https://archive.org/stream/naturalisticphot00emer#page/n7/mode/2up/search/Phot ography+art.

386

Faber, Monika, ed. Heinrich Kuehn and his American Circle: Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Steichen. Munich: Prestel, 2012. Catalog of an exhibition presented at Neue Galerie, New York, April 27–August 27, 2012.

———. “Photographie in Wien 1890 bis 1920.” In Wien um 1900, Kunst und Kultur, edited by Maria Marchetti, 289–96. Wien: Brandstätter, 1985.

Faber, Monika, and Klaus A. Schröder, eds. Das Auge und der Apparat. Wien: Hatje Cantz, 2003.

Faber, Monika, and Astrid Mahler, eds. Heinrich Kühn. The Perfect Photograph. Ostfildern: Hantje Cantz, 2010. Catalog of an exhibition presented at Albertina Museum, Vienna, June 11–September 12, 2010; Musee national de l’Orangerie, Paris, October 19, 2010–January 23, 2011; Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, March 6–May 30, 2011.

Falk, Peter Hastings, ed. Frank S. Herrmann: A Separate Reality. White Plains, NY: Museum Gallery of the White Plains Public Library, 1988. Catalog of an exhibition presented at Museum Gallery of the White Plains Public Library, January 17–March 13, 1988.

Flint, Ralph. Frank S. Herrmann – American Painter 1866–1942, Memorial Exhibition. New York: J. B. Neumann’s New Art Circle, 1944.

———. “Frank Herrmann – American Painter.” In Frank S. Herrmann, Paintings in Gouache 1866–1942. Los Angeles: Stendahl Art Galleries. Pamphlet of an exhibition presented December 4–16, 1944.

———. “Frank Herrmann.” In Art News, May 1–14, 1944.

Flügge, Manfred. Die Muse des Exils – Das Leben der Malerin Eva Herrmann. Berlin: Insel, 2012.

Frizot, Michel, ed. Neue Geschichte der Fotografie. Cologne: Koenemann, 1998.

Fuguet, Dallett. “The Evolution of Art Form Writing to Photography.” In Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 12 (October 1905): 46. Edited by Alfred Stieglitz. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1905_12/0076/image.

Fuhrmeister, Christian, Hubertus Kohle, and Veerle Thielemans, eds. American Artists in Munich: Artistic Migration and Cultural Exchange Processes. Berlin: Deutscher Kunstverlag, 2009.

387

Fuller, John. “Sadakichi Hartmann: The Valiant Knights of Daguerre.” In Art Journal 38, no. 4 (Summer 1979): 295–96. Edited by Harry W. Lawton and George Knox. Book review. https://www.jstor.org/stable/776387?seq=1.

Geimer, Peter. Theorien der Fotografie zur Einführung. Dresden: Junius, 2009.

Giles, Edwin B. “How to Make Oil Paintings.” In The American Amateur Photographer, no. 7 (May 1895): 204–06. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= mdp.39015067096589&view=1up&seq=222.

Goley, Mary Anne, ed. The Hague School and its American Legacy. Washington D.C.: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 1982. Catalog of an exhibition presented April 19–June 11, 1982.

Greenough, Sarah. Alfred Stieglitz: The Key Set. Washington, D.C.: National Gallery of Art, Washington / Harry W. Abrams, 2002.

Greenough, Sarah, and Richard Whelan, eds. Stieglitz on Photography: His Selected Essays and Notes. New York: Aperture Foundation, 2000.

Gutmann, Joseph, and Stanley F. Chyet, eds. Moses Jacob Ezekiel: Memoirs from the Baths of Diocletian. Detroit: Wayne State University, 1975.

Hahn, Judith, Ulrike Gaida, and Marion Hulverscheidt, eds. 125 Jahre Hygiene-Institute an Berliner Universitäten. Eine Festschrift. Berlin, 2010.

Handy, Ellen. Pictorial Effect: Naturalistic Vision. Norfolk: Chrysler Museum Library, 1994.

Hannavy, John, ed. Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-Century Photography 1. London: Taylor & Francis, 2008.

Hartmann, Sadakichi. “An Art Critic’s Estimate of Alfred Stieglitz.” In Photographic Times 30 (June 1898): 257–62. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433072165099&view=1up&seq=293.

Heck, Brigitte. “Marke Schwarzwald. Naturraum und Kulturlandschaft im langen 19. Jahrhundert.” In Schwarzwald Bilder. Kunst des 19. Jahrhunderts. Karlsruhe: Städtische Galerie Karlsruhe, 2016. Catalog of an exhibition presented at Städtische Galerie Karlsruhe, December 3, 2016–February 26, 2017.

Heltschl, Markus, ed. Das bedrohte Paradies. Heinrich Kühn fotografiert in Farbe. Tirol: Südtiroler Landesmuseum für Kultur- und Landesgeschichte Schloss Tirol, 2014. Catalog of an exhibition presented at Schloss Tirol, May 15–November 30, 2016.

388

Hochreiter, Otto, and Timm Starl, “Lexikon zur österreichischen Fotografie.” In Geschichte der Fotografie in Österreich 2, 93–209. Bad Ischl: Verein zur Erarbeitung der Geschichte der Fotografie in Österreich, 1983. Exhibition catalog.

Hoffman, Katherine. Alfred Stieglitz: A Beginning Light. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004.

———. Alfred Stieglitz: A Legacy of Light. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011.

Holland, Hyacinth. Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie 52 (1906). S.v. “Neustätter, Louis.” https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/sfz71659.html#adbcontent.

Holzheid, Anett. “Das Medium Postkarte. Eine sprachwissenschaftliche und mediengeschichtliche Studie.” In Philologische Studien und Quellen, no. 231, edited by Jürgen Schiewe, Hartmut Steineck, and Horst Wenzel. Berlin: Erich Schmidt, 2011.

Homer, William Innes, ed. Alfred Stieglitz and the American Avant-Garde. Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1979.

———. Alfred Stieglitz and the Photo-Secession. Boston: New York Graphic Society, 1983.

Horsley-Hinton, A. “Unser Club.” In Wiener Photographische Blätter 1, no. 10 (October 1894): 208–13. http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno- plus?aid=wpb&datum=1894&page=218&size=45.

Humphrey, Marmaduke. “Triumphs in Amateur Photography.” In Godey’s Magazine, no. 135 (December 1897): 581–92. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034631435&view=1up&seq=295

Jensen, Wilhelm. Der Schwarzwald. Berlin: Bechtermünz, 1890.

Junker, Patricia A. “William Merritt Chase. 1849–1916.” In An American Collection: Works from the Amon Carter Museum, edited by Will Gillham. New York: Hudson Hills; Amon Carter Museum, 2001.

Juvenal [Sadakichi Hartmann]. “Little Tin Gods on Wheels.” In Photo-Beacon 16 (September 1904): 282–86. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=nyp.33433060457904&view=1up&seq=292.

Kaufhold, Enno. Heinrich Kühn und die Kunstfotografie um 1900. Berlin: Nishen, 1988.

389

Kant, Immanuel. “Critique of Judgment.” Translated by Werner S. Pluhar. In Philosopher on Art from Kant to the Postmodernists: A Critical Reader, edited by Christopher Kul-Want. New York: Columbia University, 2010.

Kaufmann, Susanne M. “Die ‘Kunstlervereinigung Sema’. Eine Kunstlergruppierung zwischen expressionistischer Kunstauffassung und den Mechanismen des Kunstmarktes.” Master's thesis, Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität of Munich, 2008.

Keiley, Joseph T. Exhibition of Photographs by Alfred Stieglitz. New York: Camera Club, 1899.

———. “American Pictorial Photographers – Alfred Stieglitz.” Photography 17, no. 20 (February 1904): 147–51.

Keller, Ulrich F. “The Myth of Art Photography: A Sociological Analysis.” In History of Photography: An International Quarterly 8, no. 4 (October 1984): 249–75.

———. “The Myth of Art Photography: An Iconographic Analysis.” In History of Photography: An International Quarterly 9, no. 1 (1985): 1–28.

Kelsey, Robin. “Pictorialism as Theory.” In Picturing, Terra Foundation Essays 1, edited by Rachael Z. DeLue. Chicago: University of Chicago, 2016.

Kemp, Wolfgang, ed. Theorie der Fotografie. 1839–1912, vol. 1. Munich: Schirmer/Mosel, 1980.

Kiefer, Geraldine W. Alfred Stieglitz: Scientist, Photographer, and Avatar of Modernism, 1880–1913. London: Routledge, 1991.

Kimeswenger, Inge Maria. “Der Kunstfotograf Hans Watzek.” Master's thesis, Universität of Vienna, 1994.

Kühn, Christine, ed. Kunstfotografie um 1900. Die Sammlung Fritz Matthies-Masuren, 1873–1938. Berlin: Staatliche Museen zu Berlin, 2003. Catalog of an exhibition presented at Deutsches Centrum für Photographie an der Nationalgalerie und der Kunstbibliothek, April 25–June 15, 2003.

Kuhn, Heinrich. “Neuere Erfahrungen im Gummidruck.” In Wiener Photographische Blätter 3, no. 10 (October 1896): 181–87. http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno- plus?aid=wpb&datum=1896&page=190&size=45.

———. “Zum Gummidruck.” In Wiener Photographische Blätter 3, no. 12 (December 1896): 229. http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno- plus?aid=wpb&datum=1896&page=238&size=45.

390

Lemagny, Jean-Claude, and André Rouillé, eds., A History of Photography. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University, 1988.

Lucas, Judith S. “Moses Jacob Ezekiel: Prix de Rome Sculptor.” In Queen City Heritage (Winter 1986): 3–16. http://library.cincymuseum.org/journals/files/qch/v44/n4/qch-v44-n4-mos- 003.pdf.

Mahler, Astrid, and Monika Faber, eds. Liebhaberei der Millionäre. Der Wiener Camera- Club um 1900. Vienna: Photoinstitut Bonartes, 2019. Catalog of an exhibition presented February 22–May 10, 2019.

Marchetti, Maria, ed. Wien um 1900, Kunst und Kultur. Wien: Brandstätterg, 1985.

Matthies-Masuren, Friedrich. “Hugo Henneberg – Heinrich Kühn – Hans Watzek.” In Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 13 (January 1906): 21–41. Edited by Alfred Stieglitz. https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1906_13/0025/image).

———. ed. Die Photographie Kunst im Jahre 1903. Ein Jahrbuch für künstlerische Photographie 1. Halle a. S., 1903.

———. ed. Die Photographie Kunst im Jahre 1904. Ein Jahrbuch für künstlerische Photographie 3. Halle a. S., 1904.

———. ed. Die Photographie Kunst im Jahre 1905. Ein Jahrbuch für künstlerische Photographie 4. Halle a. S., 1905.

McCauley, Anne, and John Francisco, eds. Alfred Stieglitz and the Steerage. University of California, 2012.

McCauley, Anne, ed. Clarence H. White and his World: The Art & Craft of Photography, 1895–1925. New Haven: Yale University, 2017.

Meynell, Wilfrid. “Ludwig Passini.” In The Modern School of Art 4, edited by Meynell Wilfrid. London: W.R. Howell, 1886–88. https://archive.org/details/modernschoolofar04meynuoft/page/188.

Morgan, Ann Lee, ed. Dear Stieglitz, Dear Dove. Newark: University of Delaware, 1988.

Naef, Weston. The Collection of Alfred Stieglitz: Fifty Pioneers of Modern Photography. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art / Viking, 1978.

391

Nash, Peter Adam. The Life and Times of Moses Jacob Ezekiel: American Sculptor, Arcadian Knight. Madison: Fairleigh Dickinson University, 2014.

Natter, Tobias G. Die Galerie Miethke. Eine Kunsthandlung im Zentrum der Moderne. Vienna: Jewish Museum, 2003. Catalog of an exhibition presented November 19, 2003–February 8, 2004.

Neuhauss, R., ed. Photographische Rundschau und Photographisches Centralblatt. Zeitschrift für Freunde der Photographie 22, no. 5 (1908).

