Alfred Stieglitz, Camera Work, and the Organizational Roots of The

Home , Camera Notes, Camera Work, Pamela Colman Smith, Paul Haviland

CanadianReview of AmericanStudies/Revue canadienne d'?ttdes am•ricaines Volume28, Number2, 1998, pp. 37-79 37

"The Safenessof StandingAlone": Alfred Stieglitz,Camera Work, and the OrganizationalRoots of theAmerican Avant-Garde

J.M. Mancini

The SecessionistIdea is neither the servant nor the product of a medium. It is a spirit.Let us sayit is the Spiritof the Lamp;the old and discolored,the too frequentlydespised, the too often discarded lamp of honesty;honesty of aim,honesty of self-expression,honesty of revolt againstthe autocracyof convention.The Photo-Secessionis not the keeperof thisLamp, but lights it whenit may[.] ("TheEditors' Page," Camera Work 18 (April1907), 37)

The Secessionistscare little for popularapproval, insisting upon works, notfaith, and believing that their share having been done in producing thework, the public must now do the rest. A fewfriends, and these of understandingmind, a fewtrue appreciators, this is all theyexpect and all theydesire. (Hartmann 1904, 47) Canadian Reviexv of American Sin&es 38 Revue canadienne d'•t•Mes ambricaines

Stieglitz,"Seer" and Organizer

By manyaccounts, modern art arrivedon Americanshores sometime after 1905,due in largepart to theefforts of photographerAlfred Stieglitz. If the 1913Armory Show (and its peevishpublic reception) marked modernism's officialAmerican coming-out party, Stieglitz's intimate exhibits of worksby Rodin, Matisse,and Picassobetween 1905 and 1912 servedas the new art's formalletter of introductionto a smallerand morepowerful viewersh•p (Dijkstra1969, Homer 1977, Zilczer 1985). Not merelyan importerbut an artistin his own right,Stieglitz has also been widely creditedwith trans- formingphotography into one of theprimary venues for modernistexperi- mentationin theUnited States (Orvell 1989;Haines 1982), • a transformation whichparallelled Frank Lloyd Wright's drive in architecturetowards a ver- nacularAmerican modernism (Crunden 1982, 133-62). Althoughscholars disagreeon thedegree to whichStieglitz himself initiated American photography'sturn away from the academic,pictorialist style of the turn of the centurytowards the hard-edged,geometric productions of the following decades(Arrowsmith and West 1992; Bunnell 1993, 1-38; Homer 1983; Peterson1993; Pettuck 1981; Watson 1991), few havedenied Stieglitz and the photographicschool he engendereda central place in the pantheonof American visual modernism) Yet, Stieglitz'stalent as an artistand connoisseur of thenew only partially explainshis success within the art world,both occluding his relationship to his predecessorsand prohibiting a morenuanced understanding of photo- graphicmodernism's emergence and rise to preeminencein the United States)Stieglitz's proficiency asan art-world organizer, as much as the fresh- nessof his vision,transformed the face of photographicproduction in America,and provided a modelfor artistsworking in othermedia, as well. 4 As both a preserverof the heavilyorganizational approach to artistic productionchampioned by his Gilded Age predecessors, and an innovator on thoseforms, Stieglitz gave new shape to Americanunderstandings of artistic creation.s Like the Gilded Age institution builders who had sought to promote the developmentof art in Americathrough the establishmentof museums,schools, and criticism, Stieglitz made a placefor photography amongthe fine arts both by developinginstitutions devoted to its advance- ].M. blancini/ 39 mentand through constant negotiation for itsacceptance among the already establishedstructures of the art world (Keller1984). 6 Stieglitzreimagined the nature and function of criticism in significant ways. If he utilized time-testedinstitutional means to build a placefor artistic photographyin a literalsense, he used criticism toachieve a more specific butmore metaphorical construction, building his circle into an avant-garde, presumablyindependent ofart-world ties, and constructing theirworks as the inevitable,natural next step in thedevelopment of artistic photography. By billingthe promotion of a particularset of producersand productions asa crusadefor the promotion of artisticphotography per se, Stieglitz closed off alternativedefinitions of artisticphotography and represented his associates asthe only and self-evident future of art (Trachtenberg1989, ch. 4). 7 Throughthis refashioning of criticism, and through the construction of a verticallyintegrated organizational structure that mirrored contemporary movestowards consolidation in businessand industry,Stieglitz secured a lastingplace in theAmerican cultural imagination not only for modernist photography,8but for the avant-garde 9itself.

VerticalIntegration

Stieglitz'sart-world empire consisted of three central organizations: the Photo-Secession,founded in 1902,Camera Work, a journalwhich ran from 1903to 1917,and the "Little Galleries" at 291Fifth Avenue in New York, whichbegan operation in 1905(Naef 1978, 116-53). Self-consciously modelledafter the various European splinter groups from which it tookits name,the Photo-Secession joined photographers andsympathizers in an associationdevoted to theacceptance of photography asa validartistic medium.Not only a convenientgate-keeping device, whereby membership readilydistinguished insiders from outsiders, theassociation alsohelped to shapethe boundariesof a unitedfront for entryinto competitions, exhibitions,and the like, undergirding aesthetic sympathy with the bond of formalassociation. Membership within the Photo-Secession, likemembership withinthe Society of AmericanArtists, the Ten, and the range of other formaland informal associations that artistsformed throughout the nine- teenthcentury, provided artists not only with sheltered opportunities for Canadian Review of American Studies 40 Revue canadsenned'ktudes ambr•cames exhibitionwithin the fold, but offered solidarity and common cause to those with grievancesagainst the hanging committees that determinedthe com- positionof mostlarge, public exhibitions. As the publicface of the Photo-Secession,the Little Galleries("291") servedas the starting point from which Stieglitz could develop and control a contextof displayamenable to Secessionistneeds, providing a seemingly "independent"space in whichmembers' works could be displayedwithout outside"interference." As a site for the presentationof works by artistsin nonphotographicfields, it servedas a forgein whichto fashionSecessionist links with the largerart community,which, given the group's desire to legitimatephotography as an art, was paramount.Exhibitions of this sort publiclydemonstrated the kinshipbetween artistic photography and more traditionalmedia, and providedan artisticcontext in which viewerscould locateSecessionist works. •ø Best of all, aninclusive exhibition policy served to integratethe Photo-Secessionwithin the art world by forging l•nks betweenSecessionists and artistsin otherfields, while simultaneouslyat- testingto its much-vauntedindependence from art-worldpolitics and art- world conventions,which dictatedthat photographyand the other arts shouldoccupy separate and distinct spheres. TMThus while the gallery served someof the samepurposes of manynineteenth-century photographic galleries-mostobviously, the public displayof its founder'sphotographic creations--291differed significantly from venuessuch as Mathew Brady's "galleryof greathistorical figures" and Napoleon Sarony's gallery of actors andother notables in two respects (Orvell 1989, 8-9; 79-81). 29 l's emphas•s on photography'sformal and aesthetic qualities, rather than on its subject matter,demonstrated a turn away from previous uses of themedium as a historical,pedagogical or documentarytool. Moreover, Stieglitz's decision to buildties within the art worldby demonstratingthe linksbetween photographyand other media, rather than to reachout to a broaderpublic through appealsto itstaste for thefamous and heroic, also marked a significantde- parturefrom previous practice. The journalCamera Work served as the linchpin of Stieglitz'senterprise. Althoughthey insisted on its independence, Stieglitz and fellow editor Joseph T. Keileyconsistently used the journal not onlyto promotethe acceptance of photographyasan art, but to keepreaders abreast of Secessionsuccesses J.M. Mancini / 41 andto publicizeexhibitions at theLittle Galleries. •2Not merelyan adver- tisingsupplement, Canera Work lay at theheart of a moresubtle enterprise: Stieglitz'sconstruction of the Photo-Secession asan artistic splinter group, successfulfor thegenius of itsworks, rather than its dependence on art-world politics.For the many readers who could not experience their exhibitions first-hand,Cantera Work was the Photo-Secession.•3If the Little Galleries providedan amenable context of displayfor modernistworks, Stieglitz's abilityto puta positivespin on all thattook place therein ensured that that contextextended far beyond the literal space bounded by the gallery walls. 34 Leavingnothing to chance,Stieglitz supervised artistic production from beginningto end,integrating creation, display, and criticism under one dominion. CanteraWork supported the third element in Stieglitz's empire, the Photo- Secession.Within the first year of publication,the iournal's editors devoted a smallsupplement to answering the "many... enquiriesasto thenature andaims of thePhoto-Secession and requirements of eligibility to membership"("The Photo-Secession," Camera Work 3 [July1903], supplement). In thisperiodically updated and reprinted supplement, theeditors presented the Secessionto the publicas a unifiedmovement, dedicated to a singular aestheticgoal, a cohesivenesswhich the group itself did not always share. By includinga"brief r•sum(• ofthe character ofthis body of photographers" and a rosterof theassociation's membership along with a statementof artistic purpose,theeditors also promoted thegroup's internal cohesion, providing Secessionistswithboth a convenientlysanctioned setof self-definitions and a hierarchizedindex of fellowmembers with whichto describeand locate themselves within the movement. Comprisedofa Council, Fellows, and Associates, theSecession hadroom enoughfor collectors,writers, and other supporters, aswell as photographers.While photographers always held a primaryposition within the organization,Stieglitz and his associates recognized theneed to forge allianceswith sympathetic nonpractitioners. Although the title "Associate" reinforcedthe distance between makers and mere auxiliaries, Camera Work's editorspapered over this distinction bystressing theunity of purpose thetwo ofgaining entry therein. While claiming that associateship demanded "no requirementsexcept sincere sympathy with the aims and motives of the Canadian Review of American Studies 42 Revue canadienne d'•;t1•desambricaines

CameraWork

TIlE MAGAZINE •VITH- OUT AN "IF"-FEARLESS-- INDEPENDENT-\VITH- OUT' FAVOR [] [] []

BY M •,RIUb DK ZA• AS

Photograph1. Mariusde Zayas, Camera Work, "The MagazineWithout an 'If' ' (AlinedStieglitz), in Cameral¾%rk 30 (April1910). (Photograph made by the Balti- moreMuseum of Art.) Reprintedwith permissionof the BaltimoreMuseum of Art. ]. M. Matwire/ 43 groupsshared. •sThe editors did their best to lend cachet to supportingroles, moreover,by emphasizing the exclusiveness of their ranks and the difficulty Secession,"the editorsinsisted that

it mustnot be supposedthat thesequalifications will be assumedas a matterof course, as it hasbeen found necessary to deny the application of manywhose lukewarm interest in the causewith which we are so thoroughlyidentified gave no promiseof aidingthe Secession. ("ThePhoto-Secession," Camera Work 3 Uuly1903], supplement)

To securethe enthusiastic cooperation of collectors,critics, and other non- artistsessential to thesecessionist cause, supporters had to bereassured that they,too, "aid[ed]the Secession"in meaningfulways. The urgeto formadvantageous alliances outweighed merely professional considerations.Although Camera Work's purpose was, on the mostobvious level,to challengeand redefine existing boundaries within the artistic guild in orderto makeroom for photographers,it would be a mistaketo interpret the Photo-Secessionassimply a fledglingprofessional association. Camera Work brimmedwith demandsthat photographersbe treated as artists. Nonetheless,its writersbristled at the suggestionthat artistsin otherfields couldevaluate photography on the basisof their professionalexperience alone.As a distinctand quicklydeveloping medium, they argued,photo- graphyresisted easy assessment even by experienced art-world professionals (Stieglitz1905, 50-51; Watson-Schutze1903, 46-47). Cuttingshort sug- gestionsthat photographicjuries be madeup of palnters and sculptors, Cam- eraWork regular Charles Carfin •6 wrote that

printsthat mighthave passed for notablea shorttime ago havebeen supersededin characterand quality by later productions;and even amongthe photographersthemselves it is only thosewho havekept themselvesin touchwith the importantexhibitions that are in a position to judgeof the kindof workwhich should be acceptedas representative of thelatest phase of themovement. Without such expert assistance a jury of paintersand sculptorswould hardlyprove satisfactory in the judgingof photographs,for sofew of themhave taken enough interest Canadian Rev•e•v of American Studres 44 Revue canachenned'6tz•les ambricatnes

to acquaintthemselves with the subject. Except as an assistance to their ownwork, they do not treatit seriously,and their attitudetoward a printis generally one of surprise that it shouldbe as good as or noworse than it is. (1903, 44)

