Hang a photograph!

[Imogen Cunningham: Alfred Stieglitz, 1934]

Have you ever wondered why there are cities with millions of people and not a single photography gallery? Barely, an occasional museum exhibition? Why is it not normal to hang a photograph next to a oil painting, or watercolour? I think about this all the time. Particularly, when I visit a new city! Why? Well, when you say your prayers tonight, leave a little time for Alfred Stieglitz. Consider Hieronymus Bosch’s painting of Judgement Day, and the many inventive ways of punishing the sinners among us. Alfred, I see you!

[Hieronymus Bosch: The Last Judgement (detail), ca. 1482, Academy of Fine Arts, Vienna]

Alfred Stieglitz (1864 - 1946) is one of the key names in the history of photography. I dislike him with a passion!

Stieglitz was born with a silver spoon up his derrière. He was American, but spent his youth in Europe, first with his parents, later on his own. He studied chemistry with Prof. Vogel at the Technical University in Berlin. Vogel’s research was on the chemistry of processing photographs. Stieglitz got the bug. He had a substantial allowance from his father, he collected books and studied European and American photographers. He bought his first camera in the mid-1880s.

Stieglitz returned to the United States in 1890. His dad bought him a photography business. He could not make a go of it. He then became the co-editor of The American Amateur Photographer. Still unhappy, he left and opened a photography gallery in New York, and started publishing his own hugely influential magazine, Camera Work.

[Alfred Stieglitz: Views of Stieglitz’ gallery shown in Camera Work Issue 14,1906]

Camera Work was a subscription only, expensive, publication dedicated to the art of photography. Subscriptions never exceeded a few hundred copies, though Stieglitz printed 1000 copies of each issue. His production values were exquisite. He lost money on every issue. With his magazine and gallery, Stieglitz effectively went on to control photography.

[Alfred Stieglitz: Camera Work number II from 1903]

In Camera Work’s prime, photographers from across North America and Europe, would take out expensive subscriptions. Often they would submit their photographs to Stieglitz for his approval. They were hoping to have their work accepted for inclusion in Camera Work. Stieglitz decided what was good and what was not. He was judge, jury, and executioner all in one.

His magazine, his rules, you say?

[Edward J. Steichen: Rodin Open Sky - gravure from Camera Work, 1908]

Here is the rub: Stieglitz believed very strongly in two things. Both needed to be present for a photograph, and its photographer to be worthy of his consideration:

Rule #1: There had to be a certain feel, mood, aesthetic, which for the majority of Stieglitz’s career meant a painterly feel. The photographer had to manipulate the negative using chemicals, coatings, or printing techniques to imitate the appearance of a late Victorian sofa painting. A straight photograph showing what was in front of the photographer, and printed without manipulation, was not worthy. Not how Alfred Stieglitz wanted it!

[Gertrude Käsebier: Blessed Art Thou Among Women, 1899, published by Alfred Stieglitz, 1900]

Rule #2: It was not acceptable for an art photographer to be professional, to do commercial work. This meant that if you got paid, or made a living from photography, you were, according to Stieglitz, a lost soul. To belong to the circle around Stieglitz you had to be of independent means. You would photograph, because you thought it was a wonderful hobby. A suitable, high-brow pass-time.

[Clarence H White: Morning, 1908]

Many would argue this second rule has yet to be dismissed. Many still believe an art photographer cannot be a commercial, or professional photographer. Having a job on the side. Making ends meet. Weddings, school year-books? Not on! To this day, this really hasn’t changed. The legacy of Stieglitz remains!

[Edward Steichen: The Flatiron, 1904]

Case in point: A photographer friend of mine told me about his trip to New York in 2010. He presented his work to the owner of a well-established gallery. The gallerist liked his work, however, did not consider him serious, because he had a job to support his photography. The dealer suggested he look at a photographer she represented, who has been photographing since he was was a teen. A child protégé. He only photographs. Full time. He is a serious art photographer….!

[The protégé Mike Brodie: 5126 - from the series A Period of Juvenile Prosperity]

Ironically, for years Stieglitz struggled to make money with his gallery and his magazine. The magazine lost money with every issue. He ate his way through his wife’s inheritance, and the money he got from his own parents. Both his gallery and his magazine were commercial disasters.

And another thing…

On his way to Europe in 1907, Stieglitz - of course travelling first class - strolled past an opening to the decks below. Here the poor, who were returning to Europe could be seen. Most of these had been hoping to emigrate to the United States, but had been rejected at Ellis Island.

Stieglitz saw something. He is purported to have run to his cabin, collected his camera and a single glass plate, not yet exposed. He made The Steerage. He would claim it to be a hugely important photograph. His photograph.

[Alfred Stieglitz: The Steerage, 1907]

Stieglitz would eventually use The Steerage to justify his turning away from painterly photographs. From pictorialism. From trying to imitate the painters of the time with chemistry and soft focus. But it was too little, too late.

The Steerage is a straight photograph. Stieglitz is standing on the deck where those who could afford it, would promenade and enjoy the fresh air. His is looking at the deck below, where the poor, mostly women and children, could be found. It is a photograph of class, rank, privilege and superiority. It is the rich observing the poor. Is it a graphically and compositionally interesting photograph? It may well be, but it has never made my list. I recognise that I may be an outlier in this regard, but to me it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Photographing those who are trapped. The rejected. Those who did not make the cut to become Americans.

[Lewis Hine: Family arriving at Ellis Island, 1905 (New York Public Library)]

Stieglitz believed he had something new with The Steerage. He also had a dilemma. He had preached for years about painterly qualities. There are no painterly qualities in ‘The Steerage’. Facing this new awareness, what did Stieglitz do? He hid the photograph. He knew he would have to break with his own dogma. It was not until 1911 that he published the photograph. He did not hang the photograph in his gallery until 1913. Eventually, Stieglitz pushed The Steerage forward for all to see. His great masterpiece. He even dedicated an entire issue of his magazine to it.

[Anonymous - 1880s - The Acropolis, Athens]

For 50 years, from the infancy of photography in the 1830s until the 1890s straight photographs were perfectly acceptable. It was normal to have a photograph of Rome, Venice, or Athens hanging on your wall next to a painting, or watercolour. Then Stieglitz came along. Photographs had to look like paintings. But they were not paintings, they were imitations. They were not art, as was pointed out to polite society by the critics and thinkers of the time. Instead of being its own medium. Its own art, it was now deemed to be pure imitation, mechanical and definitely not art.

I would argue, it was not until the legendary gallerist Harry Lunn started selling limited edition photographs of Ansel Adams’ landscapes, that this changed. That was in the mid-1970s. Almost a full century later.

[Joe Munroe: Ansel Adams before his most famous photograph; Moonrise Hernandez, 1974]

This is why I so passionately dislike Alfred Stieglitz. Photography went from being something, which was available to anyone with the means to do it, regardless of social class, or profession. And to everyone else as prints, which could be collected in big albums, or could hang on the wall in a simple frame. It was, in a way, democratic. You did not need to buy an expensive painting to decorate your home. You could hang photographs. Photographs were an accepted art form.

Towards the end of his life, Alfred Stieglitz said: “If all my photographs were lost, and I’d be represented by just one, The Steerage, I’d be satisfied.” Having set back photography as art by almost a full century, he and The Steerage do not deserve our praise, nor does Mr. Stieglitz deserve our adoration, or respect. The elitist prat!

Sorry, Alfred, your later - straight - photographs of Georgia O’Keefe….. Much better. Much, much better! But the damage was done.

[Alfred Stieglitz: Georgia O’Keefe, 1923]

Until next time…… Hang a photograph! Tell your friends!