Newhall, Nancy. From Adams to Stieglitz: Pioneers of Modern Photography. Millerton: Aperture, 1989.

Norman, Dorothy. “An Introduction to an American Seer.” In Aperture 8, no. 1 (1960): n.p.

———. Alfred Stieglitz. The Aperture History of Photography. New York: Aperture Foundation, 1976.

———. Alfred Stieglitz. New York: Aperture Foundation, 1989.

———. Alfred Stieglitz: An American Seer. Millerton: Aperture Foundation, 1973.

———. Stieglitz: A Memorial Portfolio 1864–1946. New York: Twice a Year: 1947.

———. “Stieglitz’s Experiments in Life.” In New York Times Magazine, December 29, 1963.

———. “Ten Stories.” Twice a Year 5–6 (1940–41).

———. “Writings and Conversations of Alfred Stieglitz.” In Twice a Year 1 (Fall– Winter 1938).

Overwien-Neuhaus, Anita, and Thomas Lambertz, eds. Eva Herrmann. Zeugin des Exils. Cologne: Galerie ON, 1995.

Peterson, Christian A., ed. Alfred Stieglitz’s Camera Notes. Minneapolis: Minneapolis Institute of Art, 1993. Catalog of an exhibition presented July 18–October 19, 1993.

Pflugmacher, Birgit, ed. Briefwechsel zwischen Alfred Lichtwark und Max Liebermann. Hildesheim: Olms, 2003.

392

Phillips. Stieglitz, Steichen and the Photo-Secession. November 13, 1980, New York. Auction catalog.

Pohlmann, Ulrich, and Paul Mellenthin, eds. Ein Europäisches Photographie- Unternehmen und die Bildkünste im 19. Jahrhundert. München: Schirmer/Mosel, 2017.

Ponstingl, Michael, ed. Die Explosion der Bilderwelt. Die Photographische Gesellschaft in Wien 1861–1945. Vienna: Brandstätter, 2011.

Puntigam, Alexandra. Der fotografische Blick. Analogien und Differenzen zwischen Malerei und Fotografie im amerikanischen Realismus des 20. Jahrhunderts. Saarbrücken: Suedwestdeutscher Verlag fuer Hochschulschriften, 2008.

Rehkopf, Kurt. “From Within Out: The Story of Alfred Stieglitz, Lewis Mumford, and Modern Organicism.” PhD diss., Universität of Hamburg, 2005.

Reiss, Fritz. Lustiges aus’m Schwarzwald. Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1890.

Roberts, Pamela. Camera Work: The Complete Illustrations 1903–1917. Cologne: Taschen, 1997.

Rosenfeld, Paul. Port of New York: Essays on Fourteen American Moderns. New York: Harcourt, 1924.

Scharmann, Rudolf G. “Luise.” In Lange Nacht der Museen. January 30, 2010.

Schleier, Merrill. The Skyscraper in American Art: 1890–1931. Michigan: Da Capo, 1986.

Schumann, Paul. “The ‘International Group’ at the Dresden Exposition.” In Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 28 (October 1909): 45–48. Edited by Alfred Stieglitz. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1909_28/0070 /image. Original version in German in Dresdner Anzeiger, June 24, 1909.

Sidney, Allan [Sadakichi Hartmann]. “Alfred Stieglitz and His Latest Work.” In The Photographic Times 28, no. 4 (April 1896): 161–69. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015016493754&view=1up&seq= 217.

Sillevis, John. The Hague School. Dutch Masters of the 19th Century. The Hague: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1983.

393

———. “Die Haager Schule.” In Die Haager Schule in München. Meisterwerke der holländischen Malerei des 19. Jahrhunderts aus dem Haager Gemeentemuseum und den Bayerischen Staatsgemäldesammlungen. Heidelberg: Braus, 1989.

Steichen, Edward. “Color Photography.” In Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 22 (April 1908): 13–24. Edited by Alfred Stieglitz. https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1908_22/0017.

Stiegler, Bernd. Texte zur Theorie der Fotographie. Stuttgart: Reclam, 2010.

Stieglitz, Alfred. “A Day in Chioggia.” In The Amateur Photographer, no. 9 (June 1889): 7–9.

———. “A Plea for Art Photography in America.” In Photographic Mosaics 28 (1892): 135–37.

———. “An Apology.” In Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 1 (January 1903): 15–16. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1903_1/0027.

———. “Das Chlorsilber-Gelatine-Papier (Aristo und Obernetter) mit Platin getont.” In Jahrbuch für Photographie und Reproductionstechnik für das Jahr 1890 4, edited by Josef Maria Eder, 110–12. Halle a. S.: Wilhelm Knapp, 1890. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/jbpr1890/0126/image.

———. “From the Origin of the Photo-Secession and how it became 291 (I).” In Twice a Year 8–9 (1942).

———. “From the Origin of the Photo-Secession and how it became 291 (II).” In Twice a Year 8–9 (1942).

———. “How the Steerage Happened.” In Twice A Year 8–9 (Spring–Summer/Fall– Winter, 1942).

———. “Letter to the Members of the Photo-Secession.” In Photo-Era 15 (October 1905).

———. “Modern Pictorial Photography.” In Century Magazine, no. 44 (1902): 822–25. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015016779152&view=1up&seq=848

———. “My Favorite Picture.” In Photographic Life, no. 1 (July 1899): 11–12.

394

———. “Our Illustrations.” In Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 33 (January 1911): 71. https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1911_33/0089.

———. “Our Illustrations.” In Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, nos. 49–50 (June 1917): 36. https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1917_49_50/0062/image.

———. “Photographic Section of the Milan International United Exhibitions.” In The Amateur Photographer, no. 6 (August 1894): 377–78.

———. “Pictorial Photographers.” In The Practical Photographer, no. 10 (April 1899): 117.

———. “Pictorial Photography.” In Scribner’s Magazine, no. 26 (November 1899): 528– 37. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=miun.acd5969.0026.005&view=1up&seq=1 4.

———. “Simplicity in Composition.” In The Modern Way in Picture Making. Rochester: Eastman Kodak, 1905. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uiug.30112044941281&view=1up&seq=173

———. “Some Impressions of Foreign Exhibitions.” In Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 8 (October 1904): 34–37. https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1904_8/0038.

———. “The Hand Camera – Its Present Importance.” In The American Annual of Photography and Photographic Times Almanac for 1897, edited by Walter E. Woodbury, 19–27. New York: Scovill & Adams, 1896. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.fl11zv&view=1up&seq=33.

———. “The New Color Photography – A Bit of History.” In Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 20 (October 1907): 20–25. https://digi.ub.uni- heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work1907_20/0028/image.

———. “The Photo-Secession – its Objectives.” In Camera Craft 8–9 (1903): 81–83.

———. “The Progress of Pictorial Photography in the United States.” In The American Annual of Photography and Photographic Times Almanac for 1899, edited by Walter E. Woodbury, 158–59. New York: Scovill & Adams, 1899. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015067127475&view= 1up&seq=204.

395

———. “Two Artist’s Haunts.” In The Photographic Times 26 (January 1895): 9–12. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=njp.32101040483057&view=1up&seq=25.

Stieglitz, Alfred, ed. Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, nos. 1–50 (1903–17). https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_work.

Sutton, Peter C. Northern European Paintings in the Philadelphia Museum of Art: From the Sixteenth through the Nineteenth Century. Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of Art, 1990.

Teichmann, Werner. Ismar Boas 1858–1938: Eine biografische Skizze, published on the occasion of the inauguration of a memorial plaque for Ismar Boas in the Charité Berlin. Freiburg: Falk Foundation, 1992.

Teeuwisse, Nicolaas. Vom Salon zur Secession: Berliner Kunstleben zwischen Tradition und Aufbruch zur Moderne 1871–1900. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag für Kunstwissenschaften, 1985.

The American Amateur Photographer 3. New York: The American Photographic Publishing Company, 1891. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015063770468.

The American Amateur Photographer 4. New York: The American Photographic Publishing Company, 1892. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015067096910&view=1up&seq=7.

The American Amateur Photographer 5. New York: The American Photographic Publishing Company, 1893. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015020054527&view=1up&seq=7.

The American Amateur Photographer 6. New York: The American Photographic Publishing Company, 1894. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015024235858&view=1up&seq=7.

The American Amateur Photographer 7. New York: The American Photographic Publishing Company, 1895. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015067096589&view=1up&seq=9.

The American Amateur Photographer 8. New York: The American Photographic Publishing Company, 1896. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015010806761&view=1up&seq=6.

Tropper, Eva. Format Postkarte. Wien: New Academic Press, 2014.

396

Twain, Mark. “The Black Forest and Its Treasures.” Chap. 22 in “A Tramp Abroad”: The Complete Works of Mark Twain 19. Hastings East Sussex: Delphi Classics, 2013.

Vellusig, Friedrich. “Modificiertes Pigmentverfahren.” In Wiener Photographische Blätter 1, no. 6 (June 1894): 128–29. http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno- plus?aid=wpb&datum=1894&page=134&size=45).

Vogel, Hermann W. Lehrbuch der Photographie. Berlin: Robert Oppenheim, 1870. https://books.google.de/books?id=rjYaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR1#v=onepage&q&f= false.

———. Die Fortschritte der Photographie seit dem Jahre 1879. Berlin, 1883.

———, ed., Photographische Mitteilungen. Zeitschrift des Vereins zur Förderung der Photographie 26. Berlin, 1890. https://digital.slub- dresden.de/werkansicht/?id=5363&tx_dlf%5Bid%5D=63226&tx_dlf%5Bpage%5 D=402.

Vögely, Ludwig. “Der Schwarzwaldmaler Wilhelm Hasemann (1850–1913).” In Wilhelm Hasemann. Künstlerpostkarten, edited by Joachim Baumann and Peter Schäfer. Schonach/Trossingen: Baumann & Schäfer, 2016.

Völlmy, Fritz. Künstleralbum “Zum Löwen.” Gutach: Schwarzwälder Freilichtmuseum Vogtsbauernhof, 1885.

Waldo, Frank, Lewis Mumford, Paul Rosenfeld, Dorothy Norman, and Harold Rudd, eds. America and Alfred Stieglitz: A Collective Portrait, no. 16. New York: The Literary Guild; Doubleday; Doran & Co., 1934.

Watzek, Hans. “Der Pigmentgummidruck.” In Wiener Photographische Blätter 3, no. 4 (April 1896): 70–73. http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno- plus?aid=wpb&datum=1896&page=79&size=45).

———. “Aus der Praxis des Gummidrucks.” In Wiener Photographische Blätter 3, no. 7 (July 1896): 133–37. http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno- plus?aid=wpb&datum=1896&page=142&size=45.

Weaver, Mike. “Kunstlerische Ambitionen. Die Versuchung der Schönen Kunste.” In Neue Geschichte der Fotografie, edited by Frizot Michel, 185–95. Cologne: Koenemann, 1998.

Welling, William. Photography in America: The Formative Years, 1839–1900. New York: Thomas: Y. Crowell, 1978.

397

Whelan, Richard. Alfred Stieglitz: A Biography. New York: Little Brown, 1995.

Zola, Emile. “Notes parisiennes: Une exposition: les peintres impressionnistes.” In Le Sémaphore de Marseille, April 19, 1877. http://www.cahiers- naturalistes.com/Salons/19-04-77.html.

Zola, Francoise-Emile; Massin, eds. Emile Zola Photograph. Eine Autobiographie in 480 Bildern. Munich: Schirmer/Mosel, 1979.

398

APPENDIX

CHAPTER 2

Footnote 98, page 56: Josef Maria Eder. “Dr. Hermann Wilhelm Vogel, Nachruf,” 1899, 71.

Original Quote: “günstigen Einfluss auf das photographische Leben nicht nur in Berlin und Deutschland (…) erlangte (…).”

Footnote 141, page 72: Hermann W. Vogel, Lehrbuch der Photographie, 1870, 423.