Membershipwithin the photographic profession also did little to guarantee sympatheticorkind treatment inCamera Work. When the well-credentialed professionalphotographer Julius C. Strauss"presumed to actas spokesman forthe photographic pictorialists," Stieglitz quickly undercut his authority. Freelyacknowledging Strauss's status as "a well-known professional portrait- photographer,"Stieglitz denied that membership in the photographicpro- fessionqualified him to speakfor thegroup. "No doubt,"the editor wrote,

Mr. Strausswas actuated by what he conceivedto be the bestinterests of photography,and for taking the initiative is entitledto muchcredit; buthis connection with themodern pictorial movement has hardly been suchas to havegiven him the knowledgeand experiencenecessary to impressthe authorities with the history and consequent rights of photographyas a fineart. ("PictorialPhotography: The St. Louis Exposition,"Camera Work 1 Uanuary1903], 37) •v

CameraWork's hostility to mereprofessionalism in photography stemmed from the Secession'sdesire to be defineddifferently from other American artists'associations, which often were organizedaround common profes- sionalaspirations rather than shared artistic styles or methods.Like Carfin, $tieglitzdescribed artistic photography asa movement,with rules of associa- tionderived from aesthetics rather than professional protocol. As constructed in the pagesof CameraWork, the artisticsplinter group was a movement whichtranscended professional boundaries, holding its own within the art world as an organizationwhich simultaneouslyrelied on and deniedits integrationwithin that community. • Stieglitz'sexplanation of Strauss'sineptitude as an interpreterof pic- torialismexposes another function of the metaphorof "movement."In questioningStrauss's capacity to speakin "thebest interests of photography," J.M. Ma.cm• / 45

Sneglitzfirst excluded Strauss from commenting on the"modern pictorial movement."Quickly, though, he extendedthis ban to all artisticphotography,questioning Strauss's familiarity with "thehistory and consequent rightsof photographyas a fineart." By blurring the distinction between the two, Stieglitzexpanded Secession terrain to includenot only their own productions,but all artisticphotography. Moreover, he expanded their role beyondthe productionto the interpretationof artisticworks, claiming exclusiveright to photography'shistory, as well asits future.By drawing boundariesbetween Secessionists and professionals in this way, Stieglitz both laid thebasis for Secessionunity through self-interpretation, and helped to excludealternative visions of the possibilitiesfor artisticphotography. Stieglitz'sformation of an elaboratematrix of institutionalsupport for the p•ctorialistproject attests to hisprofound debt to organizationaldevelop- mentsin the GildedAge art world. Convincedthat America's clearest path to artisticgreatness lay in the establishmentof institutionsdevoted to the display,dissemination, and explication of art, GildedAge art loversdotted the landscapewith museums,schools, and criticaloutlets (Harris [1966] 1982,Horowitz 1976, Miller 1966).Although nineteenth-century institution buildershad generally represented the connection between organization and artisticresults in rathervague terms, proposing that greater public art con- sciousnessfostered by new museums, for instance, would contribute to a gen- eralizedimprovement in Americanartistic production, some artists' groups recognizedorganization's more tangible potentials. While these groups gen- erallyrelied on association for theirstrength, they occasionally turned to cri- ticismas well. The Societyfor theAdvancement of Truthin Art, thus,relied heavilyon itsjournal, the New Path,in itscampaign to transformAmerican art (Ferberand Gerdts 1985). The Photo-Secession'sorganizational structure reflected Stieglitz's thor- oughunderstanding of the need for a multilayered,institution-building ap- proachto successfulartistic production. • Stieglitz himself had broken new groundin thisrespect, attending to the 1896 mergerthat hadcreated the CameraClub, New York, and savedthe New York CameraClub and the Societyof AmateurPhotographers from stagnation (Peterson 1993, 12-16; Homer1983, 34-3 9). Stieglitzalso took charge of thegroup's journal, Cam- eraNotes, hoping that the regular publication of criticism,examples of good Canadian Review of American Studres 46 Revue canadienned¾.tudes ambricmnes photographicwork, and information about the club and "what is goingon in thephotographic world at large"would inspire creative advances among its readership(quoted in Peterson1993, 16). In CameraWork, Stieglitz recognized a new and powerful use for criticism, surpassingGilded Age practice in significantrespects. Unwilling to embrace fullythe methods of hispredecessors, who had used criticism to promotenot onlythe developmentof particularart institutionsbut the importanceof institutionbuilding per se, Stieglitz used criticism to morecomplicated ends. Denyingthe importance of institutionbuilding to artisticproduction, Stieg- litz usedCamera Work to createa fictionalinstitution as powerful as the museum,the market,or any of its nineteenth-centurypredecessors: the avant-garde.If Gilded Age writers had seen criticism as the glittering thread which tied institutionto institution,which bound artist to art world, and which drew the observer'seye to the brilliant fabric that resulted,the Secessionistsunderstood that criticism could be used just as easily to opposite ends.While Stieglitzand his associates wove collectors, artists, and critics together,the thread spun by CameraWork concealed rather than revealed. In theirhands, Camera Work produced not art-world unity, but the mythof non-affiliation.

"The Safenessof StandingAlone"

If Stieglitzwas to denythe organizational roots of pictorialism'ssuccess, it wouldnot have served his purpose to portraythe Photo-Secession asmerely an improvementupon or surrogatefor existingart-world organizations. Throughoutthe nineteenth century, a successionof rebel groups had emerged withinthe American art world, each claiming to overthrowthe stale methods of the "establishment,"and to representartists' true and future needs(see Morgan 1978).They soughtto replacethe "establishment,"however, with new institutions.As it turnedout, most of theseassociations eventually developedan unhappy resemblance to their predecessors, falling into com- fortableroutines of nepotismand sterility and spurning new works in favour of thetired productions of alreadyestablished members. 2øJust decades after itsfounding in the 1870s,for example,the Society of AmericanArtists was sheddingits own splinter groups such as the Ten, whono longerbelieved J.M. Mancini/ 47 thatthe associationprovided an environmentsuitably distinct from that of the Academy(Gerdts et al. 1990). Stieglitzproposed something different. While CameraWork did revealthe conventionalaspects of the Photo-Secession'sstructure--division into multiplelayers of membership,special distinction for artisticmembers, membershipby selectionratheeditors also used the journal to constructthe Secessionasa differentkind of entity,reliant solely on aesthetic sympathy for itscohesion. 2•Caffin promoted this vision most succinctly, arguing that "The Photo-Secession,in fact, is all that oneparticular strong personality stands for, syndicated"(Caffin 1907a,27). Caffin'sattribution of Secessionim- perativeto a single,unified will maskedthe complicated negotiations within thephotographic community that haddetermined the group's membership, divertingattention instead to thegroup's aesthetic principles. zz Nonetheless,it still suggestedthat onedominant personality (Stiegtitz's) mighthave forced the restto submit.Stieglitz's own analysisof theSeces- sion'scharacter thus furtherunderplayed its organizationalaspects, both avoidingthe use of organizationalmetaphors (syndication) and eschewing all suggestionof the group'sdominance by any one individual.Displacing agencyonto a vaguespirit of honesty,Stieglitz described the Photo-Secession as the

Spiritof theLamp; the old anddiscolored, the too frequentlydespised, the too oftendiscarded lamp of honesty;honesty of aim,honesty of self- expression,honesty of revoltagainst the autocracyof convention.The Photo-Secessionis not the keeper of thisLamp, but lights it whenit may. ("TheEditors' Page," Camera Work 18 [April 1907],37-38)

Byinsisting that the Photo-Secessionwas an aestheticmovement rather than an organization,Stieglitz distanced himself from GildedAge relianceon institutionsas the toolsof artisticprogress, and was able to naturalizehis ownaggressive role in thegroup's formation. By identifyinghis organization withEuropean Secession movements which had overtly criticized the market, moreover,Stieglitz was able to rhetoricallymask the Photo-Secession's pro- foundindebtedness to corporate sponsors such as Kodak. 23 Thus $tieglitz set thestage not only for thedevaluation of institutionbuilding as a viableroute Canadian Review of American Studies 48 Revue canadienne d'dtudes ambr•caines to artisticprogress, but for the naturalization of artisticproduction under the avant-garde. If, in describingthe Secession as a single-minded"Keeper of the Lamp," Stieglitztreaded lightly on the issueof the group'sorganizational char- acteristics,other writers boldly denied any such attributes to the association. PaulHaviland, for one,exclaimed that

we aredealing, not with a society,not with an organization,as muchas with a movement.The Secession is not so much a schoolor a following asan attitudetowards life; andits motto seemsto be:re'Giveevery man who claimsto havea messagefor the world a chanceof beingheard.' (1909, 22)

Onceagain, Camera Work's metaphorical description of the Secessionas a movement,rather than a formalassociation, both providedthe rhetorical basisfor Secessionunity through common practice, and argued for itsunique claimto "honest,"free, and therefore natural production. Affiliation with a movementhad payoffs for participants, aswell, rhetorically uniting disparate producersand allowing them to forgetthe moreearthly components of the artisticlifempolitical intrigue, the constant struggle for fameand success•in favourof a purernotion of artisticproduction. In 1906, the Photo-Secessionachieved a milestonein its struggleto gain acceptancefor photography as an independent artistic medium: an invitation to mountan exhibit at thePennsylvania Academy of FineArts. The academy had,after all, "helpedto initiatethe Salon movement in Philadelphia,"only to close"its doors on the photographersand their claims"a few yearslater (Keiley1906, 49-50). A signof the Photo-Secession'scoming-of-age, this invitationinspired Camera Work insiderJoseph T. Keileyto pen a brief historyof thegroup, in whichhe trumpeted Secessionist triumphs and set the stagefor its futureaccomplishments? Keiley did morethan merely doc- umentthe Secession's arrival, however; under the guiseof recountingthe group'spast affairs, he usedhis critical history actively to shapeand mould itsidentity. Burying the organizational content of Secessionistactivity under a barrageof claimsabout the group's independence, Keiley transformed a momentof patentinstitution building into evidence not only that thegroup J.M. Mancmi149 Canadian Review of American Studies 50 Revue canadienne d'gtudes am•rmames hadstood apart from the surrounding art world, but that its autonomyhad guaranteedits success. Eventhough his announcementheralded the fact that a hallowedarts institutionhad agreed to supportand shelter the Secession, Keiley maintained that the invitationproved the Photo-Secession'sremove from art-world intrigue(Keiley 1906). The Photo-Secession, hewrote,

hadkept apart from all entanglementswith otherorganizations. Effort wasrepeatedly made to affiliateit with otherorganizations, or to draw it intocontroversy. Experience had taught it the lessonof thesafeness of standingalone. Into controversyor politicsit alwaysdeclined to enter. On theother hand, it opposedno recognition,and sought to secureit for its own exhibitions.(1906, 49-50)

By presentingindependence asthe cause of presentand indisputable events (thePhoto-Secession's current success, exemplified by the Pennsylvaniaex- hibition),Keiley lent it the forceof historicalfact. In this way, Kelley surpassedthe celebratory and promotional rhetoric endemic within Gilded Agecriticism, positing a newrelationship between critics and the eventsat hand.Most GildedAge writers had rendered their observations about the art world rathertransparently, perhaps noting the placeof particularevents withinthe larger trajectory of Americanprogress in the arts.Keiley's history hada moredefinite endpoint. Keenly aware of the invitation'spotential to confirma largerset of claimsabout the Photo-Secessionand pictorialism generally,Keiley transformed it from a simplemarker of successinto evi- dencefor the group'sindependence from art-world affiliations, and for its single-mindedadherence to an aesthetic, rather than a political,goal. 2s Stieglitzand his associates employed a widevariety of rhetoricalstrategies to shapean independentSecession. Powerful among them was the editors' consistentappeal to a centraldichotomy by whichthey judged all opportunities for exhibition. Camera Work divided exhibition situations into two clearlymarked categories: those in whichthe Photo-Secessionwas freeto displayits works, unencumbered by outsideinterference, and those in which the taint of externalmeddling prohibited viewers from experiencingpic- torialistworks in the correctmanner. Insisting that the Secessionitself have j.M. Mancini / 51 CanadianReview of AmericanStudies 52 Revuecanadienne d' gtudesambricmnes full controlover the judgment and selection of itsmembers' productions, CameraWork announced in 1903that "it isthe policy of thePhoto-Secession to exhibitonly upon invitation, and this necessarily implies that itsexhibit mustbe hung as a unitand in itsentirety, without submission to anyjury" (Editors1903b, 50). Suchproclamations emphasized the unity and impene- trabilityof the Photo-Secession,while warningtrespassers to respectits boundaries?If the Secession worried that juries' invasive appraisal of its membersas individuals would compromise its independence,it also fretted that outsideorganizers lacked the capacityto showphotography to its best advantage.S.L. Willard expressedthis fear in the journal'ssecond issue, writingof the Third Salonat Chicagothat

remarkson juriesand on hangingmay seemless pertinent than a cri- ticismof theprints; but a poorsetting will mara goodplay; cheap typo- graphyand binding a goodbook; inexperienced performers an artistic musicalcomposition. Pictorial photography may well claim a place amongfine arts, but dignity and sanity are needed in itsevery relation if it is to attractthe approvaland recognitionof peopleof taste and cultivation.(1903, 49).

By relinquishingits works to the inexperthands of outsiders,Willard suggested,the Secession would never be able to convincethe world of photography'strue merit. Stieglitz'sappeal to "independence"asthe standard for Secession entry into exhibitionsserved several purposes. It allowedhim to explainthe Secession's uneasinessconcerning competing institutions, and enabled him to distance the groupfrom the manyfriendly associations it had made.Moreover, it allowedStieglitz to performthis distancing while continuing to portraythe approvalof theseoutside groups as evidenceof the Secession'smerit. In describingSecessionist participation in exhibitionsoutside the Little Gal- leries,the editorsoscillated between self-congratulation for havingbeen recognizedby galleries,critics, and other art-world players, and carefully placedbarbs about the inadequacyof non-Secessioniststo make aesthetic decisions.In assessingone of "thetwo mostimportant exhibitions of pic- torialphotographs held in recentyears in thiscountry..., at the Corcoran J.M. Mancmi / 53

Art Galleriesin Washingtonand at the CarnegieArt Galleriesin Pittsburg [sic]in February,"Camera Work announced that

at Pittsburgthe interestis equallygreat, the exhibitionbeing still open at thiswriting. In orderto insurethe complete carrying out of ourideas, the Directorof the Photo-Secession,accompanied by Messrs.Steichen, Keiley,and Coburn,traveled both to Washingtonand Pittsburgto superintendthe hangingof the prints,a matterof greatimportance whichis generallyunderestimated, aswell asformally to openthe halls to the public.The localpress showed much interest, devoting a large amountof spacewith the usual inadequate newspaper illustrations to the Secessionand all its works. ("Photo-SecessionNotes," Ca•nera Work 6 [April1904], 39)

Disguisedby theirmildness of tone,and inserted within the larger, con- gratulatoryframework oftributes to Photo-Secession success, these criticisms nonethelesshit theirmark, proving the distance between Secessionists and their peers. CameraWork's dichotomization of independence and interference served anothercrucial purpose, explaining and naturalizing the foundingof the LittleGalleries. The development ofinternal structures for the dissemination anddisplay of Secessionist productions layat the heart of the group's success, drawingattention from all corners ofthe art world and providing a physical locusfor promoting the group's cohesion. Stieglitz and his associates insisted, however,that the significance ofthe Photo-Secession's organizational activity layin onlyone, particular, result: the establishment of a "neutral" and "independent"spacein which "quality" alone determined content, 27and in whichviewers could encounter pictorialist works without the taint of outside prejudiceor politics.2•This had been necessary, Keiley argued, because "academicand art-organization exhibitions, with few exceptions, have de- generatedinto being conservators ofaesthetic snobbery or of the commer- cializationof art"(Keiley 1911, 23). Casting all outsideinvolvement, even onthe part of friendlyparties, as a hindrancetothe proper display of pic- torialistworks, Camera Work argued that the creation of a whollySecession- runexhibition environment was not only desirable, but absolutely necessary Canadian Review of American Studies 54 Revue canadiennedYtudes arn6r•ames for pictorialismto thrive.By developinga rhetoricalcontext in which "Secessionist"came to standfor "independent,"Stieglitz and his associates emptiedthe Little Galleriesof all contextualimport; in the presumably neutralspace of the Little Galleries,the editorssuggested, works spoke loudly,clearly, and forcefullyfor themselves,necessarily winning an au- dienceof thrilledsupporters. In this way, CameraWork transformedan organizationalissue--how to promoteand disseminate art works--intoa purelyaesthetic matter, independent of itsinstitutional context. In reality,Stieglitz and his associates paid close attention to the detailsof display,creating contexts that enhancedthe receptionof Secessionistpro- ductionsand distinguishedPhoto-Secession exhibitions from thoseof its competitors?Besides arguing for photography'sinclusion among the fine artsthrough aconcurrent display of drawings,paintings, and photographs, 3ø Stieglitzsurrounded Secessionist productions with the conventional trappings of artisticdisplay. This gained him the scorn of criticCharles Fitzgerald, who sneered that

theexhibition at presentopen at No. 291 FifthAvenue is simply reeking with 'art' downto the very cataloguewith its eccentriclettering, its prettylittle gold seal, and its ragged edges. There is surely nothing want- ing in the way of refinements;if thereis a question,it is whetherall theseexcrescences are traceableto a foundationas solidas the photo- grapherswould have us believe. They suggest, not thestruggles of ex- ploration,but the easy satisfaction of establishedconvention, not to say the refinementof decay.([1905] 1906,33)

More importantthan the cataloguewas Stieglitz'smanipulation of the physicalenvironment ofdisplay, which Stieglitz used to distinguishedPhoto- Secessionexhibitions from thoseof its contemporaries.As early as the 1870s,artistsin Europeand the United States had challenged contemporary modesof display,arguing that crowdedwalls and the "skying"of certain paintingsabove beholders' line of sight had preventedmany works from beingadequately seen, and that the placementof insiders'work "on the line"reinforcedacademy-sponsored hierarchies. In response to this,as much asto outrightrejection, many artists had called for a radicalrevision of ex- ].M. Alarwini/ 55

i, Canadian Review of American Studies 56 Revue canadienne d'•tudes am•rtcatnes hibitionpractices. From the 1870sonward, for example,James McNeill Whistlerstaged a series of exhibitions which showcased his own work within a contextentirely of hisown invention. 3• Leaving no detailsto chance, Whistlernot only directedthe placementof pictures--hungin singleor doublefile acrossthe line of sight--butselected frames, materials and colour for thewalls, and the designand contentof exhibitioncatalogues. In one case,the artisteven instructed guests to wear blackand white, so as not to disturbhis carefully devised colour scheme) 2 WhileWhistler provided a well-knownalternative to conventionalmodes of display--hehad orchestratedtwo showsin New York in the 1880s-- Stieglitzfollowed his example only in part.Although Whistler's exhibitions had emphasizedharmony between works and their environments,his in- tentionwas never to effacecontext entirely. The Whistlerianexhibition was alwaysan event. In contrast,Stieglitz hung works sparsely within a minimally decorated,neutrally coloured space (see photographs 2 and 3), therebynot only distinguishingexhibitions at the Little Galleriesfrom spectacularly crowdedAcademy-style shows (see photograph 4), • butbolstering claims thatthe Secession's only concern was the production of meritoriousworks. This physicalsimplification of exhibitionsettings again enabledthe naturalizationof theSecessionist context of display,by presenting a carefully constructedenvironment as proceedinglogically from worksthemselves. Supportingthis view, Caffin suggested that the contextlessnesscould be an exhibition'sprimary virtue, writing of oneshow that "I havenever seen an exhibitionpresented with so discreet a taste.... The secretof itsdiscretion ß . . consistedin adoptingthe photographicprint itselfas the unit of the schemeof arrangement.This sounds obvious enough, but observethe result of conformingto it logically"(Caffin 1906, 33, emphasisadded). 34 The cry of "independence"helped to mask the full importanceof Secessionistinvolvement in outsideexhibitions, as well. AsKeiley described it, theExhibition at the Pennsylvania Academy possessed a special "Place and Significance"in the historyof the Photo-Secessionbecause it hadprovided thegroup with a powerfulopportunity to displayits work but had compelled the organizationto "surrenderno groundgained" (Kelley 1906, 50). The Photo-Secessiondemanded control over the context of exhibition to avoid undueinterference, to besure; equally important, however, was their need J.M. Mancim / 57 for the conventionaltrappings of artisticdisplay. The contrastbetween Photo-Secessionreaction to theterms of participationat Philadelphia and at theSt. Louis World's Fair demonstrates Stieglitz's realization of theprofound degreeto whichthe contextof displayinfluenced works' reception. The Pennsylvaniaexhibition provided the group with an opportunity to explain andpromote a pictorialist,Secessionist platform; moreover, it offeredit an amenableand overtly 'artistic' institutional backdrop, and, equally important, a degreeof controlover the interpretivespace of the exhibitioncata- logue.The academy,in short,offered the chanceto presenta unitedand exclusivefront, and marked Secessionist works unmistakably asartistic creations.In contrast,participation at St. Louiswould havedemanded the dis- persalof the group'soeuvre among the lesser productions of nonmembers. Asphotographs, the Secessionists' works would have been banished from the F•neArts section at St. Louis,made to standnot with paintingsor etchings, butwith the productionsof professionalportrait photographers and other hacks.Not surprisingly,Stieglitz boycotted the St. Louisexhibition, describingthe decisionof somepictorialists to participateas "a pity"("Photo- SecessionNotes--St. Louis,"Camera Work 5 [January1904], 50). Stieglitz'sreal innovation was to expandthe Secessionist context of display beyondthe gallery walls, to fit the muchless tightly bounded space created by CameraWork, and to usethis enlargedcontext to directobservers' responsesto Secessionistproductions. (All the whileinsisting, of course,that theSecession's admirers had come to judgmentthrough direct and unmedi- atedinteractions with its works.)Stieglitz used Camera Work as an alter- nativeforum for the disseminationof Secessionistworks, the main attraction of thejournal being its many high-quality photographic plates? Indeed, the editorsinsisted that the platesdeserved the sameattention as any original printsdisplayed at exhibition.as While Camera Work served,in a literal sense,as an extensionof 291, Stieglitzalso used the journal to buildand broaden the discursive context of Secessionistdisplay. 3v To do this,Stieglitz relied not on the group'sindependence,but on the reputationof otherswithin the art world.Like Gilded Agewriters who haddrawn attention to friendlyEuropean responses to the CentennialExhibition and other signsof Americanprogress in the arts, Stieglitztraded on the reputationof Europeas the capitalof art, frequently Canadian Review of American Studies 5• Revue canadienned'•tudes am•ricaines notingpositive European criticism of the Secession) • Continuing sensitivity to America'sposition of obscuritywithin the internationalart scenedi- minishedthe likelihood that readers would challenge praise from such lofty quarters.To preemptcharges of arrogancefor having so often repeated these wordsof acclaim,and as a meansof reinforcingtheir own disentanglement fromtheir authors, Camera Work's editors mincingly refrained from printing themall, writingthat

in recentnumbers we spokeof printingsome reviews of the Photo- Secession Invitation Collections which had been sent to various Europeancapitals. We had hopedto publishin this numberextracts fromthese articles, but upon mature consideration have deemed it best to omit them. The Photo-Secession and its workers have so often been accusedof over-weaningarrogance and conceit that the eulogistictone of all thesecritiques would seem, if reprintedby us,to lendsome truth to thesecharges, and therefore, to saveour modesty, we feelconstrained to foregopublishing these reviews. (ExhibitionNotes," Camera Work 11 [July1905], 57)