Original Quote: “Je weniger der Künstler solcher Sachen (Hilfsmittel) bedarf, desto besser ist er daran. (...) Es zeigt die symmetrische Anordnung bei aller Freiheit der Bewegung, ohne Zuhülfnahme von Draperieen und Requisiten. Bei allen Arrangements ist aber eins zu beachten: es mußs ungezwungen sein. Sobald man dem Bilde anmerkt, das der Künstler mühsam Kleider und Falten zurechtgezupft, Draperieen und Möbel zusammengeschleppt hat, um dem Gleichgewicht der Linien gerecht zu werden, sobald die Glieder und Stoffe gar mit Gewalt in eine Lage hineingequetscht worden sind, die sie von Natur nie hätten annehmen können, so erscheint das Arrangement nur künstlich, nicht künstlerisch.”

Footnote 245, page 129: John Sillevis. “Die Haager Schule,” 1989, 20.

Original Quote: “Im Zusammenhang mit dieser Bemerkung Veths ist darauf hinzuweisen, daß Jozef Israel (mit Punkten über dem E) kaum aus landschaftlichen Erwägungen nach Barbizon zog. Ihm ging es, genau wie Millet, um die Darstellung des Bauernlebens. Ebensowenig wie die Schule von Barbizon war die Haager Schule allein eine Landschaftsschule.”

Footnote 277, page 144: Alfred Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, August 23, 1894, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 20, 2018.

Original Quote: “Lieber Freund: Hier sitzen wir in London, bereit die Ruckreise anzutreten. Seit wir Gutach verlassen, haben wir ohne zu ubertreiben, jeden Tag Regen gehabt. Was sagst Du dazu? Von Stuttgart reisten wir nach Paris in nur 5 Tage verweilen; von dort ging’s nach Antwerpen auf 2 Tagen, wo wir die Ausstellung besuchten. Die Bilder…” (English translation: “Dear friend: Here we sit in London, ready to make our return journey. Since we left Gutach, we have had rain every day without exaggerating. What do you think? From Stuttgart we travelled to Paris in only 5

399

days; from there we went to Antwerp in 2 days, where we visited the exhibition. The pictures...”

Footnote 299, page 151: Susanne M. Kaufmann. “Die ‚Kunstlervereinigung Sema’. Eine Künstlergruppierung zwischen expressionistischer Kunstauffassung und den Mechanismen des Kunstmarktes,” 2008, 36.

Original Quote: “Was die in der Sema Vereinigten herbeizuführen helfen wünschen, ist eine Kunst, die allein diesen Namen verdient: eine Erhebung des Geistes und Gemüts durch die Sinne.”

CHAPTER 3

Footnote 351, page 172: Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, March 3, 1877, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018.

Original Quote: “Ich lebe ziemlich zuruckgezogen hier (…) ich (verspure) wenig Lust in Gesellschaft zu gehen, da ich mich doch als Fremdling hier betrachte und als Maler, noch dazu als Deutscher, mich lieber mit meinen alten Freunden unterhalte als den Amerikanern den Hof zu machen. (…) Was das Reichwerden anbelangt, so bin ich leider zu unpractisch (…) Überhaupt ist das “Geldmachen” hier das erste und edelste Princip. – Wie? Das ist ganz egal! – du siehst ja, daß Ez. (Ezekiel) selbst als geborener Amerikaner, aber Künstler fur alles in der Welt nicht hier bleiben wurde.”

Footnote 362, page 175: Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, September 11, 1881, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018.

Original Quote: “unter seine Kunstlerfittiche”.

Footnote 368, page 176: Edward Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, August 14, 1882, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 24, 2018.

Original Quote: “Fing auch an ein wenig wieder zu zeichnen, Landschaftliches naturlich & komme nur sehr langsam vorwärts. Sehe mir oft Ihre Zeichnungen an um mich danach zu bilden – aber ich finde meine Ausführungen immer kleinlich & dürftig & dennoch macht es mir Freude – da es verlangt, sich in die Natur & und ihre Formen & Tönen zu vertiefen!”

400

Footnote 373, page 177: Father Hasemann to Wilhelm Hasemann, April 15, 1883, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 15, 2018.

Original Quote: “Uns freut es sehr, daß Du 200 Mark von Herrn Stieglitz von der kurzen Zeit bekommen hast; (…) Es ist sehr gut und es hat viel für dich, daß Du so einen Mann zum Freunde hast.”

Footnote 375, page 179: Margret Zimmermann-Degen, “Wilhelm Hasemann, Maler in Gutach,” 2012, 132–33.

Original Quote: „Ich habe jedoch jede Wiederholung ganz selbstständig gemacht, d.h. ich habe mich nicht sklavisch an die Studie gehalten, sondern habe es jedesmal in besonderer Weise bildmäßig zu gestalten gesucht und habe namentlich die Figurengruppe nach anderen Modellen gemalt.”

Footnote 377, page 180: Waltrud Heinemann, “Leben und Wirken Wilhelm Hasemanns,” 2012, 37.

Original Quote: „Mit dem Plan sich ein Atelier zu bauen bin ich ganz einverstanden … Wenn Sie glauben, daß Ihnen Gutach für eine lange Zeit Stoffe und Motive bietet als dieselben hinreichend die Kosten des Baus decken u. verzinsen, so wäre ja diese Frage hiermit erledigt, resp. unnötig. Das Geld wird Ihnen vielleicht vorgeschossen werden, überdies werden Sie die Ausführung nicht in zu colossalem Maßstabe betreiben, sondern eher gemutlich u. doch hinreichend fur den Bedarf.”

Footnote 386, page 181: Edward Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, May 25, 1882, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 19, 2018.

Original Quote: “Zwischen 7 & 8 Uhr gelangten Alfred & ich in unser einstweiliges trautes Heim & nehmen in unserem netten Wohnzimmer ein recht einfaches & ebenso schmackhaftes Abendbrot ein & aß Alfred mit vollem Appetit & scheint in der That schon viel belebter zu sein. Nachdem auf diese Weise der irdische Mensch befriedigt, packten wir soeben den aquarellierten Alfred aus seiner papiernen Hülle & besah mir denselben mit Muse & Ruhe – welche wie Sie wohl merken mochten, am Bahnhofe nicht geschehen konnte & habe ich beim Betrachten eine seltene & stille Freude empfunden. – Sie haben meiner Familie ein lebenstreues Bild meines lieben Sohnes zuertheilt – & wird ihr Name ein Hauswort sein & verbleiben bei mir & meinen Kindern. Eine fast ebenso große Freude gewährte mir neben der ... des Bildes der Umstand, wie sehr ich einen erheblichen Fortschritt in Ihren Schöpfungen wahrnehme, hauptsächlich da wo es sich um das Colorit handelt – & bin nicht wenig erstaunt, daß Sie in Aquarell – auf dessen Boden sie noch so selten geschafft – so Vorzugliches zu leisten vermögen.”

401

Footnote 388, page 182: V. L. Claros, “Ein Kunstlerheim im Schwarzwald,” 1888, 244.

Original Quote: “Wir können ihn hier jetzt in seinem eigenen Hauschen besuchen, und wenn wir nicht schon genau Bescheid wußten, so könnte uns jeder „Bua” und jedes „Maidli” Auskunft geben, wo „‘s Haßemanns-husli” oder „‘s Molerhusli” steht. … Das ißt W. Hasemanns Heim und Kunßtlerwerkstatt. … Eine besondere Eigentumlichkeit aber läßt uns dies Atelier vor andern behaglicher und interessanter erscheinen: Dreht man dem großen Fenster den Rücken, so sieht man vor sich den schönsten und malerischsten Teil einer Schwarzwaldstube, – den sogenannten „Herrgottswinkel”. ”

Footnote 415, page 194: Friedemann Schmoll, “Wege bahnen, Bewegung organisieren. Wandern im Verein um 1900,” 2018, 71.

Original Quotes: “Ein eigenthumliches Doppelspiel getrieben.” and “Da setze sich einerseits der industrielle Fortschritt rücksichtslos über alle vorgefundenen Verhältnisse hinweg – die Schienen der Eisenbahn über die malerischen Formen der Landschaft, die rauchenden Fabrikschornsteine über deren Poesie und die Praktiken einer modernen Landwirtschaft uber ihre organische Physiognomie.”

Footnote 418, page 195: Claudia Selheim, “Der gelenkte Blick oder Die erwanderte Volkskultur,” 2018, 94.

Original Quote: “In verschiedenen Orten (durch) Volkstrachtenvereine (bildeten), welche durch Trachten- und Spinnfeste, Prämien, Ausstattung von Erstkommunikanten und Konfirmanden mit einigem Erfolg, die für die Fortdauer eines wackeren Bauernstandes nicht unwichtige Erhaltung der Trachten fördern.”

Footnote 425, page 197: Ansgar Barth, “Gutach zur Zeit Curt Liebichs,” 2018, 21.

Original Quote: “Der Hofbauer im Schwarzwald gilt etwas. Er fuhlt sich als Erbhofbauer und hält auf sich und seinen Stand, auf seinen Hof, auf welchem manchmal seit Jahrhunderten seine Ahnen saßen. Er wird fast immer mit dem Hofnamen angeredet, das ist sein Ehrentitel.”

Footnote 442, page 203: Edward Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, August 3, 1882, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 25, 2018.

Original Quote: “Was Sie in Bezug des Albums sagen, hatte ich mir geistig ebenso zurecht gelegt & geben natürlich Ihre vielsagenden Postkarten den einzigen Impuls & alles was Sie in Beziehung so schön sagen – empfinde ich Ihnen recht wohl nach, jedoch

402

finde ich einiges Bedenken Ihren überaus freundschaftlichen Vorschlag – so ohne weiteres anzunehmen – da Sie jedenfalls für Derartiges Ihre frischesten Momenten benützen – das sieht man dem Lebendigen der Zeichnung an. Ein Album würde ich wohl leicht & passend genug einrichten können & wurde dies ‚Hasemann-Album‘ auch wohl ein recht bedeutende Anerkennung in- und außerhalb meines Familienkreises erlangen.”

Footnote 445, page 204: Edward Stieglitz to Wilhelm Hasemann, December 13, 1886, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, June 6, 2018.

Original Quote: “(...) schon vor 6 Wochen etwa machte ich dem Secretair des "Century" meine Aufwartung & machte Ihre Sache den Punkt des Gespräches. – Derselbe sagte mir als Hauptsächliches, daß es fast unmöglich sei von Künstlern Aufträge ausführen zu lassen, welche nicht hier am Platze sind, d. h. mit denen man nicht mündlich verkehren könne. (...) Ich schlug ihm dann vor das Album ihm zu schicken, welches er denn auch verbindlichst annahm. Ein für Sie außerordentlich schmeichelhafter Brief begleitete das Album als er mir es zurückschickte. – Mit der größten Bewunderung habe er & der ganze Künstlerstab das schöne Werk durchgesehen & s. w. Da aber die schönen Worte keinen praktischen Werth für Sie enthielten, verstimmte mich die Sache mehr als sie mich erstaunen konnte. Den Vorschlag dasselbet zu veröffentlichen habe ich noch nicht gemacht, werde jedoch am Anfang des Jahres noch ein Mal einen Versuch machen Anknupfung herzustellen.”

Footnote 447, page 205: Fedor Encke to Wilhelm Hasemann, January 2, 1889, Waltrud Heinemann, email to author, March 20, 2018.

Original Quote: “Alfred Stieglitz sprach mit mir uber Deine Zeichnungen (das Album) das Stieglitz hat. Ein Verleger hat sie gesehen u. möchte sie herausgeben, aber mit Text. – Wie wäre es denn, wenn Du Dich mit jemand zusammenthätest? Du müsstest den Text dazu schreiben u. Alfred Stieglitz stutzt ihn dann mit einem Schreibbeflissenen zurecht, deutsch, wie auch englisch! Ich wie er glaubt (wie auch der Verleger sagt) dass sich damit ein Bombengeschäft machen läßt. – Überlege Dir doch die Sache mal ernstlich! Wir wollen dann mit Alfred die Sache in die Hand nehmen.”

Footnote 472, page 216: Quoted in Ludwig Vögely. “Der Schwarzwaldmaler Wilhelm Hasemann (1850–1913),” 2016, 7.

Original Quote: “Die Landschaft fesselte ihn sofort. Er begann wie im Fieber einer Liebe auf den ersten Blick mit Studien und vergaß alles andere darüber, schier auch den Auftrag. Die eigenartigen Hofstätten mit den riesigen Dächern begeisterten ihn durch ihre Form, ihre Eintracht mit der Umgebung und durch den Reichtum ihrer Farben, die silbernen und braunen Töne im Holz der Verschalungen und Lauben, die Glut der

403

Geranien vor den Fenstern, der mächtige Schwung des Daches und seine über seine grün und violett und goldbraun und ziegelrot spielenden Farben. Dazu sah er das bäuerliche Volk zur Arbeit und in die Kirchen gehen in den Trachten, die im protestantischen Dorf auf schwarz-weiß-rot abgestimmt sind, sah die festlichen roten Bollenhüte der Mädchen, die würdigen Schoßröcke der Männer aus schwarzem Samt mit rotem Flanell ausgeschlagen, sah das Kinderleben am hellen Bach auf vielblumiger Bergmatte, sah dies alles im Verlauf von wenigen Tage, und ihm war, als habe er Heimat gefunden. Er blieb.”

Footnote 495, page 241: John Berger, Das Leben der Bilder oder die Kunst des Sehens, 1981, 64.

Original Quote: “daß die Armut der Stadt und ihrer Vorstadte sowie der durch die Industrialisierung geschaffene Markt, dem die Bauern geopfert wurden, eines Tages den Verlust jedes historischen Gefühls mit sich bringen könnten. Darum wurde der Bauer für Millet zum Inbegriff des Menschen, und deswegen ging er davon aus, daß seine Gemälde eine historische Funktion besaßen.”

Footnote 503, page 251: Guestbook Wilhelm Hasemann, printed copy supplied to author by Waltrud Heinemann, April 30, 2018.

Original Quote: “Die schönsten Tage unserer 94er Reise wurden in Gutach mit der Familie Hasemann verbracht. Mögen ahnliche wiederkehren!”

CHAPTER 4

Footnote 506, page 254: Alfred Stieglitz, Section of a Camera Work page with handwritten remark by Alfred Stieglitz, 1911, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg, acc. no.: P2013.253.

Original Quote: “Meinem Freunde Heinrich Kühn. Einer der sehr wenigen der die Kunstphotographie wirklich Ernst nimmt. Gruss Alfred Stieglitz. New York, d. 20 Sept. /05.”

Footnote 532, page 262: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, July 31, 1906, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 679.

Original Quote: “Also nachsten Sommer mussen Sie ganz sicher kommen, das kann herrlich werden. Henneberg wird Ihnen auch sehr gut gefallen, er ist ein brillanter Mensch.”

404

Footnote 572, page 274: Alfred Stieglitz. “Das Chlorsilber-Gelatine-Papier (Aristo und Obernetter) mit Platin getont,” 1890, 111.

Original Quote: “Meine figürlichen Bilder, die auf der Jubiläums-Ausstellung ausgestellt waren, waren grösstentheils in dieser Weise angefertigt, und eine ganz besondere Freude wurde mit zu Theil, als Prof. Vogel, einer der grössten Gegner des Aristo-Papieres, mich fragte, ob meine Bilder Platindrucke seien? Und er war nicht wenig erstaunt, als ich ihm darauf antwortete: “Es sind Aristobilder mit Platin getont. Künstlern gefiel der Ton ganz ungemein.”

Footnote 594, page 281: Testament of Hans Watzek, November 1902, collection of Diether Schönitzer.

Original Quote: “Mein letzter Wille, welchen ich zu Ostern 1903 niedergeschrieben habe. 1) Alle meine (in meinem Besitz befindlichen) gerahmten und ungerahmten Bilder gehen in den Besitz der Herren Dr. Hugo Henneberg, Döbling, Wollerg 8 und Heinrich Kühn in Innsbruck, Falkstr. 6 uber.”

Footnote 606, page 287: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, January 13, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677.

Original Quote: “Wenn Demachy nicht so zwecklos auf leere Effekte hin Malen wollte, ich komme noch ein mal auf das Thema, will ich gerade wieder so etwas von ihm gesehen habe – wäre er ganz ausgezeichnet. Schade, dass er ganz famose Bilder durch das Hin- u. Herstreichen mit dem Pinsel um die Wirkung bringt; wozu nur dieser Pflaus? Ist ein ruhiger Hintergrund so grässlich, dass man ihn durch gerade oder wellige Linien unmotiviert beleleen muss, Linien, die aus dem Bildcharakter vollkommen herausfallen. Manchmal mag er sich ja etwas dabei denken, etwas damit ausdrücken wollen; aber immer diese Pinselei, das ist eine Marotte. Für den künstlerischen Wert ist die Manie ja schliesslich nebensächlich; aber in einer phot. Ausst. sagen dann die Leute: aber das ist ja gemalt! Und man steht daneben und weiss nicht was sagen.”

Footnote 607, page 288: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, October 26, 1906, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 679.

Original Quote: “Das letzte Heft, die Franzosen, sind meiner Ansicht nach ganz charakteristisch gegeben. Sie imponieren mir durchaus nicht besonders, der einzige Könner bleibt doch Demachy, und der ist doch sehr ‚faiseur‘.”

405

Footnote 627, page 294: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, August 28, 1904, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 676.

Original Quote: “Gestern habe ich Sie wohl etwas zu sehr gequalt! Ein od. 2 Sachen sind gut, die anderen temperamentlos. Es war also doch gut, dass ich mehrere Platten versucht hatte. Ich wünsche nur sehnlichst, dass Sie sich im nassen Gras nicht erkältet haben. Gestern haben Sie mich auch einmal nervös gesehen, ich habe mich dann über mich selbst geärgert. Wenn Sie gut aufgelegt sind, kommen Sie nur, bitte am Dienstag, damit ich Sie zum letzten Mal qualen kann; ich muss ein gutes Bild zusammenbringen.”

Footnote 650, page 304: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, December 24, 1904, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 676.

Original Quote: “Ihr beiden wunderschönen Bilder die gestern mit Ihrem Brief kamen, machen mir grosse Freude. Die Gäule sind herrlich, ich möchte dieses Bild für den Catalog nehmen. Der Pflüger ist auch ausgezeichnet – doch vielleicht nicht so bedeutend wie die monumental dastehenden Pferde –; der silbrige Ton Ihres Druckes dürfte in Gravüre schwerer herauszubringen sein und, da wir nur eines nehmen können, bin ich dafur dass die Tiroler Gaule in den Katalog kommen.”

Footnote 654, page 306: Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, May 22, 1912, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 682.

Original Quote: “Es interessiert mich sehr zu hören was Du uber die gegenseitigen Einflusse nach Igls zu sagen hattest. (…) Zweifellos hat die sogenannte Amerikanische Schule nach Igls auf Dich eingewirkt, aber trotzdem bist Du immer Kuehn geblieben.”

Footnote 668, page 311: Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, May 22, 1912, YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 682.

Original Quote: “ Steichen dagegen fing Anfang 1904, im Januar, grösseres Format zu arbeiten, und sofort ging er an Kraft und Saftigkeit heran. Im London Salon desselben Jahres wurde ich überrascht wie ich von Igls hinfuhr seine neue Arbeit zu sehen. Es ist diese Arbeit mit der Wiener Arbeit (Du u. Henneberg) die dann später auf Coburn, Seeley, White, u.s.w. einwirkte.”

406

Footnote 678, page 314: Markus Heltschl, ed. Das bedrohte Paradies. Heinrich Kühn fotografiert in Farbe, 2014, 16.

Original Quote: “Der mehrfache Gummidruck ermöglichte es, ausgehend von einem Schwarz-Weiß-Negativ mehrere Schichten in lasierenden Farben abzuziehen und so ein farbiges Bild zu erstellen, das die Farben der Natur virtuell nachahmt.”

Footnote 681, page 315: YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677. Personal Note: many letters support this assertion, such as:

Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, January 6, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677.

Original Quote: “If I still have one wish, it is that you should come over again this year; so comfortably to Igls for 2–3 months, no big cities! Let the sun shine on your body and, if you feel too well, take some photos – maybe a detour – 12 hours (and the train) – to Venice.”

Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, April 28, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677.

Original Quote: “It is a pity that we cannot meet again. Well, but next year!”

Footnote 687, page 317: Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, March 10, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680.

Original Quote: “Hoffentlich werden Sie es doch arrangiren können dass Sie auf eine Woche nach Paris kommen können, solche Gelegenheit, Sie Steichen Demachy + ich beisammen, wird sich nicht so bald wieder finden. Wir bleiben wahrscheinlich von Mai 28 bis zu dem 20. Juni in Paris.”

Footnote 709, page 322: Friedrich Raab to Alfred Stieglitz, September 8, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 39, Folder 953.

Original Quote: “Er gab mir noch 3 Bilder, die beiden Schachpartien die meiner Frau u mir viel Vergnügen machen, und einem grossen Kopf von mir mit dem grauen Hut eine Aufnahme von dir – Eugene zeigte mir eine höchst gelungene Aufnahme von Mrs. Emmy im weißen Kleid mit grunem Schal vor den Rosen auf der Terrasse.”

407

Footnote 716, page 324: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, June 18, 1913, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 683.

Original Quote: “L. A., Nur um alte liebe Erinnerungen aufzufrischen bin ich jetzt in Tutzing und sitze bei Simson auf der Terrasse. Das waren einst schöne Zeiten – Steichens erste Farbenplatten, Eugenes lustige Versuche von uns Dreien, bei denen immer Einer vor Lauter Lachen nicht mit darauf war.”

Footnote 722, page 327: Alfred Stieglitz, Section of a Camera Work page with handwritten remark by Alfred Stieglitz, 1911, Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg, acc. no.: P2013.253.

Original Quote: “Meinem Freunde Heinrich Kuhn. Einer der sehr wenigen der die Kunstphotographie wirklich Ernst nimmt. Gruss Alfred Stieglitz. New York, d. 20 Sept. /05.”

Footnote 723, page 327: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, April 28, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677.

Original Quote: “Wissen Sie, was mir bei jedem Heft immer wieder riesig imponiert, sind die Gravüren die Art der Gravüren. Höher geht es nicht mehr. Ich möchte meine Arbeiten nur noch bei Ihnen reproduzieren lassen können. Verzagen Sie nicht, lieber Stieglitz: mit diesem Camera Work setzen Sie sich ein Denckmal! Text kann ich noch nicht beurteilen, aber die Gravüren sind einfach fabelhaft. Es ist das keine Schmeichelei, sondern meine ehrlichste, vollste und aufrichtige Ueberzeugung.”

Footnote 731, page 330: Alfred Stieglitz, Section of a Camera Work page with handwritten remark by Alfred Stieglitz, 1911. In Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly no. 33 (1911), Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg, acc. no.: P2013.246.

Original Quote: “Meinem l. Freund Heinrich mit tausend Gruesse von dem alten Schlachtross! Endlich wieder einmal ein Heft so ziemlich zusammengestellt; hoffentlich wird es Dir etwas Freude bereiten. New York, den 27. November – 1911.”

Footnote 740, page 334: Dr. Bachmann. “Internationale Ausstellung ausgewählter Kunstphotographien in Wien,” 1905, 85.

Original Quote: “Nun zu Österreich, hier sehen wir mehrere neue Personen, selbst Kühn und Henneberg sind diesmal neu, sie haben sich völlig verwandelt. Eine Kritik unterlasse ich aber hier aus begreiflichen Gründen. Aus den grossen Bildern sind klein geworden,

408

die Technik ist völlig verändert, aus kräftigen Rahmen wurden schmale Leisten. Absichtliche Unschärfe beherrscht zum Teil das Bild, eine Unschärfe, die bei grösserem Format vielleicht berechtigt wäre. Eine Unschärfe sollte nie sichtbar wirken, sie soll zur grösseren Ruhe und nicht zur Unruhe im Bilde fuhren.”

Footnote 746, page 335: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, April 28, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677.