In casecritical tributes did not proveto readersthat the Secessionwas a contender,the editorsalso frequently inventoried the many reputablein- stitutionswho had thrown their support pictorialism's way. 3• To ensurethat such referenceswould not be taken as mere toadyingto the art-world establishment,Camera Work also contributed a helpful index of well-known rebelgroups with which readers could associate the Secession? An innovativeeditorial strategy supported Camera Work's rhetorical appealsto independence,arguing not onlyfor the sovereigntyof the Photo- Secession,but the autonomyof the journalitself. Avoiding a fixed staff, Stieglitzpeopled its pages with a constantlyevolving cast of critics,devoting onlya limitedamount of spaceto official,editorial opinion. Not satisfied with themere solicitation of outsideviews, the editorsoften reprinted large blocksof textdirectly from competing publications. Implying that Camera Workhad escaped from even their own control, the editors expressed a "wish to reiteratefor the nth time that the articles published in themagazine do not necessarilyreflect [ou]r own views. As a matterof fact,few of themdo. It has J.M. Mancini/ 59 beenour policy--and it will continueto beour policy--to print such articles as we deem timely, interesting,or provocativeof ideas"("Our Articles," CameraWork 17 [January1907], 41). In truth,Camera Work did supplyreaders with a wide arrayof viewson artisticand photographicissues, not all of them friendly.The journal's critical"regulars," moreover, did not cheerunceasingly for theSecessiomst cause.The usuallysympathetic Carfin brandishedhis own critical independence,lacing his commentaries with acerbic expositions onthe egotism andfolly of artists,photographers included? Although roomy enough for multiplevoices, Camera Work was hardly a havenfor dissent. Printing hostile views,but certainly not embracingthem, the journal'seditors took steps to ensurethat readers could distinguish challenges from the "party line." More thanwilling to flex editorialmuscle to keepunruly opinions in line, the editorsenforced these distinctions through a complexstrategy of editorial contextualization.This strategy enabled readers to locatethe relationship not onlyof particularauthors to the Secessionistcore, but to determinethe proximityof theirindividual views to currentSecession opinion. While allowingStieglitz to marginalisethe views of theSecession's critics, this stra- tegyalso provided a powerfulmechanism bywhich to maskthe bonds be- tweenfriends. If the Secessionwere to passas an autonomousassociation, independentof politics, intrigue, or influence,thiswas of criticalimportance. CameraWork, for example,frequently contained numerous "outside" reviewsof importantart-world events. The publicationof thesecommen- taries,culled from disparate sources and printed serially, signalled Secession confidenceand nonchalance concerning art-world squabbles. Yet, if thepres- enceof theseoutside views demonstrated the Secession'swillingness to take onall comers, their presentation told a verydifferent story. Often printed in muchsmaller typeface than the surrounding sanctioned text, these extracts usuallysucceeded a brief introduction that provided readers with the keys to decipheringand distinguishingbetween the narrativesthat followed. Publishinga panorama of responsesto the 1908exhibit of Rodindrawings at the Little Galleries,thus, the editorsprefaced the extracts with the fol- lowingexclamation: "It maybe said to thecredit of NewYork--provincial asit undoubtedlyisin artmatters generally--that inthis instance a truer and morespontaneous appreciation could nowhere have been given to these Canadian Review of American Studies 60 Revue canadienne d'?.ttMesam•rica:nes remarkabledrawings" ("The Rodin Drawings at the Photo-SecessionGal- leries,"Camera Work 22 [April 1908],35). In casethis recommendation (or the fact that the exhibitionwas held on the Secession'shome turf) did not sufficientlycolour readers' expectations, the editorsalso reprinted the text of thecatalogue in full, "for thebenefit of the readersof CameraWork who didnot have the pleasure of seeingthe exhibition" ("The Rodin Drawings at the Photo-SecessionGalleries," Camera Work 22 [April 1908], 35). Thus, evenbefore the first "outside opinion" was cast, the editors had set up a pow- erfuland encircling context for itsreception. 42 The editorssometimes extended this strategyof contextualizationto the sequenceof "outside"views, as well. In theRodin piece, they arranged re- printedextracts in descendingorder of sympathyto Secessionopinion, with themost outr• views lamely bringing up the rear.43 W.B. McCormickthus gripedwith only seeming impunity that

'thesedrawings should never been shown anywhere but in thesculptor's studio,for they are simplynotes dashed off, studiesof the human form--chieflyof nudefemales--that are too purelytechnical to have muchgeneral interest except that of a notvery elevating kind. Stripped of all 'art atmosphere'they stand as drawings of nudewomen in atti- tudesthat may interest the artist who drew them, but which are not for publicexhibition. '44

Comingon the heelsofJ. N. Laurvik'sassertion that the exhibitionwas "'a challengeto the prurientpurity of our puritanism,'"McCormick's rant againstdepictions of "nudefemales" of a "not very elevatingkind" pro- claimedhim as a censor.4sJ.E. Chamberlin'scontention that the show was "ofvery great importance to artistsand sculptors, though doubtless it will be prettynearly incomprehensible to the general public," an opinionaffirmed by ArthurHoebet, further prepared readers to markMcCormick as a man out of theknow. 46 Prudes and outsiders may have borne the heaviestbrunt of contextualization,but insiderswho expressedunsympathetic views were also susceptibleto criticism.When Caffin'ssteady support wavered, the editorsquickly stepped in, labelling one of hismost virulent attacks on artists "AsOthers See Us" (Carlin (1905, 25-26). Similarly,Camera Work's editors j. M. Mancsm/ 61 undercutCaffin's critical authority on specificallyaesthetic issues, partic- ularlywhen Caffin failed to expresscore doctrines of theSecession. 47 Contextualization--or,what might more properly be called decontextuali- zation--alsoworked to dissolvethe ties that boundsympathetic writers to the Photo-Secession. The editors worked hard to demonstrate that the "independence"of CameraWork's writers was compromisedneither by excessiveintimacy with theSecession nor too muchpolitical clout within the art world. Thus, in introducingCaffin's critical debut in the new venue, Stieglitzcontrasted his open-mindedtreatment of pictorialismto Julius Strauss'sgrandstanding on the subject. Caffin's inclusion, Stieglitz suggested, promisednot only more intelligent readings ofpictorialism, but the potential for provocationdisabled by Strauss'scomfortable position within the profession.

Pictorialphotography having at lastwon recognition in recentEuropean ArtExhibitions, the managers of theSt. Louis Exposition have awakened to the factthat theycould no longerignore its claims;although, until Mr. Caffin, the art criticand editorof the Americansection of The InternationalStudio, took up the cudgels for thecause, the authorities in St.Louis seemed bent upon following the old narrow path. Nor were theyentirely unjustified in their conservatism in view of theirlack of knowledgeof whathad been accomplished in this medium. ("PictorialPhotography: The St. LouisExposition," Camera Work 1 [January1903], 37)

WhileStieglitz admitted that Caffin had displayed prior sympathy with the Secession'saesthetic aims, he carefully avoided mention of thecritic's long- standingaffiliation with Camera Notes. Treating Caffin's views as found objectsrather than the opinions ofa trustedcompanion, theeditor obscurely wrotethat "Mr. Caffinhas covered the ground so admirably in TheInter- nationalStudio, and represents sothoroughly the spirit we stand for, that we feelthat we cando nobetter than present it to ourreaders in itsentirety" (PictorialPhotography: The St. Louis Exposition," Camera Work 1 [January 1903], 37). Canadian Review of American Studies 62 Revuecanaclienne d'•tudes ambricames

The Undoingof the Public

Althougheditorial sleight-of-hand effectively masked the relationshipbe- tweenthe Photo-Secession andits critical admirers, Camera Work generally employedmore subtle means to denythe organizational roots of pictorialism'ssuccess. Emptying the act of lookingof all contextualcontent, Stieglitz usedCamera Work to redefinethe processby which observerscame to form judgmentsabout works. Camera Work overturned nineteenth-century critics' definitionof criticalknowledge as an accretionof yearsof studyand reflec- tion, representingjudgment as a blisteringmoment of revelationin which works alonewon viewers over without their consent,much lesstheir consideration.4a Stieglitz'spromotion of the contextuallyneutral "moment of revelation" asthe keyto tasteformation had powerfulconsequences not onlyfor the Americanart world in its narrowestsense, but for all Americanswhose lives mighthave been affected by the makingand consuming of art. By denying the importanceof Secessionistinstitution building, $tieglitz was able to attributethe group's success entirely to itsartistic productions. In thisway, Stieglitzhelped to initiatea modernistart criticismwhich promotedthe makingof aesthetically"superior" objects as the primaryand exclusive goal of artisticactivity, and which located the primary source of artisticmeaning in artisticobjects, rather than within complicated interactions between view- ersand works. 4• Not coincidentally,Camera Work also offered a radically curtaileddefinition of the "public"for art, continuinga processof dimi- nutionbegun by professionalcritics before the turn of thecentury. so In thepages of CameraWork, the infinitelyeducable public promoted in the1870s finally gave way to a full-fledgedaristocracy of taste,exemplified bySadakichi Hartmann's s•assertion that

theSecessionists care little for popularapproval, insisting upon works, not faith,and believing that their share having been done in producing thework, the publicmust now do the rest.A few friends,and these of understandingmind, a fewtrue appreciators, this is all theyexpect and all theydesire. (1904, 47) ,J.M.Martc•m / 63

Theavant-garde aristocracy of vision promoted by Stieglitz and his associates differedsignificantly from taste hierarchies operative since the 1870s. To be sure,institution-building writers in theperiod after the Civil War valuedthe opinionsof someobservers over others, tending to givecredence to those who, like themselves,had earnedtheir say through years of art-worldac- tivity.These writers never suggested, however, that critical facility stemmed purelyfrom talent or other"natural" roots, or that differencesin the "natural"abilities of observerscould not be overcome.To post-CivilWar writers,education provided the single most important source of perceptive skill.Although Caffin described public perception elsewhere as educable, malleable,and open to improvement,Secessionists generally upended this assumption,raising "naturally" occurring insight in itsplace. Deliberately,Camera Work's contributors denied the roleof educationin theformati on of criticalfacility. Hartmann, for one, scorned the thought that thepublic could ever appreciate "an art as virile and fascinating, individually local and bitter as that of this Montmartre bohemian[Toulouse-Lautrec]," growlingthat

art appreciationcan not be taught.It maybe fostered,gradually de- velopedin somenaturally responsive and neglected individual, but even thenit will lackfreedom and spontaneity. Appreciation is an individual growth,like art itself,and it necessitatesinborn talent from the start. Forthat reason art is by the few and for thefew. The more individual a workof art is, themore precious and free it is aptto be;and at the sametime, asa naturalconsequence, the moredifficult to understand. (1910, 37)

Hartmann'sbald assessment of the sources of criticalacumen placed criticism onthe same creative plane as artistic production while assaulting the public's authorityto judge and appreciate art. But, although he denigrated the public fora lackof naturalcritical facility, he also complained that laziness, and not inborndeficiency, had kept the publicfrom fully exercising its opportunity to judgeart. Because art requiredvigorous thought, Hartmann maintained, mostAmericans had simply abandoned it in favourof music,film, and other morepassive enjoyments. "Works of art," hewrote, Canadian Review of American Studies 64 Revue cana&enned'•tudes arnbrtca•nes

are generallyso high-pricedthat they are beyondthe meansof the middleclass. And merelyto studythem is too muchof an intellectual exertion.People understand a Tschaikowsky symphony as little as an Impressionistexhibit, nevertheless ninety-nine out of a hundredwill preferto hearthe concert, while one solitary individual will derivea si- milarpleasure and satisfaction from the paintings, for thesimple reason that musicis easierto enjoy.One paysa comparativelysmall admission, sitsdown and listens,and the musicdrifts without any personaleffort into one'sconsciousness. (1912, 19)

Hartmann'spromotion of a visiblecritical elect chippedaway at pubhc participationin artisticjudgment. In definingthe sources of artisticmeaning and enjoyment,however, this critic and self-consciousliterary agentwas unwillingto relinquish too much agency to works alone. Although Hartmann proposedthat the criticderived his capacityto judgeand enjoyart from natural,rather than learned, sources, he refused to describethis talent merely in termsof a capacityto receivepredetermined impressions. Carlin demonstrateda similar reluctanceto abandoncritical agency completely,failing to analyseexplicitly the process by which he himselfhad cometo admireSecessionist productions. Although he frequently referred to hisjudgments as "impressions," his actualmeaning for the metaphorwas neverclear. Notwithstanding his reluctance to erasehis own involvement in theproduction of artisticmeaning, Caffin did reassign agency to workswhen describingthe critical activity of others,thus disguising the organizational rootsof theSecession's success. Despite devoting years of hisown labourto buildingaudiences through criticism, Carlin arguedthat "The Photo- Secessionhas passed over the headsof the criticsand directly reached the public"(Carlin 1907c, 27). His commentson the physicalcontext of exhibitionat theLittle Galleries reinforced this line of argument,removing the handof organizationfrom Secessionistdisplay much as it had erasedthe impactof criticism(Caffin 1906, 33). In thisway, Caffinmasked the organizationalactivity which had made display possible, constructing the Little Galleriesas a contextlessspace in whichworks alone determined their reception. J.M. Ma•cm• / 65

While career critics like Hartmann and Caffin hesitated to remove the productionof artisticmeaning from the contested ground between v•ewer andwork to worksthemselves, J.M. Bowlesexpressed no suchreluctance. Denyingthat hisactions or sympathieshad played the slightest role m his admirationof the Secession,he wrote that

I am merelyan interestedand sympathetic outsider. At the outsetI was neitherfor noragainst photography; it made its way with mesolely by thesheer force of goodwork. My mindwas open--'a fair fieldand no favor'being my creed in matterspertaining to artmandI hopeto beable to keepit so. (1907, 17, emphasisadded)

Again,here, CameraWork repudiatedthe importanceof contextin the formationof aestheticjudgments, obscuring Bowles's position within the art world (hiscomments were not accompaniedby an explanationof how an "outsider"had cometo arrive at the chanceto expresshis unschooled opinionsin the pagesof theforemost photographic journal of thetime) and d•smissingthe impactof theparticular context of theworks' display. s'• Unlike Hartmann,who had depictedthe Secession'sappreciators as "friends"and abettors of the cause,Bowles suggested that hisappreciation hadflowed freely from works themselves, without the benefitwor detriment wof outsideinfluence. Bowles wrote that hisjudgments had come to him

uninfiuencedby any readingor 'talk' on the subject.In fact, I have deliberatelyrefrained from informing myself on many points which have arisenin my mind sinceI startedto preparethese notes, because the purposeof thispaper is to recordemotions produced on a rankoutsider solelyby the work. My veryignorance may have its value, perhaps even showwhich way thewind of publicopinion blows, and blazon the way for a campaignof publicityupon points regarding which the genuinely interestedshould be informed. (1907, 17-18)

To Bowles,the meaningof art wasnot producedby the strugglebetween autonomousviewer and work, but was produced"on" the emotionsof passiveviewers "solely by... work[s]."By relocating meaning's production CanadianReview of American Studies 66 Revue canadienned'•tudes ambrica•nes within works,rather than within open-ended,individualized interactions, Bowlesnot only stripped individual viewers of agency,but of individuality. More importantly,Bowles's account posited "ignorance" as the standard conditionof observers,implying that similarly ignorantobservers ex- periencedworks in similarways. This assumption allowed Bowles to merge hisexperience with the general experience of anunspecified "public," about whoseopinion he could safely speculate. Once free to actas its mouthpiece, Bowlesoverturned the meaningof "publicopinion." Thishad dangerous consequences. Although Bowles posited the "public" observeras an ignorant observer, he did notsuggest that the "public" for art includedjust anyone. In Bowles'sformulation, only a smallnumber of people wereable to graspthe meaning and significance of art works,and those who couldnot could never be educated to do so.Thus in callingfor "a campaign of publicity,"he hardly suggested that the Secession blanket the nationwith didacticliterature on the principles of artisticphotography to preparefuture audiencesfor their interactionwith the medium.Instead, Bowles pressed a notionof "publicity"which had little to do with buildingan audiencefor pictorialism,but which instead indicated the management of a self-selecting audiencewhose approval was already known. Bowles thus reversed Gilded Age criticism'sunderstanding of the relationshipbetween education and perception,positing "publicity" as a gloss,after the fact,on thoselocalized elementsthat vision alone had not madeclear, and "genuineinterest" as a conditiondetermined not by an observer'scuriosity, but by his or her approval.In thisway, Bowles rejected Gilded Age critics' faith not onlyin the efficacyof institutionbuilding, but in the public'sability to shapeand mould the future of American art. Bowles'spromotion of a decontextualizedmoment of revelationas the modelfor receptionthus sharply limited art's audience. It alsosignificantly narrowedthe parameters of audienceparticipation in the processof artistic production.Bowles's representation of audiences per seconfined their activity withinthe narrowboundaries of passive"reception" or "observation." Merereceptacles for art that "happened," Bowles's observers' only choice lay in the decisionto approachart with an "openmind" or onesealed shut by art-worldprejudice. Of hisown biases, he wrotethat ].M. Mancini / 67

I am indifferentas to whetherphotography goes up or down,being a fatalistas to theprogress of the arts,and believing with Whistlerthat art happens,that it dependsentirely upon the individualworker, and that we cando little to eitheraccelerate or retardits progress[.](1907, 17)

Judgment,then, lay in the observer'sability to discernthe unfoldingof a mysteriousprocess about which he probably knew almost nothing. In this way,Bowles recast looking as an almostwholly passive act, in whichob- servers'choices played no role in thefuture of Americanartistic production. CameraWork's redefinitionof the artistic"public" marked the final undoingof the autonomousaudience championed by amateurcritics in the GildedAge. No longerthe foot soldiers of animminent revolution in which audiences determined the outcome of America's artistic future, viewers becamesimple observers of eventsbeyond their control or influence.While promotinga newart, Stieglitzdismantled the machine that madeart go. Whenthe dust cleared, all thatremained was a sleek,well-honed column of artists,marching towards the future.As inaudible observers, hangers-on to thecampaign for art had little more effect than the throngs that had crowded theedges of battleduring the nation's recent civil war. CameraWork's transformation of nearlyall commentaryto fit a single, coherentnarrative about the Photo-Secessionand artisticphotography markedboth the journal's centrality in the creation of a photographicavant- gardeand its departurefrom previous criticism. In orchestratingthe establishmentof a complexinstitutional and discursive context for the reception of Secessionistproductions, Alfred Stieglitz ensured their success and the successof an emerging modernist photographic aesthetic. By erasing the in- fluenceof hisinstitution-building predecessors and constructing Secessionist worksas inevitable, natural, and independent of institutionalentanglement, helaid the groundwork for a modernistsensibility increasingly hostile to the needs,desires, and aspirations of the public. Canadian Review of American Studies 68 Revue canadienned' g,tudes ambricaines

Endnotes

As Orvellargues,

Beginningaround the turn of thecentury a new approach to thecamera evolved, initiatedin thework of AlfredStieglitz, whose influence on the vocabularyof photographywas profoundover the next severaldecades. This approach emphasizedthe photographer's eye, his particular angle on the subject, whether derailedclose-up or aerial view; it emphasizedthe idiosyncrasy of the camera's way of seeingas a functionof its mechanicalcharacter, rather than its capacityto reproducea facsimile of 'normal'vision. For the authenticity of thecamera, it was believed,was the authenticity of a machinethat was accepted as a machine.Andthe photographfunctioned not as a surrogatefor experience, oras a memorydevice, but asan instrumentof revelation,changing our way of thinkhzgabout, and seeing the world. (1989, 198-99, emphasisadded)

Hainessuccinctly describes this as "Stieglitz's success in makingtruth visible" (1982, 5). 2. Thereis some disagreement among scholars as to the exacttrajectory of Americanartistic photographyinthe •arly decades ofthe twentieth century. While some authors see Stieglitz's prewarefforts in termsof an antiquatedpictorialist style which drew derivafively on the conventionsand visionof painting,and others argue that Sfieglitzbegan to see the apprehensionand depiction of stripped-downobjects as the photographic route to spiritual understandingat a muchearlier date, some authors take the positionthat therewas not a sharpbreak between the painterly pictorialist style of theturn of thecentury and the hard- edgedstyle which developed in theensuing decades. Camera Work itself is a recordof this lengthytransition from the atmospheric to theconcrete. See Arrowsmith and West (1992); Dijkstra(1969, 95-107); Green(1973, "Introduction"); Orvell (1989, chs. 3 and6); Bunnell (1993, 8-12). 3. Theimage of Sfieglitz as photographic seer and father of modernismwas one which he himself cultivated,and which his contemporaries were unafraid to promote.In a 1934volume whose contributorsincluded William Carlos Williams, Marsden Hartley, and Gertrude Stein, Harold Clurmanwrote that the photographer's

capacityfor lovehas made Sfieglitz a seer.Because nothing is too unimportant for himto see,and because everything he sees finally becomes the objectof anall- embracingand therefore single love, his very simple, always accessible photographs takeon a 'mystic'quality, and Stieglitz is regarded as a 'visionary'!We areunused to suchattention in moderntimes. Sfieglitz is incessantlyattentive. He is attentive to everythingthat immediately confronts him. Becausehe caresfor everything, becausehe loves[.] (quotedin Franket. al [1934, 268]

Seealso Dorothy Norman's aptly titled Alfred $tieglitz: Introduction to an AmericanSeer (1960). For themost concise expression of theneed to reevaluatecultural production in termsof the conditionsof practice,as opposed to text- or object-basedanalysis, see Williams ([1973] 1980). J.M. Mancmi / 69