Original Quote: “Wenn ich einmal von der Kasebier ein Bild in meinem neuen Haus hänge so sollte es Happy Days sein. Diese unmittelbare Frische ist prächtig; die Kühlheit ist mir sympatisch. Auf dem Gebiet der hellen sonnigen Augenblicksbilder ist die Frau K. ausgezeichnet, selbststandig.”

Footnote 751, page 337: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, August 18, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 678.

Original Quote: “Ich gebe Ihnen mein Wort, dass Matthies ein durchaus anstandiger Mensch ist, den Sie jedes Vertrauen entgegenbringen dürfen. Es wird jetzt Zeit, dass wir in Deutschl. – bestert. Das Ausstellungswesen in die Hand nehmen, vielleicht haben wir mit der Dresdener Ausst. 1906 (grosse Kunstgewerbl. Ausst.) angefangen, ich denke aber auch daran in Wien diesen Winter eine deutsch-amerikan.-Ausst. zu machen, wieder bei Miethke. Bisher ist das nur so mein Gedanke. Ich hoffe, dass wir in Zukunft stets Hand in Hand gehen.”

Footnote 759, page 339: Josef Maria Eder. “Stimmen uber die internationale Ausstellung des Kamera-Klubs bei Miethke,” 1905, 150.

Original Quote: “Am Anfang waren die Amerikaner. Und auch heute noch sind sie diejenigen, welche am besten und in unerreichter Vollkommenheit die Tonwerte eines Bildes in Einklang bringen, um eine harmonische Gesamtwirkung zu erzielen.”

Footnote 762, page 340: Josef Maria Eder, “Vorwort des offiziellen Kataloges von Herrn F. Matthies-Masuren in Halle a. d. S.,” 1905, 154.

Original Quote: “Sie soll also nicht wie andere, frühere Veranstaltungen auf das photographische Gewerbe “veredelnd” einwirken, sondern sie zeigt Wiedergaben von Stimmungen, Eindrücken von der Natur mit Überlegung der Linie, des Tons und der Verteilung von Hell und Dunkel im Raum.”

409

Footnote 763, page 340: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, April 7, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677.

Original Quote: “Die obere Kante der Bilder soll eine gerade Linie bilden, das sieht sehr gut aus. Nehmen Sie noch etwas Grün – ein paar Lorbeerbaume (…) in dem Raum und einen Kaltgrauen Bodenbelag, so wirken die Bilder warm und lebendig. Der Ausstellungsraum bei M. gefiel mir in dieser Ausgestaltung so gut, dass ich Schritte unternahm um bald wieder dort eine ganz ausgezeichnete Ausst. zu Stande zu bringen, die noch exclusiver und noch viel besser sein sollte.”

Footnote 764, page 340: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, April 7, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677.

Original Quote: “Ich schreibe Ihnen hieruber ausfuhrlich, weil Sie dieses Arrangement vielleicht jetzt sehr gut fur Ihre gemieteten Zimmer gebrauchen können.”

Footnote 775, page 346: Monika Faber, “Photographie in Wien 1890 bis 1920,” 1985, 289.

Original Quote: “Der Klub, der ursprunglich Club der amateur-Photographen in Wien hieß, lehnte das kommerzielle Interesse an der Photographie ab, und war “die erste derartige Vereinigung am Kontinent, die sich das Ziel gesetzt hatte, in weiten Kreisen das Verstandnis fur ‚Bildmaßige Photographie‘ zu wecken””.

Footnote 778, page 347: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, January 13, 1905, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 677.

Original Quote: “Das Eine bleibt aber: das Zusammengehen von Amerika und uns ist wenigstens für uns das Wichtigste! Denn wir passen sehr gut zusammen, unsere Ansichten sind innerlich verwandt und wir verfolgen dasselbe Ziel.”

Footnote 779, page 348: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, July 14, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680.

Original Quote: “Sie, Steichen, Eugene – das sind so Die, denen ich meine Versuche, die Ergebnisse heissen Ringens zeigen möchte und an deren Kritik mir etwas liegt.”

Footnote 780, page 348: Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, September 23, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680.

410

Original Quote: “Und von nun ab heisst es Du. Es ist das erste mal im Leben dass ich den Vorschlag mache.”

Footnote 781, page 348: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, December 7, 1907, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 680.

Original Quote: “Du, Steichen und White sollten in möglichst umfangreichen Collectionen vertreten sein.”

Footnote 783, page 349: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, December 9, 1908, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681.

Original Quote: “Matthies hat einen Kolossal besuchten Vortrag in Dresden gehalten und mehrere Tage persönlich verhandelt. Ergebnis: es giebt keinen “Salon“ mehr. Statt dessen eine eigene, auch von der Amateur-Phot. getrennte (hoffentlich sagst Du: Bravo!) Gruppe III a: “Internationale Vereinigung der Kunstphotographen“. Ohne Jury, ohne Preise; erste Stelle im Katalog. Ohne jede Oberhoheit. Absolut unabhängig. Ausstellungsleitung tut nichts, absolut nichts, als die gesamten Kosten bezahlen. Die ganze Sache der “Vereinigung“ soll absolut im Stillen betrieben werden: wir kommen in Dresden mit der vollendeten Tatsache einer ganz privaten freien Vereinigung der ersten und ersten Vorkämpfer: für Amerika: Stieglitz, Steichen, White; England: Annan, Davison; Frankreich: Demachy; Deutschland: ich. Diese 7 hätten nach meinem Vorschlag als internat. Ausstell.-Leiter oder sonst etwas zu gelten, die die besten ihrer Länder weiter heranziehen: Du bringst deine Secession, ich gib Spitzer, Kurz, ich meine: den Grundstock wäre gebildet. Coburn & Seeley brauchen nicht gleich in die erste Reihe. Die Alten, die 20 Jahre arbeiten, bilden den Seniorats-Grundstock. Es kann ohne Statuten eine Tat vollbracht werden, wenn wir in Dresden 150 allererste Bilder zeigen. Bist Du nicht einverstanden, so depschiere mir, bitte, nichts als “Nein“. Es ist dann der letzte Versuch: von den missgünstigen Clubs nicht erdrückt zu werden, misslungen – ich ziehe mich selbstverständlich zurück. Bist Du aber einverstanden, so bitte ich Dich, dass in der 2ten Hälfte März 80 allererste amerikanische Bilder in Dresden sind. (…) Meiner Ansicht nach ist unser neuer Standpunkt ein Erfolg. Ich will durchaus kein Verdienst in Anspruch nehmen, will ja nicht als Gründer der Vereinigung gelten – Matthies hat da viel grössere Verdienste – mir hat sichs um unsere Sache gehandelt. Sollte bei der Sache, wie ich hoffe, eine bleibende “Vereinigung“ herauskommen: umso besser! Es ist ein reiner Zufall, dass Dresden jetzt den Anstoss gab. Matthies hat frisch zugegriffen – – . Aber bitte kein Wort in der Oeffentlichkeit! Nicht Worte; Taten!”

411

Footnote 784, page 349: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, October 10, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 682.

Original Quote: “Wenn Dresden fur uns u. die kunstler. Phot. Einen Erfolg haben sollte, so wäre es der: der Zusammenschluss zur Internationalen und die klar Ueberzeugung, dass wir nur mehr auf Kunstausstellungen etwas zu suchen haben.”

Footnote 785, page 350: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, December 9, 1908, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681.

Original Quote: “für Amerika: Stieglitz, Steichen, White; England: Annan, Davison; Frankreich: Demachy; Deutschland: ich. Diese 7 hätten nach meinem Vorschlag als internat. Ausstell.-Leiter oder sonst etwas zu gelten, die die besten ihrer Länder weiter heranziehen: Du bringst deine Secession, ich gib Spitzer, Kurz, ich meine: den Grundstock wäre gebildet.”

Footnote 788, page 350: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, January 31, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681.

Original Quote: “Ich denke aber selbstverstandlich nicht daran, Dein Werk etwa irgendwie beeinflussen zu wollen, sondern will Dir im Gegenteil die Wege für die internat. Ausbreitung ebnen.” … “Von mir aus mag es genügen, wenn Camera Work als Organ der freien Internat. Vereinigung der Kunstphot. anerkannt wird.” … “Camera Work mit deutschen Texten erscheinen wurde. Es ist dies, so sehr Du meine “Naivitat“ belächeln wirst, kein Witz; sondern ich bitte Dich, einmal ernstlich den Gedanken zu erwägen. Es muss iqiq (sic!) eine internat. Photosecession (der Name gefällt mir, wie Du weist, nicht besonders, weil er nicht absolut original, sondern etwas geborgt ist) werden oder sonst etwas, mit eigenem Organ. Ich denke aber selbstverständlich nicht daran, Dein Werk etwa irgendwie beeinflussen zu wollen, sondern will Dir im Gegenteil die Wege für die internat. Ausbreitung ebnen. Von mir aus mag es genügen, wenn Camera Work als Organ der freien Internat. Vereinigung der Kunstphot. anerkannt wird. Willst Du weitersehen, umso besser. Die elendste deutsche Schundliteraten wächst von Tag zu Tag an; die Zeitschrift des Paris Photo-Club ist eingegangen, überall triumphiert das jammervollste Dilettantentum. Zum Teufel, darauflos mit schwerem Geschütz!”

Footnote 790, page 351: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, February 4, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681.

Original Quote: “Du weisst, dass Du Dich auf mich absolut verlassen kannst, und es wird mir heute zur Gewissheit, dass das Bündnis der Internat. Vereinigung, das aus

412

zwingenden Gründen für die eine Dresdener Ausst. konstruiert wurde, wirklich eine innere Berechtigung hat und zu einer bleibenden Institution von grösster Tragweite werden kann. Du kannst im Sommer die Fäden, die lose bereits geknüpft sind, zusammenziehen.”

Footnote 793, page 351: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, November 9, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681.

Original Quote: “Die Kerle werde das, was Ihr ihnen gesagt, eben noch verdreht haben – und durch solche Existenzen werden wir uns doch nicht auseinanderbringen lassen! Lächerlich! Mein Fehler war der, dass ich Dir das ganze Aktenmaterial nicht in die Hand gegeben habe; in München fand sich nicht die Zeit dazu, und, nachdem Du nicht zum Minister gehen wolltest, sah ich auch nicht die unbedingte Nötigkeit; dachte allerdings auch nicht entfernt daran, dass Du mit den Kerlen Fühlung nehmen würdest. Sonst hätte ich mindestens erwartet, dass Du ihnen einen Höllentanz wegen unbefugter Reproduktion etc. etc. aufspielen würdest.”

Footnote 794, page 352: Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, March 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681.

Original Quote: “Lieber stecke ich die ganze Sache auf wie mit so einem Gesindel weiter zu thun haben“ (…) Nie wieder mache ich so etwas mit – ich bin fertig. Nichts wie Augen, Zeitverlust, Geldanlagen (…) u. dann noch dazu Fusstritte. 25 Jahre habe ich es ausgehalten – ich kann einfach nicht mehr. Mein Gewissen ist mir zu wertvoll. Ich versprach Dir mein Möglichstes zu thun u. ich habe mein Wort gehalten. Versprechen werde ich so etwas nie wieder. Du wirst sehen dass es mit einer stetigen Internationalen nicht geht. Die “Grossen“ wollen nicht zusammen halten wenn es zu einem “Opfer“ kommt, Du wirst ja sehen. Nur von einem Amerikaner bin ich sicher: Steichen. White auch – es ist aber ein aber, da er nicht die Stärke von Steichen besitzt u. Gutfreund mit Allen bleiben will. Bei mir gibt es nur eine gerade Linie u. deshalb werde ich wahrscheinlich mit der Zeit so ziemlich allein dastehen.”

Footnote 795, page 352: Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, May 22, 1912, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 682.

Original Quote: “Ja, die Neukömmlinge die haben ja keine Ahnung wie ihnen die Arbeit erleichtert wurde durch uns; sogar Steichen, White, Coburn u. Co. Fanden sie schon durch uns erleichtert.”

413

Footnote 798, page 353: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, October 10, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681.

Original Quote: “Was Fraptie betrifft, so hat er sich mir ganz offen als Gegner unserer Bestrebungen erklärt; richtiger gesagt: er meinte, die Bilder der Internat. Sind gut, aber es giebt andere, die mindestens ebenso künstlerisch sind.”

Footnote 799, page 353: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, November 24, 1909, YCAL MSS 85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681.

Original Quote: “Die Einladung fur Budapest wirst Du erhalten haben. (…) Der Direktor von Pest hat mir sehr warm geschrieben wegen der Teilnahme der Internat. Vereinigung. Es tut mir eigentlich leid, dass Ihr ablehnen werdet, weil 1. Die Ausst. im Palast der bildenden Künste abgehalten und vor allen, weil der Direktor der Kunstreferat des Kultusministeriums ist – also eine sehr einflussreiche Persönlichkeit.”

Footnote 817, page 359: Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, October 14, 1912, YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 682.

Original Quote: “Du verstehst nicht was Picasso u. Co. mit der Photographie zu thun haben! Schade dass Du den Text in Camera Work nicht lesen kannst, vielleicht würde er dir zum Verständniss helfen. Ich will ja mit Camera Work ein u. für alle mal erzielen dass man eine Idee bekommen kann was man in der Photographie künstlerisch geleistet hat; zweitens, welchen Kampf es gekostet die Welt dazu zu erzwingen die Kunstphotographie (ich hasse das Wort!) zu respektiere; und drittens hauptsächlich was Photographie ethisch bedeutet, ob angewandt durch die Kamera (Photographie im reinsten Sinne) oder durch den Maler mit Pinsel (Photographie im geistigem Sinne ebenso viel als ob die Camera benutzt wäre). Nur finde ich dass die Kunst heutzutage aus dem Abstrakte (ohne Subjekt) wie Picasso, u.s.w. und dem Photographischen besteht. Die sogenannte Photogr. Kunst ob mit Camera erzielt oder mit Pinsel ist nicht die höchste Kunst. Gerade wie wir vor der Thür einer neuen Socialen Zeit stehen, so stehen wir auch in der Kunst vor einer neuen Ausdrucks – der wirklicher Ausdruck (Abstraktion). Schade dass ich mich nicht besser in Deutsch ausdrucken kann.”

Footnote 818, page 360: Heinrich Kühn to Alfred Stieglitz, November 24, 1912, YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 682.

Original Quote: “Deine Ausführungen über abstrakte und naturalistische (photographische) Kunst haben mich riesig interessiert; wir sind ganz derselben Ueberzeugung bis auf einen Punkt. Meine Ansicht geht dahin, dass abstrakte Kunst

414

durchaus nicht neues ist. Dass im Gegenteil der Hochstand im alten Egypten erreicht wurde. Dieser Primitivismus, der ganz aus der Natur genommen ist und darum natürlich wirkt, zeigt höchste Kultur, Stil. Was die Leute aber heute versuchen, ist ein Los von der Natur. Und dabei können sie nichts, sondern ihr Primitivismus ist erkünstelt. Wie wurde Jahre lang mit einem Recept der alten deutschen Holzschneider: starker Kontur und Füllung der Flächen durch Wasserfarbe Kokettiert! Bei Cezanne wars noch interessant, weil er wirklich viel zu sagen hatte und viel konnte. Aber bei seinen Nachfolgern! Jeder, der ein neues Recept findet, einen neuen Bluff, wird vergöttert. Und ich bin überzeugt, dass es sich nur um Aeusserlichekiten handelt, nicht um Kunst. Ich verstehe die hohe Kunst der altegyptischen Sperber, Affen und Sphinxe, der dorischen Tempel, der Cartiatyden, Broucen und Marmorstilisierungen restlos und ich fühle, dass da Kollossale Kerle hinter der Arbeit standen. Aber bei den heutigen Experimentoren, den Futuristen und Neo-Futuristen!!, meine ich, dass leere Wünsche ohne zwingendes Können – nehmen wir also an, dass überhaupt ein guter Wille dahinter steckt – niemals zu einem Ergebnis fuhren.”

Footnote 822, page 364: Alfred Stieglitz to Heinrich Kühn, March 1, 1909, YCAL MSS85, Series I, Box 29, Folder 681.

Original Quote: “Ich weiss dass Du für die Sache arbeitest, so wie ich. Alles andere ist Nebensache.”

415 FIGURES

Fig. I.1. Alfred Stieglitz, Self-Portrait, 1894. Gelatin silver print, 6 1/8 x 4 1/4 in. Philadelphia Museum of Art, From the Collection of Dorothy Norman, 1969, Philadelphia, acc. no.: 1969-83-39. https://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/65969.html

Fig. I.2. Alfred Stieglitz, Frank Simon Herrmann, 1894. Platinum print, 6 3/8 x 4 1/12 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.188. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art- object-page.205716.html

416 Fig. I.3. Unknown Artist, Wilhelm Hasemann, 1980s. 8 x 5 1/2 in. Private Collection.

Fig. I.4. Possibly Alfred Stieglitz, Heinrich Kühn, 1904. 3 1/2 x 5 in. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn.

417 Fig. 2.1. Alfred Stieglitz, My Father, 1894. Platinum print, 7 3/8 x 5 1/12 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.224. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205689.html

Fig. 2.2. Frank S. Herrmann, Horse Head. Pencil on paper. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series III, Box 246, Folder 4342.

418 Fig. 2.3. Alfred Stieglitz, Professor Vogel, 1886. Platinum print, 4 5/8 x 3 7/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.26. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object- page.205723.html

Fig. 2.4. Alfred Stieglitz, The Harvest, Mittenwald, 1886. Platinum print, 3 7/8 x 3 1/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.24. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205705.html#inscription

419 Fig. 2.5. Joseph Obermeyer, Anticipation, before 1893. After Alfred Stieglitz, ed., The American Amateur Photographer 5, no. 10 (October 1893): 479. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp. 39015020054527&view=1up&seq=7

Fig. 2.6. Joseph Obermeyer, A Hot Day, before 1894. After Alfred Stieglitz, ed., The American Amateur Photographer 5, no. 10 (October 1894): 403. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp .39015024235858&view=1up&seq=427

420 Fig. 2.7. Joseph Obermeyer, Delight in Disorder, before 1894. After Alfred Stieg- litz, ed., The American Amateur Photog- rapher 6, no. 1 (January 1894): 5. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp. 39015024235858&view=1up&seq=19

Fig. 2.8. Erdmann Encke, Cabinet Card Portrait with Louis Schubart and Joseph Obermeyer, 1887. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS 85, Series IV, Box 133, Folder 2540.

421 Fig. 2.9. Alfred Stieglitz, Relief of Queen Louise, 1886. Platinum print, 4 1/2 x 6 9/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.29. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205709.html

Fig. 2.10. Alfred Stieglitz, From a Lenbach Sketch, 1886. Platinum print, 7 1/16 x 4 7/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.28. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object- page.205713.html

422 Fig. 2.11. Alfred Stieglitz, The Card Players, 1886. Platinum print. Private Collection. After Sarah Greenough, Alfred Stieglitz—The Key Set (National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. / Harry W. Abrams, 2002), xv.

Fig. 2.12. Alfred Stieglitz, Throwing Dice, 1886. Photostat, 8 7/8 x 6 in. Philadelphia Museum of Art, From the Collection of Dorothy Norman, 1969, Philadelphia, acc. no.: 1967-285-206. https://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/147347.html

423 Fig. 2.13. Wilhelm Hermann Vo- gel, Musikalische Unterhaltung nach Terburg. After Hermann Wilhelm Vogel, ed., Lehrbuch der Photographie (Berlin: Robert Oppenheim, 1870), 423. https://books.google.de/books?id =rjYaAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR1#v= onepage&q&f=false

Fig. 2.14. Knoll Photography Studio, Alfred, Leo, and Julius with friends. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS89, Series VII, Box 17, Folder 235.

424 Fig. 2.15. Alfred Stieglitz, A Good Joke, 1887. Platinum print, 4 5/8 x 5 13/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.30. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35179.html

Fig. 2.16. Ludwig Passini, A Tasso Reader, 1871. Engraving after painting. After Wilfrid Meynell, “Ludwig Passini,” in The Modern School of Art, vol. 4, London, 1886–88: 188. https://archive.org/details/modernschoolofar04meynuoft/page/188

425 Fig. 2.17. Alfred Stieglitz, On the Bridge – Chioggia, 1887. Platinum print, 8 1/16 x 6 1/4 in. National Gallery of Art, Washing- ton, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.31. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art- object-page.35180.html

Fig. 2.18. Alfred Stieglitz, Stones of Venice, Chioggia, 1887. Platinum print, 6 3/8 x 8 15/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.40. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35189.html

426 Fig. 2.19. Alfred Stieglitz, Maria, Bellagio, 1887. Gelatin silver print, 8 13/16 x 6 5/8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.33. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art- object-page.35182.html

Fig. 2.20. Alfred Stieglitz, Leone, 1887. Platinum print, 7 5/16 x 4 3/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.35. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object- page.205720.html

427 Fig. 2.21. Alfred Stieglitz, Initial Leone, 1887. After Alfred Stieglitz, ed., The American Amateur Photog- rapher 6, no. 1 (January 1894): 18. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id= mdp.39015024235858&view=1up& seq=32

Fig. 2.22. Alfred Stieglitz, Marina, 1887. Platinum print, 6 x 4 5/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.32. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205668.html

428 Fig. 2.23. Alfred Stieglitz, The Wanderer’s Return, 1887. Platinum print, 8 1/4 x 6 1/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.37. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art- object-page.205692.html

Fig. 2.24. Alfred Stieglitz, Sun Rays—Paula, Berlin, 1889. Platinum print, 9 1/8 x 7 5/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.57. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35206. html

429 Fig. 2.25. Alfred Stieglitz, A Study. After Alfred Stieglitz, ed., The American Amateur Photographer 5, no. 2 (February 1893): 48. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id =mdp.39015020054527&view=1up &seq=76)

Fig. 2.26. Alfred Stieglitz, An Intermission, 1887. Lantern slide. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series IV, Box 132.

430 Fig. 2.27. William B. Post, The Critic, 1894. After Alfred Stieglitz, ed., The American Amateur Photographer 7, no. 5 (May 1895): 193. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015067096589;view=1up;seq=211

Fig. 2.28. William B. Post, Portrait of Alfred Stieglitz and Frank Her- rmann, 1894. Platinum print, 9 1/8 x 7 1/4 in. Private Collection. After November 13, 1980, lot 12, pre-production of the original photograph, in Phillips New York, Stieglitz, Stei- chen and The Photo-Secession (New York: Phillips New York, 1980), 4. The book is in the collection of the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS89, Series II, Box 4, Folder 90.

431 Fig. 2.29. Alfred Stieglitz, November Days, 1887. Gelatin silver print, 7 5/8 x 5 11/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Wash- ington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.51. https://www.nga.gov/collection/ art-object-page.35200.html

Fig. 2.30. Erdmann Encke, Edward, Alfred, Leo, and Julius Stieglitz, 1883. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS89, Series VII, Box 17, Folder 236.

432 Fig. 2.31. Alfred Stieglitz, Sketching in the Bois, 1894. Platinum print, 6 1/4 x 8 3/8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.113. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205699.html

Fig. 2.32. Alfred Stieglitz, On the Seine, 1894. Photogravure, 6 9/16 x 10 11/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.100. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35249.html

433 Fig. 2.33. Adolphe Braun, Lerolle – Au Bord de la Route – No. 1087, late 19th century. Albumen silver print, 3 1/8 x 4 5/8 in. Philadelphia Museum of Art, Gift of Sue Davidson Lowe, 1968, Philadelphia, acc. no.: 1968-69-23. https://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/147433.html

Fig. 2.34. Alfred Stieglitz, A Wet Day on the Boulevard, 1894. Carbon print, 6 3/4 x 11 11/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.108. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35257.html

434 Fig. 2.35. William Thomas Smedley, A Wet Day on the Parisian Boulevard. After Ulrich Keller, “The Myth of Art Photography: An Iconographic Analysis,” in History of Photog- raphy—An International Quarterly 9, no. 1 (1985): 16.