5. Muchof the literature on Stieglitz isdevoted todescribing Stieglitz's "good works" within the art world,including his role in thePhoto-Secession, Camera Work, and the Little Galleries. Byand large, however, this literature concerns itself with these institutions only as inert vessels for thepresentation of a deracinatedaesthetic "message." Peninah Petruck, thus, describes Stieglitz's"passion for innovation and experimentation" as"that of a missionary,"1ocanng CanteraWork and the Little Galleries asthe prime outlets for his zeal (1981, 25). In describing theactual impact of these two institutions, however, Petruck merely describes them as venues inwhich Stieglitz elaborated hisideas or presented previously unkno•vn European modermsts to anAmerican audience, without exploring the character of theinstitutions themselves. On thewhole, scholarly descriptions of Stieglitz's projects rely heavily on his o•vn depiction of themas "laboratories," ordisinterested spaces forunfettered "experimentation"--terms which themselvesdrew on thecultural authority and supposed neutrality of science.Matthew Baigell,for instance,writes that "Sfieglitz in hisvarious galleries ... offeredsomething equivalenttoEmerson's Concord--a place in which ideals could be considered reasonably free of tradeand commerce" (1987). To date,the relationshipbet•veen modernist criticism as discourseand modernist criticism as institution has not been explored ina fulland convincing manner. 6. The mostthorough examination of thisdynamic can be foundin thework of Keller(1984), whoargues that the success of "Art Photography"owed more to Stieglitz'spromotional effortsthan to thecontent of hiswork or thework of hisassociates. Although his argument ishighly suggestive, Keller's central preoccupation with the epistemological ramifications of Stieglitz's institution-building activities renders it ultimatelyunsafisfying. To Keller,Stieghtz's organizationalactivities are problematic mainly in thatthey led to thecreation of "apresnge- orientedpseudo art world"whose components failed to liveup to the standardsset by "legitimateand functional support institutions" such as the academy, and which promoted mediocrework as"genuinely innovative." The problemwith thisline of analysisis thatit presumesthat the evaluation of art workscan ever take place outside of "themanufacture of ... fame,"and that by erasing the "promotional" effects of Stieglitz's organizational activines we canachieve an objective"re-evaluation of the movement." 7. AlanTrachtenberg's (1989, ch. 4) accountof contemporaries'reception of thework o f Lewis Hine providesstunning evidence of Stieglitz'snarrowing affect on Americandefinitions of "artistic"photography. According to Trachtenberg, Stieglitz initiated and codified a deep and artificialgulf in Americanconsciousness between "artistic" photographs, made by self- consciouslyartistic producers and judged solely according to aestheticqualifies, and "doc- umentary"photographs, which neither bore the stampof artisticintent nor excludedac- cidentaldetail. This gulf, Trachtenberg argues, prevented contemporaries from recogniztng Hine'ssocially-motivated work as "art" at all.Trachtenberg further interprets Stieglitz's drive for accommodationwithin the established structures of theart world as a backward-looking, anti-avant-gardestrategy, however. In contrast,I will arguethat the drive for official recognitionis itselfintegral to the Americanavant-garde. 8. A fascinatingand unusual attempt to relateorganizational transformations in the corporate and thecultural sphere, and to examinetheir effect on modernistproduction, can be found in Smith (1993). 9 A sourceof seeminglyendless fascination for scholars, the avant-garde inspires a continuously groovingbody of literature.The bulk of thisscholarship concerns itself, however, with a limitedset of questions,and is particularlyinterested in fine-tuningan alreadyoverworked theoryor definitionof the"avant-garde." Generally sceptical about the claimsof historical avant-gardes--orthe possibilityfor a "true"avant-garde to haveexisted under any c•r- CanadianReview of American Studies 70 Revuecanadienne d'•tt•les ambricaines

cumstances--thisliterature, although historicizing, has done little to examinethe practices of concretehistorical avant-gardes. Thus, various authors have unearthed, in labounousdetail, the historicalunfolding of the metaphorof theavant-garde, the logicentailed in thiscon- stantlyshifting discourse, and the impact of themboth on the formal character of theartisnc andliterary productions of thelate-nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Describing their activityas a searchfor a newaesthetic language, untrammelled by traditions, Matei Calinescu ([1977]1987) writes that the primary objective of theavant-garde "was to overthrowall the bindingformal traditions ofart and to enjoy the exhilarating freedom of exploring completely new,previously forbidden, horizons of creativity.For theybelieved that to revolutionizeart wasthe same as to revolutionizelife" (112).Considerably less attention has been directed towardsproviding an account of thecharacter of specifichistorical avant-gardes associal and organizationalentities. While the languageof the avant-garde,rooted in militaryand revolutionarymetaphor, is itselfrich with organizationalimplications, most scholars have glossedover the organizationalactivity central, first, to the creationof avant-gardesas conglomeratio ns o f sympatheticpro duce rs, and, second, to thepro mo rio n, disseminario n, and receptionof theirworks. Poggioli ([1962] 1971) set the stage for this framework in hisclassic study,by describing the "little magazine" asthe solitary voice of theavant-garde, crying alone againstthe clamour of "massjournalism" and the uniformityof the dominantculture. In describingthe avant-garde journal as the bearer of fullyformed aesthetic positions or works, Poggioliignored the messenger completely in favourof themessage carried, writing that

sometimesthe goalof the little reviewis merelyto publishproclamations or a seriesof manifestos,announcing the foundation of a newmovement, explicating andelaborating its doctrine, categorically and polemically. Or elsethey merely presentto a friendlyor hostilepublic an anthology of thecollective work in a new tendencyor by a newgroup of artistsand writers. (22)

Althoughan overt response to Poggioli, Biirger's (1984) approach replicates this deracinated accountof the avant-gardeand its productions,relying on a notionof "self-criticism"to describeits moment of origin.Biirger writes,

withthe historical avant-garde movements, the social subsystem that is art enters the stageof self-criticism.Dadaism, the most radicalmovement within the Europeanavant-garde, no longercriticizes schools that preceded it, butcriticizes art asan institution, and the course its development took in bourgeoissociety ....

Onlyafter art, in nineteenth-centuryAestheticism, has altogether detached itself from thepraxis of lifecan the aesthetic develop 'purely.' (22)

In Biirger'stheory, thus, the avant-garde's only concrete spur to self-criticismis not social conditions,but art itself.A similartendency can also be seen in Abrahams(1986). See also Egbert(1967).

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

althoughit was a severetest for these pictures to behung after the exceptionally imaginative[drawings] of Miss[Pamela Colman] Smith, they well sustainedthe ].M. Mancini/ 71

prestigeof thegalleries. The exhibition isstill open as we go to press. ("Photo-SecessionNotes," Camera Work i8 [April1907], 49)

Thisself-conscious tone of reassurancequickly gave way, however. By October, the editors hadadopted a morematter-of-fact strategy for demonstratingthe appropriateness of displayingphotography alongside works in moretraditional media, breezily mexmoning photography,etching, and drawing all in thesame breath as if therehad never been any disputeas to photography'sposition among the arts.

Someof the exhibitionsplanned for thesucceeding month are: Dra•vings by Rodin;Etchings by Willi Geiger,of Munich;Photographs, byFrank Eugene; by EduardSteichen, in colorand monochrome; by.Joseph T. Keiley; by F. Holland Day;a series of platinotype studies made by Clarence H. Whiteand Alfred Stieglitz in collaboration[etc.]. ("Exhibitionsat theLittle Galleries," Camera Work 20 [October1907], 26)

11 Asthe editors wrote of thefirst nonphotographic exhibition in 1907,

Theexhibition of draxvingsinblack and color by Miss Pamela Colman Smith, held at theLittle Galleries of thePhoto-Secession inJanuary, marked, not a departure fromthe intentions of the Photo-Secession,buta welcomeopportunity of their manifesting.The SecessionistIdea is neitherthe servant nor the productof a medium.("The Editors' Page," Camera Work 18 [April1907], 37-38)

12. "'CameraWork' owes allegiance to no organization or clique,and though it isthe mouthpiece of tilePhoto-Secession thatfact will not be allowed to hamperits independence inthe slightest degree"("An Apology," Camera Work 1 [January1903], 16). 13. Indeed,the editors suggested that Camera Work constituted their readers' exclusive source of informationabout photography, writing that "we knowthat of our readersbut a small percentagesee any other publication devoted to pictorialphotography except Camera Work" ("TheEditors' Page," Camera Work 18 [April1907], 37-38). 14. Theeditors occasionally noted this generally unspoken circumstance, reprinting tile catalogue fromtile 1908exhibition of Rodindrawings, for example, explicitly "for tile benefit of the readersof CameraWork who did not have the pleasure of seeingthe exhibition" ("The Rodin Drawingsat thePhoto-Secession Galleries," Camera Work 22 [April1908], 35-41). 15. On therelationships between Sfieglitz and various participants in his ventures, see Lowe (1983). 16. CharlesCaffin (1854-i918), who emigrated from Britain in 1892,was one of theforemost criticaldefenders of artisticphotography in the United States. After doing decorative work at the World'sColumbian Exhibition in Chicago,Caffin moved to NewYork, where he workedas a criticfor Harper's Weekly, tile Evening Post, tile New York Sun, the St•Mio, and theNew York American, as well as lecturing at tilePennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts and the YaleSchool of FineArts. Although initially hostile to Stieglitz'swork, Caffin was convinced of itsmerit after Stieglitz recommended him to theeditor of Everybody's to author a series of articlestile editorhad asked Sfieglitz to write.Thereafter, Caffin became committed to demonstratingthe artistic merits of photography,both in articlesand in hisPhotography as a FineArt (1901). On Caffin,see Underwood (1983); Wilson and Fiske (1888, 22:261). Canadian Review of American Studies 72 Revue canadiennedYtudes ambrtcaines

17. The editors'firmness on thispoint is evidencedby theirreiteration, in the next issue,that "Mr. Straussdid not represent the spirit or ideasof those'photographic pictorialists' who havegained the recognitionof modernphotography in the field of art" ("Exhibition Notes--ReSt. Louis," Cantera Work 2 [April1903], 51). Thefriction between artistically mindedphotographers and their commercial/professionalassociates was not limitedto Stieglitz'scircle, but was a mainstayof organizedamateur photographic "reform" rhetoric duringthe last two decades of thenineteenth century. For an account of amateurs'attempts to differentiatethemselves from commercial photography, see Keller (1984, 251-52). 18. In distinguishingthemselves from profit-makingphotographers, Secessionists modelled themselvesafter German secession movements, which were established partly as a reaction againstthe commercialization of the Academy. On thosemovements, see Karl (1985, 109- 1•0). 19. Bythe time he founded the Photo-Secession, Stieglitz had already honed his skills as art-world organizer.Under his stewardship, and due in particularto hismanagement of Camera Notes, NexvYork's Camera Club had enjoyed its greatest period of success.Perceiving his Photo- Secessionactivities as treasonous, the club later revoked his membership. See Strauss (1908, 26). 20. Themost notorious example of thisprocess of rebellionand decadence xvas, of course,the NationalAcademy of Design(1826), xvhich had been founded by rebelNexv York artists disgruntledwith the American Academy of FineArts' control by merchants and other non- artists.See Bender (1987, 126-30); Harris([1966] 1982, 96-99). 21. Therewere several precedents for this kind of "sympathetic"association in Europe, including thePre-Raphaelite Brotherhood and the Linked Ring, to which Stieglitz was himself elected. In theUnited States, however, such associations were almost unknown, with the exception of theshort-lived Society for theAdvancement of Truth in Art at mid-century. 22. Currentliterature reproduces this interpretation, emphasizing the "collective faith" that held Secessioniststogether. See Watson (1991, 68). 23. On EuropeanSecession movements' self-conscious withdrawal from the market,see Karl (1985,109-110). On Stieglitzand corporate sponsorship, see Kiefer (1992). 24. Keileyalso took a personalinterest in photography'sre-admission into Philadelphia's official artscene; he had been a participantin thefirst Philadelphia Photographic Salon of 1898and experiencedits subsequentlockout (Peterson 1993, 169). 25. Keiley'sspin on this eventwas notunique within Camera Work. In describingthe change from "ridicule to silence and . . . amusement to conviction" that the exhibitions at the Little Gallerieshad wrought during their first year, the editors wrote that

it comesas a peculiarlygratifying climax to our endeavorsthat the Pennsylvania Academyof the Fine Arts, one of the foremostand mostinfluential of the Americanart institutions,has, unasked, requested us to selectand hang an exhibitionof photographson itswalls". ("Photo-SecessionNotes," Camera Work 15 [July1905], 42, emphasisadded).