Fig. 2.36. Alfred Stieglitz, A Vene- tian Well, 1894. Platinum print, 8 1/8 x 6 5/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.121. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art- object-page.205743.html

435 Fig. 2.37. John Singer Sargent, Venetian Water Carriers, 1880/82. Oil on canvas, 25 3/8 x 27 13/16 in. Worcester Art Museum, Worcester, acc. no.: 1911.30. https://worcester.emuseum.com/objects/23670/venetian-water-carriers?ctx=efdcc9c7- 6e6f-4654-a60e-d36f45ce6d8d&idx=0

Fig. 2.38. Ludwig Passini, Young Venetian Woman at the Fountain, 1891. Watercolor, 34 x 22 1/2 in. Private Collection. http://www.kunsthandel-stradmann.de/de_ ludwig-johann-passini-junge-venezianierin- am-brunnen.html

436 Fig. 2.39. Frank Simon Herrmann, Gossips at the Well, 1893. Oil on canvas. Private Col- lection. After Peter Hastings Falk, Frank S. Herrmann—A Separate Reality (exh. cat.) (White Plains, NY: Museum Gallery of the White Plains Public Library, 1988), 8.

Fig. 2.40. Alfred Stieglitz, Portrait of Frank “Sime” Herrmann, 1894. Platinum print, 4 5/8 x 6 1/2 in. Private Collection. After November 13, 1980, lot 11, pre-production of the original photograph, in Phillips New York, Stieglitz, Steichen and The Photo-Secession (New York: Phillips New York, 1980), 4. The book is in the collection of the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS89, Series II, Box 4, Folder 90.

437 Fig. 2.41. Alfred Stieglitz, Reflections, 1894. Platinum print, 6 1/8 x 8 3/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.135. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205777.html

Fig. 2.42. Alfred Stieglitz, Watching for the Return, 1894. Carbon print, 7 1/16 x 13 3/8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.208. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35359.html

438 Fig. 2.43. James Craig Annan, On a Dutch Shore, 1892. Photogravure, 6 x 9 in. Minneapolis Institute of Art, Minneapolis, acc. no.: 64.34.8.2. https://collections.artsmia.org/art/11119/on-a-dutch-shore-james-craig-annan https://www.nationalgalleries.org/art-and-artists/79087/dutch-shore-also-known-fish-auction-zandvoort

Fig. 2.44. Frank S. Herrmann, Diary with Sketches, 1894. Pencil on paper. Private Col- lection. After Peter Hastings Falk, Frank S. Herrmann—A Separate Reality (exh. cat.) (White Plains, NY: Museum Gallery of the White Plains Public Library, 1988), 14.

439 Fig. 2.45. Frank S. Herrmann, Fisher folk in Katwijk, 1894. Private Collection. After Peter Hastings Falk, Frank S. Herrmann—A Separate Reality (exh. cat.) (White Plains, NY: Museum Gallery of the White Plains Public Library, 1988), 12.

Fig. 2.46. Frank S. Herrmann, Fisher folk in Katwijk, 1894. Private Collection. After Peter Hastings Falk, Frank S. Herrmann—A Separate Reality (exh. cat.) (White Plains, NY: Museum Gallery of the White Plains Public Library, 1988), 12.

440 Fig. 2.47. Frank S. Herrmann, Good Morning, before 1894. After Alfred Stieglitz, ed., The American Amateur Photographer 6, no. 10 (October 1894): 441. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id =mdp.39015024235858&view=1u p&seq=467

Fig. 2.48. Alfred Stieglitz, Mending Nets, 1894. Platinum print, 6 1/8 x 8 1/4 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.200. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205679.html

441 Fig. 2.49. Frank S. Herrmann, Netmending Women in the Dunes. Museum of Modern Art, New York. J.B. Neumann Papers IV.B.4., unidentified negatives, Box III of III, acc. no.: 0684.

Fig. 2.50. Frank S. Herrmann, Old Brownstone Rooftops and New Construction, 1920s–30s. Gouache. After Peter Hastings Falk, Frank S. Herrmann—A Separate Reality (exh. cat.) (White Plains, NY: Museum Gallery of the White Plains Public Library, 1988), 31.

442 Fig. 2.51. Alfred Stieglitz, Old and New New York, 1910. Photogravure, 8 x 6 1/4 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.1278.34. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art- object-page.204621.html

Fig. 2.52. Frank S. Herrmann, Skyscraper New York. Gouache, 8 1/2 x 11 in. Private Collection.

443 Fig. 2.53. Frank S. Herrmann, My Chimney, 1930s. Gouache. After Peter Hastings Falk, Frank S. Herrmann—A Separate Reality (exh. cat.) (White Plains, NY: Museum Gallery of the White Plains Public Library, 1988), 22–23.

Fig. 2.54. Alvin Langdon Coburn, Gables, printed 1904. Photogravure, 7 7/16 x 5 7/8 in. Minneapolis Institute of Art, acc. no.: 64.34.6.1. https://collections.artsmia.org/ art/64176/gables-alvin-langdon- coburn

444 Fig. 2.55. Alfred Stieglitz, Back of Little House, 1933. Gelatin silver print, 7 9/16 x 9 1/2 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.769. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.35920.html

Fig. 3.1. Alfred Stieglitz, My Room (Studio)14 East 60th Street, 1891. Lantern slide. After Sarah Greenough, Alfred Stieglitz—The Key Set (Washington, D.C.: National Gal- lery of Art / New York: Harry W. Abrams, 2002), xxxv.

445 Fig. 3.2. Fedor Encke, Portrait of Alfred Stieglitz, Lake George, July 17, 1877. Sketchbook. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series XI, Box 244, Folder 4321.

Fig. 3.3. Fedor Encke, Portrait of Alfred Stieglitz, Lake George, September 2, 1877. Sketchbook. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series XI, Box 244, Folder 4321.

446 Fig. 3.4. Unknown Artist, Wilhelm Hasemann and Edward Stieglitz. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS84, Series IV, Box 145, Folder 2666.

Fig. 3.5. Wilhelm Hasemann, Schwarzwälder Bauernhof (Gutach). Oil on canvas, 18 1/2 x 26 in. Private Collection. After Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heinemann, eds., Wilhelm Hasemann und sein Weg zum Schwarzwaldmaler (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Li- ebich, 2012), 178.

447 Fig. 3.6. Edward Stieglitz, Five drawings after Wilhelm Hasemann, November 8, 1882. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series XI, Box 244, Folder 4322.

Fig. 3.7. Wilhelm Hasemann, Der Oberbauernhof im Vorfrühling. Oil on canvas, 12 x 16 1/2 in. Private Collection. After Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heinemann, eds., Wilhelm Hasemann und sein Weg zum Schwarzwaldmaler (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Li- ebich, 2012), 224.

448 Fig. 3.8. Edward Stieglitz, Five drawings after Wilhelm Hasemann, November 25, 1882. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series XI, Box 244, Folder 4322.

Fig. 3.9. Wilhelm Hasemann, In der Dorfgasse, 1911. Oil on canvas, 25 x 20 in. Private Col- lection. After Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heinemann, eds., Wilhelm Hasemann und sein Weg zum Schwarzwaldmaler (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Li- ebich, 2012), 185.

449 Fig. 3.10. Alfred Stieglitz, Black Forest Studio, 1894. Lantern slide. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series IV, Box 132.

Fig. 3.11. Alfred Stieg- litz, Portrait of Edward Stieglitz – Lake George, 1888. Gelatin silver print, 2 11/16 x 2 11/16 in. Philadelphia Museum of Art, Gift of Mrs. William Howard Schubart, 1968, Philadelphia, acc. no.: 1968-45-5. https://www.philamuseum. org/collections/permanent/147353.html

450 Fig. 3.12. Fedor Encke, Woman’s Head, From Back, late 19th century. Albumen silver print, 5 3/16 x 4 in. Philadelphia Museum of Art, Gift of Sue Davidson Lowe, 1968, Philadel- phia, acc. no.: 1968-69-34. https://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/147477.html

Fig. 3.13. Wilhelm Hasemann, Rückenansicht. Oil on wood, 11 x 9 in. Private Collection. After Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heine- mann, eds., Wilhelm Hasemann und sein Weg zum Schwarzwald- maler (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Liebich, 2012), 139.

451 Fig. 3.14. Fedor Encke, Wilhelm Hasemann, Portrait of Encke, Hasemann and Edward Stieglitz, 1882. Pencil drawing on paper. After Künstleralbum “Zum Löwen” (Gutach: Schwarzwälder Freilichtmuseum Vogtsbauernhof, 1885).

Fig. 3.15. Wilhelm Hasemann, Mäd- chen am Spinnrad. Oil on canvas, 24 x 18 1/2 in. Private Collection. After Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heine- mann, eds., Wilhelm Hasemann und sein Weg zum Schwarzwaldmaler (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann- Liebich, 2012), 196.

452 Fig. 3.16. Alfred Stieglitz, A Study, Gutach, 1894. Platinum Print, 7 5/8 x 5 7/8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.177. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art- object-page.205704.html

Fig. 3.17. Wilhelm Hasemann, Edward Stieglitz playing cards, October 28, 1882. Pencil drawing on postcard. Hasemann Album, 1882–1885. Beinecke Rare Book and Manu- script Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series XI, Box 245.

453 Fig. 3.18. Wilhelm Hasemann, Portrait of Alfred Stieglitz playing Mühle, August 3, 1883. Pencil drawing on Postcard. Hasemann Album, 1882–1885. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series XI, Box 245.

Fig. 3.19. Wilhelm Hasemann, Portrait of Alfred Stieglitz lounging on the sofa. Pencil drawing on postcard. Hasemann Album, 1882–1885. Beinecke Rare Book and Manu- script Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series XI, Box 245.

454 Fig. 3.20. Alfred Stieglitz, The Flatiron, 1903. Photogravure on beige, thin slightly textured laid Japanese paper, 12 7/8 x 6 9/16 in. Na- tional Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.272. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object- page.35423.html Reproduced in Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 4 (1903), plate 1. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/camera_ work1903_4/0057/image

Fig. 3.21. Alfred Stieglitz, Two Towers – New York, 1911. Photogravure, 7 11/16 x 6 1/4 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.1280.36. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.204634. html Reproduced in Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 44 (1913), plate 2. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg. de/diglit/camera_work1913_ 44/0013/image

455 Fig. 3.22. Alfred Stieglitz, Sun- light Effect, 1890. Platinum print, 7 3/16 x 5 13/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.65. https://www.nga.gov/collection/ art-object-page.205769.html

Fig. 3.23. Wilhelm Hasemann, Die Wallfahrtskirche, 1891. Oil on canvas, 60 x 47 in. Staatliche Kunsthalle, Karlsruhe, acc. no.: 827. https://www.kunsthalle-karlsruhe. de/kunstwerke/Wilhelm-Gustav- Friedrich-Hasemann/Vor-der-Wall- fahrtskirche-in-Triberg/BAB9AE7F42- A4BBCE4533929F29B6AD18/

456 Fig. 3.24. Wilhelm Hasemann, Junges Mädchen. Oil on canvas, 24 1/2 x 18 1/2 in. Private Collection. After Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heinemann, eds., Wilhelm Hase- mann und sein Weg zum Schwarz- waldmaler (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Liebich, 2012), 180.

Fig. 3.25. Wilhelm Hasemann, Erika, 1894. Oil on canvas, 28 x 21 in. Private Collection. After Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heinemann, eds., Wilhelm Hase- mann und sein Weg zum Schwar- zwaldmaler (Gutach: Kunstmu- seum Hasemann-Liebich, 2012), 222.

457 Fig. 3.26. Alfred Stieglitz, Weary, 1890. Platinum print, 5 13/16 x 8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.68. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205686.html

Fig. 3.27. Alfred Stieglitz, Self-Portrait, Cortina, 1890. Platinum print with mercury, 5 1/4 x 7 1/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.63. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205731.html

458 Fig. 3.28. Alfred Stieglitz, Sunlight, 1894. Platinum print, 5 x 6 3/8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.175. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205756.html

Fig. 3.29. Wilhelm Hasemann, Wasser- häusle. Woodcut. After Wilhelm Jensen, Der Schwarzwald (Berlin: Bechtermünz, 1890), 83.

459 Fig. 3.30. Alfred Stieglitz, A Gutach Peasant Girl, 1894. Platinum print, 7 3/16 x 5 1/8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.165. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205684.html

Fig. 3.31. Wilhelm Hasemann, Vor der Haustür, 1876. Oil on canvas, 15 x 12 in. Private Collection. After Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heine- mann, eds., Wilhelm Hasemann und sein Weg zum Schwarzwaldmaler (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann- Liebich, 2012), 147.

460 Fig. 3.32. Alfred Stieglitz, The Truant, Mittenwald, 1886. Platinum print, 7 11/16 x 5 1/2 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.25. https://www.nga.gov/collection/ art-object-page.205714.html

Fig. 3.33. Wilhelm Hasemann, Geteilte Freude, doppelte Freude, 1884. Oil on canvas, 20 x 15 in. Private Collection. After Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heine- mann, eds., Wilhelm Hasemann und sein Weg zum Schwarzwald- maler (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Liebich, 2012), 160.

461 Fig. 3.34. Alfred Stieglitz, The Letter Box, 1894. Platinum print, 8 5/16 x 6 1/4 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.155. https://www.nga.gov/collection/ art-object-page.205757.html

Fig. 3.35. Fritz Reiss, Am Briefkasten, before 1890. Water- color. After Fritz Reiss, Lustiges aus’m Schwarzwald (Stuttgart; Leipzig: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1890), 34.

462 Fig. 3.36. Alfred Stieglitz, Gutach Children, 1894. Platinum print, 5 5/16 x 7 3/8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.166. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205685.html

Fig. 3.37. Alfred Stieglitz, Early Morn, 1894. Platinum print, 5 1/4 x 7 3/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.170. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.205690.html

463 Fig. 3.38. Alfred Stieglitz, The Old Mill, 1894. Platinum print, 8 11/16 x 6 9/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.158. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art- object-page.35309.html

Fig. 3.39. Joseph Wilson Swan, Holy Street Mill, 1866. After Ulrich Keller, “The Myth of Art Photog- raphy: An Iconographic Analysis,” in History of Photography—An International Quarterly 9, no. 1 (1985): 12.

464 Fig. 3.40. Fritz Völlmy, Drawing of a Mill, 1883. Pencil drawing. After Künstleralbum “Zum Löwen” (Gutach: Schwarzwälder Freilicht- museum Vogtsbauernhof, 1885).

Fig. 3.41. Wilhelm Hasemann, Eine Mühle in Gutach, before 1890. Woodcut. After Wilhelm Jensen, Der Schwarzwald (Berlin: Bechtermünz, 1890), 93.

465 Fig. 3.42. Fritz Reiss, Hammer- schmiede, before 1890. Watercolor. After Fritz Reiss, Lustiges aus’m Schwarzwald (Stuttgart; Leipzig: Deutsche Verlagsanstalt, 1890), 17.

Fig. 3.43. Helene Lang (Fink), Die Dorfschmiede, 1890. Pencil drawing, 9 1/2 x 7 1/2 in. Private Collection. After Ansgar Barth and Waltrud Heinemann, eds., Wilhelm Hasemann und sein Weg zum Schwarzwaldmaler (Gutach: Kunstmuseum Hasemann-Liebich, 2012), 112.

466 Fig. 4.1. Unknown artist, Wilde Bande, 1888/1889. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn.

Fig. 4.2. Unknown artist, section of a magazine page with handwritten remark by Hein- rich Kühn. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn. After A. Horsley-Hinton, “Unser Club,” in Wiener Photographische Blätter 1, no. 10 (October 1894): 211. http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno-plus?aid=wpb&datum=1894&page=218&size=45

467 Fig. 4.3. Unknown artist, Hans Watzek, Heinrich Kühn, and Hugo Henneberg on Lake Garda, 1897. Glass positive. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn.

Fig. 4.4. Unknown artist, section of a magazine page with handwritten remark by Hein- rich Kühn. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn. After A. Horsley-Hinton, “Unser Club,” in Wiener Photographische Blätter 1, no. 10 (October 1894): 212.

468 Fig. 4.5. Alfred Stieglitz, Snapshot – From My Window, Berlin, 1904. Photogravure, 8 5/16 x 6 3/4 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.1274.36. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.204686. html

Fig. 4.6. Alfred Stieglitz, Snapshot – From My Window, New York, 1902. Photogravure, 7 1/4 x 5 1/8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.1274.35. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art- object-page.149584.html

469 Fig. 4.7. Heinrich Kühn, Alfred Stieglitz, 1904. Platinum print, 9 15/16 × 7 15/16 in. George East- man Museum, Rochester, acc. no.: 1978.0565.0006. https://collections.eastman.org/ objects/147160/alfred-stieglitz

Fig. 4.8. Heinrich Kühn, Alfred Stieglitz looking in Camera, 1904. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn.

470 Fig. 4.9. Hugo Henneberg, Landscape, before 1897. Gum bichromate print. After F. Schiffner, ed., Wiener Photographische Blätter 4, no. 11 (November 1897): 229. http://anno.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/anno-plus?aid=wpb &datum=1897&page=236&size=45

Fig. 4.10. Hans Watzek, Wiesenblumen, 1897. Gum bichromate print, 14 x 10 in. Staatliche Kunstsammlung Kupferstich- Kabinett, Dresden, acc. no.: D1899-187. https://skd-online-collection.skd.museum/Details/Index/1117973

471 Fig. 4.11. Heinrich Kühn, Children on the Banks of a Creek, 1898. Positive after original glass negative. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn.

Fig. 4.12. Paul Pichier, Arkadien. After Friedrich Matthies-Massuren, ed., Die Photog- raphische Kunst im Jahre 1904. Ein Jahrbuch für künstlerische Photographie, vol. 3 (1904), 77.

472 Fig. 4.13. Alfred Stieglitz, Landscape The Tyrol, 1904. Platinum print, 9 1/4 x 12 3/8 in. The J. Paul Getty Museum, Los Angeles, acc. no.: 84.XM.156.10. http://www.getty.edu/ art/collection/objects/62742/alfred-stieglitz-landscape-the-tyrol-american-1904/

Fig 4.14. Heinrich Kühn, Landscape, 1904. Positive after original glass negative. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn.

473 Fig. 4.15. Alfred Stieglitz, Ploughing, 1904. Photogravure, 7 3/8 x 9 5/8 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.1272.41. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.204681.html

Fig. 4.16. Heinrich Kühn, Pflügender Bauer, 1904. Platinum print, 12 3/16 × 15 7/8 in. George Eastman Museum, Rochester, acc. no.: 1971.0061.0006. https://collections.eastman.org/objects/106097/pflugender-bauer-plowing-farmer

474 Fig. 4.17. Heinrich Kühn, Alfred Stieglitz Photographing‚ Ploughing. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS85, Series IV, Box 144, Folder 2664.

Fig. 4.18. Alfred Stieglitz, Horses, 1904. Photogravure, 7 1/8 x 9 1/16 in. National Gal- lery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.2.1272.34. https://www.nga.gov/collection/art-object-page.204675.html

475 Fig. 4.19. Hans Watzek, Horses, 1903. Gum bichromate print, 27 1/2 x 21 in. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn.

Fig. 4.20. Gertrude Käsebier, My Neighbors, 1905. Photogravure, 6 1/4 x 8 1/8 in. Phila- delphia Museum of Art, Gift of Carl Zigrosser, 1966, Philadelphia, acc. no.: 1966-205- 10(5). https://www.philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/144723.html

476 Fig. 4.21. Heinrich Kühn, Walther and Lotte at the Easel, 1909. Gum bichromate print, 18 1/4 x 13 1/8 in. Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, acc. no.: 84.797. https://emuseum.mfah.org/objects/8687/walter-und-lotte-an-der- staffelei?ctx=6bec58b2d992d8c461 8d2b7a5b61eb154ae7fbc8&idx=53

Fig. 4.22. Heinrich Kühn, Study of Walther and Lotte at the Easel, 1909. Pencil on paper. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn.

477 Fig. 4.23. Heinrich Kühn, Walther im Atelier. Positive after original glass negative. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn.

Fig. 4.24. Heinrich Kühn, Study of Walther im Atelier. Pencil on paper. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn.

478 Fig. 4.25. Heinrich Kühn, Dutch Women on the Beach, 1898. Heliogravure, 5 1/2 x 9 in. Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg, Collection Juhl, acc. no.: P2015.20.11. https://sammlungonline.mkg-hamburg.de/de/object/Frauen+am+Strand/P2015.20.11/ mkg-e00127963

Fig. 4.26. Heinrich Kühn, Holländerin in der Düne [Dutch woman in the dune], 1901. Gum bichromate print, 18 × 30 7/16 in. George Eastman Museum, Rochester, acc. no.: 1971.0061.0007. https://collections.eastman.org/objects/106098/hollanderin-in-der-dune- dutch-woman-in-the-dune

479 Fig. 4.27. Heinrich Kühn, Women Repairing Nets on the Beach at Katwijk aan Zee, 1904. Positive after original glass negative. Private Collection; Estate Hein- rich Kühn.

Fig. 4.28. Heinrich Kühn, Hikers in Front of a Cloud, 1912–13. Gum bichromate over platinum. Albertina, Vienna, acc. no.: Foto2001/16. https://sammlungenonline.albertina. at/#/query/b8520966-3bd3-476d-9735-adf596c5058b

480 Fig. 4.29. Alfred Stieglitz, The Last Load, 1890. Colored platinotype. After Alfred Stieglitz and F. C. Beach, eds., The American Amateur Photographer 6, no. 1 (January 1894): 2. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id =mdp.39015024235858&view=1u p&seq=16

Fig. 4.30. Frank Eugene Smith, Dr. Raab and Wife playing Chess, 1907. Autochrome, 7 x 5 in. Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, New Haven, YCAL MSS 85, Series IV, Box 130, Folder 2528. [Incorrectly identified as Mr. and Mrs. George Bernard Shaw.] https://brbl-dl.library.yale.edu/vufind/Record/3520017

481 Fig. 4.31. Alfred Stieglitz, Miss S. R., 1904. Photogravure, 8 1/16 x 5 1/2 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.1272.40. https://www.nga.gov/collection/ art-object-page.204680.html

Fig. 4.32. Alfred Stieglitz, Sophie Raab, 1907. Autochrome, 4 5/16 x 3 1/16 in. National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C., acc. no.: 1949.3.289. https://www.nga.gov/collection/ art-object-page.35440.html

482 Fig. 4.33. Alfred Stieglitz, section of a Camera Work page with handwritten remark by Alfred Stieglitz, 1905. After Alfred Stieglitz, Camera Work: A Photographic Quarterly, no. 12 (1905), Museum für Kunst und Gewerbe, Hamburg, acc. no.: P2013.253.

Fig. 4.34. Alfred Stieglitz, Exhibition of Viennese Photographs – 291, 1906. Gelatin silver print, 6 7/16 x 8 11/16 in. Philadelphia Museum of Art, From the Collection of Doro- thy Norman, 1967, Philadelphia, acc. no.: 1969-285-195. https://philamuseum.org/collections/permanent/147334.html

483 Fig. 4.35. Section of a Camera Work page, “The ‘International Group’ at the Dresden Exposition,” 1909. After Alfred Stieglitz, Camera Work: A Pho- tographic Quarterly, no. 28 (1909): 48. https://digi.ub.uni-heidelberg.de/diglit/ camera_work1909_28/0070/image

Fig. 4.36. Heinrich Kühn, Alfred Stieglitz, 1907. Collotype. Photoinstitut Bonartes, Vienna.

484 Fig. 4.37. Alfred Stieglitz, Heinrich Kühn, 1907. Autochrome. Private Collection; Estate Heinrich Kühn.

485