26. Cheerfullysetting the terms of selectionfor the 1910 photographic exhibition at theBuffalo FineArts Academy (Albright Art Gallery),hoxvever, the Secession seemed to haveno trouble assessingthe •vorks of others,announcing in CameraWork that

thosedesirous of exhibitingin the... OpenSection are requested to sendtheir prints,unframed, express prepaid, to 291 Fifth Avenue,New York City, where ]. M. Manctm/ 73

theywill bejudged by The Photo-Secession.... The selection will begoverned by the principleof IndependentVision and Qualityof Rendering.To eliminate accidentalsuccesses, each exhibitor in thissection must be representedby at least threeexamples." ("An ImportantInternational Exhibition of Photographs,"Camera Work 30 [April 19101, 60)

27. "We are devotedlythankful that thereare fewerphotographic 'Art Exhibitions'now than therewere several years ago. What hasbeen lost in quantity,however, has been gained in quality..(We wish the same could be said of the'real' art exhibitions.)" (Editors 1910, 53). 28. Theeditors also used this line of argumentin describing the Photo-Secession, writing that "the aimof the Photo-Secessionis loosely to holdtogether those Americans devoted to pictorml photographyin their endeavor to compelits re•:ognition, not as a handmaidenof art, but as a distinctivemedium o findividual expression." By highlighting the looseness of its organizatton andportraying its attempt to buildaudiences asthe search for "recognition,"Camera Work deflectedattention away from the Secession'sorganizational efforts and towards its arfimc productions("The Photo-Secession," Camera Work 6 [April1904], 53, emphasisadded). 29. Theeditors took pains to remind readers that the Litfie Galleries had nothing in common w•th art institutionswith whichthey might be familiar,urging potential visitors to "[remember] thatthe Little Gallery is nothing more than a laboratory,and experimental station, and must not belooked upon as an Art Galleryin theordinary sense of thatterm." "Photo-Secession Notes,"Camera Work 30 (April 1910),47. See also Haviland (1912a, 36), who described showsat 291 as"demonstrations of development, rather than either exhibitions of final accomplishmentof 'shows' in the popularsense. 30. As Havilandwrote, "If the positionof photographyamong the artsis to be firmlyand permanentlyestablished, thiscan be accomplished byproving it capable of standingthe test of comparisonwith the best work in othermedia and not by isolating it" (1910,42). 31. In theUnited States, William Merritt Chase engaged insimilar activity within his own studre, whichwas widely known for its meticulously crafted display. Chase's fondness fororientahst gewgawsand crowded presentation marked his sympathy, however, with certain aspects of nineteenth-centurymodes of exhibition,if not with their political ramifications. OnChase, seeBryant (1991). 32. An excellentdiscussion of Whistler's activities in exhibitiondesign can be found in Bendix (1995, 205-268). 33. Agoal that Stieglitz's rival impresario Robert Henri had been unable toaccomplish. AsJames GibbonsHuneker colourfully exclaimed,

'No,messieurs et roesdemoiselles, lesIndependents, you'll never beat the Academy atits own stupidgame by substituting quantity for quality! Two wrongs don't make a right.Oppose qualityto quantity. Slash off the heads of two-thirdsofyour applicants and try to kill the demonof vaindisplay.' (Huneker,"'The Younger American Painters' and the Press," New York Sun, reprinted in CameraWork 31 [July1910], 51)

34. Carlinused a similarline of argumentin describingthe (Secession-juried) photographic exhibitionat Buffaloof 1910,writing that "One received a suggestion that the exhibition representednotan incident, but for the time being the purpose ofthe building's existence" (1911, 21). CanadianReview of AmericanStudies 74 Revuecanaclienne dYtudes ambrmatnes

35. CameraWork also frequently served as a surrogatedisplay venue for non-Secessiomst exhibitionsat theLittle Galleries; for example,several drawings "From the Drawings Exhibitedat theRodin Exhibition[,] Photo-Secession Gallery, January, 1908; April, 1910" werelater reproduced in a seriesof platesin thejournal. Plates I-VI; I-II, CameralVork 34-35, 36 (April-July,October, 1911). 36. Defendingthe Little Galleries' increasingly frequent turn to nonphotographicexhibttions, Havilandsuggested that display in Canera9(/ork served as a morethan adequate surrogate for liveexhibition. "The season, which ended with but a singlephotographic exhibition, has led manyof our friends to presume that the Photo-Secession waslosing its interest in photography andthe 'The Bunch at 291'was steering the association away from its original purpose. The bestanswer is to be foundin the pagesof Camera9f/ork,mthe official organ of the Photo- Secessionrainwhich the bestexamples of photographyare presentedregularly to its subscribers"(Haviland 1910, 42). 37. Accordingto Trachtenberg,Stieglitz frequently recontextualized hisoxvn work, provtdmg historicalre-interpretations of his early New York photographs decades after their making (1989, ch. 4). 38. Editors1903a, 26-27; "Exhibition NotesraThe Photo-Secession," Camera Work 10 (April 1905), 49-50;"American Photography and the Foreign Annuals," Camera 9(/ork 14 (Aprfi 1906), 63. 39. While thislist generally contained museums, galleries, and camera clubs, it alsoincluded "Generaldi Cesnola,the Director of theMetropolitan Museum of Art"and "His Majesty the Kingof Italy,"who had given the Secession a "special award" (Editors 1903c, 60-61; "The Photo-Secession,"Camera 9(/ork 9 [January1905], 56-57; "ForeignExhibitions and the Photo-Secession•Notes,"Camera 9(/ork 7 [July1904], 39---40). 40. The mostnotable examples of thiswere Britain's Linked Ring and the infamousSalon des Refuses.Editors 1903a, 26-27; "ExhibitionNotes," Camera 9(/ork 12 (October1905), 59, "Calendarof Exhibitions,"Camera 9(/ork 14 (April1906), advertising section. 41. "Thetrouble with most... artistsis that they have 'too muchego in theircosmos.' Whfie themajority of menare content to subordinatetheir ego to theaggregate cosmos, and those whoseego is of superiorusefulness or superior audacity reap a materialbenefit, the arnst is not measuringhis ego with theworld, but hugging it to himself.It is sodear to him that he cherishesit in seclusion,and gives out little scraps of it in charityto theworld. This he calls expressinghimself; and when the world, full of large preoccupation and in noneed of charity, overlookshis scraps, he gives it badnames" (Caffin 1905, 25-26; seealso Caffin 1907b). 42. Reviewsof Secessionexhibitions frequently contained excerpts from theircatalogues; on occasion,these reprinted catalogues consisted not merelyof positiveassessments by the exhibition'sorganizers, but comments by the artists themselves. In defending an exhibmon of watercoloursby GelettBurgess that had been accused of beinginsufficienfiy shocking, Paul Havilandallowed "Mr. Burgess[to] explainhis own aim, and to thatend reprint his introductionto the catalogueof hiswater-colors, 'Essays in SubjectiveSymbolism'" (1912b, 46-47). 43. "TheRodin Drawings at thePhoto-Secession Galleries," Camera Work 22 (April,1908), 35-41. Seealso "Photo-Secession Exhibitions," Camera Work 29 (January1910), 51-54. 44. McCormick,"in the Press,"quoted in "The Rodin Drawingsat the Photo-Secesston Galleries,"Camera Work 22 (April,1908), 39. 45. J. N. Laurvik,"in the Times,"quoted in "The Rodin Drawingsat the Photo-Secession Galleries,"Camera Work 22 (April,1908), 36. J.M. Mancini/ 75

46. J.E.Chainberlin "in the Evening Mail," Arthur Hoeber "in the Globe," quoted in "The Rodin Dra•vingsat thePhoto-Secession Galleries," Camera Work 22 (April,1908), 37, 39. 47. Caffin'sinsufficient defence of "straight"photography met the following response:

Weare glad to printthe article which appears in thisnumber from the pen of Mr. Caffin,the art critic,giving his impressions of these studies. We haveno •ntentton of commentingin anyway uponMr. Caffin'sviews, but feel that tt maybe interesting,in passing,to supplementan incomplete statement made by him of Mr. Herzog'smethod of achievingsome of his results.Mr. Caffin alludesto Mr. Herzog'scomposite groups, but omits to mention his actual method of producing, let ussay, The Banksof Lethe,assuming that he posed the group of figuresas renderedin that compositionand then photographed it. Asa matterof factMr. Herzogproceeded approximately asfollows: having made innumerable single- or occasionallydouble-figure studies on 4 x 5 plates,and havingmade bromide enlargementsfrom each of thesenegatives, and having from these enlargements cut outthe figures,paper-doll fashion, he thenproceeded, on a largepanel, and with thesefigures and a paperof pins,to group and re-group,arrange and re- arrange--inshort, carry on experiments in his 'hunt for the line!' When finally the compositionsatisfied his eye, he pasteddown the pinned figures and with brush andpigment filled the gaps and pulled together the sections of hiscomposition. Lastly,he photographedthis result in varioussizes, thus producing a numberof 'original'negatives. From one of thesethe accompanying photogravure was made withoutany tool work or retouchingwhatever. ("OurArticles," Camera Work 17 [January1907], 41)

Thisresponse •vas to Caffin(1907c).

48. Recentliterature tends to reiteratethis, representing Stieglitz's influence as immediate, spellbinding,contextless, and driven purely by his artistic productions. Haines, for example, writesthat"S tieglitz's major contribution to writers was in providing contacts" notwith other writers,but with "avant-gardeaestheticg" (1982, 7). 49. The latterassumption isso deeply rooted in our thinkingabout art, indeed,that a writeras sensitiveas Daniel Herwitz, in attemptingto developa contemporaryaccount of theavant- gardewhich escapes the grip of avant-gardeself-interpretation, exclaims that "sometimes a paintingis justa painting"(1993, 3). 50. CameraWork's attacks on the publicsometimes took a ratherlugubrious turn, with one unnamedauthor crying,

why is a manwho fightsfor an idealof humanity,no matterwhether a poet, reformer,philosopher orartist, always hooted by the crowd, and pelted with mud, evenby his friends! It cannot be otherwise .... Thepublic has no timeto reflect. It isonly concerned with the effect. Its esthetic appreciation lives on memories or reminiscences.It admires only what it hasseen before. It isalways opposed to real originality.The roadof novelideas is toorough for them.Discrimination isnot grantedto the Philistines." ("TheFight for Recognition,"Camera Work 30 [April1910] 22-23) CanadianReview of American Studies 76 Revue canadienned'•tudes ambricames

51. Criticand playwright C. SadakichiHartmann (1867-1944) began his critical career in Boston writingfor the Advert/ser and the Boston Transcript. Enlisting the support of art-worldfigures suchas artists Albert Bierstadt, W. M. Chase,Augustus St. Gaudens,Robert Henri, and curatorand collector Ernest Fenellosa, Hartmann founded his own journal, The Art Critic,in 1893,but was forced into bankruptcy the sameyear afterbeing arrested and triedfor the publicationofhis play Christ. Hartmann's eccentric behavior and antagonistic style hindered hiscareer as a writer,but were overlooked by Sfieglitz,who tolerated his friend'spricklier aspectsand who cited Hartmann as an essential aesthetic influence at theturn of thecentury. Hartmann'stenure at CanteraWork is generally regarded as the most important period of his criticism,and is also the time during which he hadthe mostart-world influence, especially amongphotographic circles. On Hartmann,see Weaver (1991, 1-44). 52. "AsMr. Sfieglitzhas asked me to write'at anylength and on anysubject,' I amenabled at last to sitdown and analyze my photographic emotions" (Bowles 1907, 17).

Works Cited

Abrahams,Edward. 1986. The Lyrical Left: Randolph Bourne, Alfred Stie glitz, and the Origins of CulturalRadicalism in America.Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia. Arrowsmith,Alexandra and Thomas West (eds.) 1992. Two Lives: A Conversationin Paintingsand Photographs.New York:HarperCollins. Baigell,Matthew. 1987. "American Landscape Painting and National Identity: The S fieglitz Circle and Emerson,"Art Criticism4 (1): 27-47. Bender,Thomas. 1987. New York Intellect A Histo.ry of IntellectualLife in New YorkCity, front I750 to theBeginnings of Our Own Time. New York: Knopf. Bendix,Deanna Marohn. 1995. Diabolical Designs.' Paintings, Interiors, and Exhibitions of]ames McNeillWhistler. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press. Bowles,J. M. 1907."Photography, what D'Ye Lack?"Camera Work 19 (July):17-20. Bryant,Jr., Keith L. 1991.William Merritt Chase, A GenteelBohemian. Columbia, MO: University of Missouri Press. Bunnell,Peter C. 1993.Degrees of Guidance:Essays in Twentieth-CenturyAmerican Photography. Cambridgeand New York:Cambridge University Press. Btlrger,Peter. 1984. Theoryof theAvant-Garde. Translated by MichaelShaw. Minneapolis: Universityof MinnesotaPress. Caffin,Charles H. 1903. "PictorialPhotography: The St. LouisExposition," Camera Work 1 (January):42-45. __. 1905. "AsOthers See Us," Camera Work 10 (April):25-27. 1906."The Recent ExhibitionsmSome Impressions," Camera Work 16 (October):33-37 1907a."Tweedledum and Tweedledee," Camera Work 19 (July):26-27. •. 1907b."Emotional Art: AfterReading the 'Craftsman'," Camera Work 20 (October):32-34. 1907c."Is Herzog Also Among the Prophets?"Camera Work 17 (January):17-23. ß 1911."The Exhibition at Buffalo,"Camera Work 33 (January):21-23. Calinescu,Matei. [1977] 1987. Five Faces of Modernity: Modernism, Avant-Garde, Decadence, Kitsch,Postmodernism. Durham, NC: DukeUniversity Press. Crunden,Robert. 1982. Ministersof Reform:The Progressives'Achievement in American Civilization, 1889-1920. New York: BasicBooks. Djkstra,Brain. 1969. The Hieroglyphics of a NewSpeech: Cubism, $tieglitz, and the Early Poetry ofWilliam Carlos Williams. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Editors,The. 1903a."America at the London Salon," Camera Work 1 (January):26-27. J.M. Mancini/ 77

ß 1903b."Exhibition Notes--Photo-Secession Notes," Cantera Work 2 (April):50-51ß ß 1903c."Photography at ImportantArt Exhibitions,"Canera Work 1 (January):60-61ß ß 1910."A DanielCome to Judgment,"Camera Work 31 (July):52-54ß Egbert,Donald D. 1967."The Idea of 'Avant-Garde'in Art andPolitics," Anterican Historical Review73 (December):339-66. Ferber,Linda S. andWilliam H. Gerdts(eds.) 1985. The New Path.'Ruskin and the American Pre- Raphaelites.New York:Schocken Books and the Brooklyn Museum. Fitzgerald,Charles. [1905] 1906. "The PictorialPhotographers," New York EveningSun, (December9). Reprintedin "ThePhoto-Secession Galleries and the Press," Camera lVork 14 (April1906). Frank,Waldo, et. al. 1934.America & AlfredStieglitz: A CollectivePortrait. Garden City, NY: Doubleday,Doran and Companyß Gerdts,William H. et. al. 1990.Ten American Painters. New York:Spanierman Gallery. Green,Jonathan. 1973. Camera Work: A CriticalAnthology. Millerton, NY: Aperture. Haines,Robertß 1982. The Inner Eye of AlfredStieglitz. Washington, DC: UniversityPress of America. Harris,Neil. [1966] 1982. TheArtist in AntericanSociety: The Formative Years, 1790-1860. Chicago:Universityof Chicago Pressß Hartmann,C. Sadakichi.1904. "The Photo-SecessionExhibition at the CarnegieArt Galleries, Pittsburg[sic], Pa.," Camera Work 6 (April):47-51ß ß 1910. "That Toulouse-LautrecPrint!," Camera Work 29 (January):36-38. ß 1912."The Esthetic Significance of theMotion Picture," Camera Work 38 (April):19-21. Haviland,Paul B. 1909. "TheHome of the GoldenDisk," CanteraWork 25 0anuary):21-22. ß 1910. "Photo-SecessionNotes," Camera Work 31 0uly): 41-42. ß 1912a. "Photo-SecessionNotes," CameraWork 38 (April):36-37ß ß 1912b."Notes on the Exhibitionsat '291'," CameraWork 37 0anuary):46-47. Herwitz,Danielß 1993. Making Theory/Constructing Art: On theAuthority of theAvant-Garde. Chicagoand London: University of ChicagoPressß Homer,William Hinesß 1983. Alfred Stieglitz and the Photo-Secession. Boston: LiMe, Brown. __. 1977.Alfred Stieglitz and the American Avant-Garde. Boston: New York Graphic Society. Horowitz,Helen Lefkowitz. 1976. Cultureand the City: CulturalPhilanthropy in Chicagofrom theI880s to I917. Lexington,KY: The University Press of Kentucky. Karl,Frederick R. 1985.Modern and Modernism: The Sovereignty ofthe Artist, I885-I925. New York: Atheneurn. Keiley,Joseph T. 1906."The Photo-S ecession Exhibition atthe Pennsylvania Academy ofFine Arts- Its Placeand Significance in the Progressof PictorialPhotography," Camera Work 16 (October):45-51. ß 1911. "The BuffaloExhibition," Ca•nera Work 33 (January):23-29ß •eller,Ulrich F. 1984."The Myth of ArtPhotography: A Sociological Analysis," History of Photography4 (October-December): 249-275. Kiefer,Geraldine Wojno. 1992. "Alfred Stieglitz, Camera Work, and Cultural Radicalism," Art Criticism7 (2): 1-20. Lowe,Sue Davidsonß 1983. Stieglitz: A Memoir/Biography.New York: Farrat, Strauss and Giroux. Miller, LillianB. 1966ßPatrons and Patriotism: The Encouragement of the Fine Arts in theUnited States.Chicago: University of ChicagoPressß Morgan,H. Wayne.1978. New Muses:Art in AmericanCulture, I865-2920. Norman,OK: Universityof OklahomaPressß Canadian Review of American Studies 78 Revue canaclienned' geudesamg'ricames

Naef,Weston J. 1978.TheCollection of Alfred Stieglitz: Fifty Pioneers of ModernPhotography. NewYork: Metropolitan Museum of Art/Viking. Norman,Dorothy. 1960. Alfred Stieglitz: Introduction to an AmericanSeer. New York: Duell, Sloan & Pearce. Orvell,Miles. 1989. The Real Thing: Imitation and Authenticity in AmericanCulture 1880-1940. ChapelHill andLondon: University of NorthCarolina Press. Peterson,Christian. 1993. Alfred Stieglitz's 'Camera Notes.' New York:W. W. Norton & Co./The MinneapolisInstitute of Arts. Pettuck,Peninah R. Y. 1981.American Art Criticism,1910-1939. NewYork and London:Garland. Poggioli,Renato. [1962] 1971. The Theory ofthe Avant-Garde. Translated by GeraldFitzgerald. New York: Icon Editions. Smith,Terry. 1993.Making the Modern: Industry, Art, andDesign in America.Chicago and London:University of ChicagoPress. Stieglitz,Alfred. 1905."Whe 'First American Salon at New York'," CameraWork 9: (January): 50-51. Strauss,John Francis. 1908. "Mr. Sfieglitz's'Expulsion'--A Statement," Camera Work 22 (April): 26. Trachtenberg,Alan. 1989. Reading American Photographs: Images as History, Mathew Brady to WalkerEvans. New York: Hill andWang. Underwood,Sandra Lee. 1983. Charles CalCfin: A Voice lCor Modernism, 1897-1918. AnnArbor: U.M.I. Press. Watson,Steven. 1991. Strange Bedfellows: The First American Avant-Garde. New York: Abbeville Press. Watson-Schutze,Eva. 1903. "Salon Juries," Camera Work 2 (April):46-47. Weaver,Jane Calhoun (ed.) 1991.Sadakichi Harimann: Critical Modernist. Berkeley and Los Angeles:University of CaliforniaPress. Willard, S.L. 1903. "ExhibitionNotes--The Third Salon in Chicago," Camera Work 2 (April):49-50. Williams,Raymond. [1973] 1980. Problems inMaterialism and Culture: Selected Essays. London: Verso. Wilson,James Grant and John Fiske (eds.) 1888. Appleton's Cyclopedia of AmericanBiography, Volume1. New York:D. Appleton&: Co. Zilczer,Judith. 1985. "AlfredSfieglitz and John Quinn: Allies in the AmericanAvant-Garde," AmericanArt ]ournal 17 (Summer):18-33.

JournalArticles Cited by Title

"AmericanPhotography and the Foreign Annuals," Camera Work 14 (April1906): 63. "An Apology,"Camera Work 1 (January1903): 15-16. "Calendarof Exhibitions,"Camera Work 14 (April1906): advertising section. "The Editors'Page," Camera Work 18 (April1907): 37-38. "ExhibitionNotes--Re St. Louis," Camera Work 2 (April1903): 51. "ExhibitionNotes--The Photo-Secession," Camera Work 10 (April1905): 49-50. "ExhibitionNotes," Camera Work 11 (July1905): 57. "ExhibitionNotes," Camera Work 12 (October1905): 59. "Exhibitionsat the Little Galleries,"Camera Work 20 (October1907): 26. "The Fightfor Recognition,"Camera Work 30 (April1910): 21-23. "ForeignExhibitions and the Photo-Secession--Notes," Camera Work 7 (July1904): 39-40. J.M. Mancini/ 79

"AnImportant International Exhibition of Photographs,"Camera Work 30 (Apri]1910): 60. "OurArticles," Camera Work 17 (January1907): 41. "ThePhoto-Secession," Camera Work 3 (July1903): supplement. "ThePhoto-Secession," Camera Work 6 (April1904}: 53. "ThePhoto-Secession," Camera Work 9 (January1905}: 56-57. "Photo-SecessionExhibitions," Cantera Work 29 (January1910}: 51-54. "ThePhoto-Secession Galleries and the Press,"Camera Work 14 (April1906): 33-40. "Photo-SecessionNotesreSt. Louis," Camera WorkS (January 1904): 50 "Photo-SecessionNotes," Camera Work 6 (April1904): 39-40. "Photo-SecessionNotes," Camera Work 15 (july 1905):41-42. "Photo-SecessionNotes," Camera Work 18 (April1907): 49. "Photo-SecessionNotes," Camera Work 30 (April 1910):47-54. "PictorialPhotography: The St.Louis Exposition," Camera Work 1 (.January1903): 37. "TheRodin Drawings at thePhoto-Secession Galleries," Camera Work 22 (April1908): 35--41. "TheYounger Arnerican Painters' and the Press," Camera Work 31 (july 1910):43-51.