1862 ART JOURNAL
Vol. n.s. ?, old series vol. ?
ver: Aug. 16, 2007
START:
NOTES:
--Italics have been retained from publications, which use them for both titles as well as emphasis. To more easily locate image titles, I have continued this italicization when titles have been rendered in all capitols or put in quotes, however italics have NOT been used when the general subject of an image is mentioned.
--Image numbers listed in articles can be either an entry number in an exhibition, or the photographer’s own image number as found on labels.
--All names have been bolded for easy location. Numbers frequently refer to the photographer’s image number, but can also refer to a number in a catalog for a show. Decide whether to bold or not if can tell.
--It is not always possible in lists of photographers to know when two separate photographers are partners or not, e.g., in a list, “Smith and Jones” sometimes alludes to two separate photographers and sometimes to one photographic company. Both names will be highlighted and indexed but a partnership may be wrongly assumed. Any information to the contrary would be appreciated.
-- Brackets [ ] are used to indicate supplied comments by the transcriber; parenthesis
( ) are used in the original sources. If the original source has used brackets, they have been transcribed as parenthesis to avoid confusion.
--“illus” means that I have the view mentioned and should be scanned and included.
--Articles by photographers about technical matters – when transcribed, only names and titles have been listed. If other names are associated with the paper they are listed as well.
--Meetings of Societies – Names of officers, members attending or referenced, dates and locations of meetings have been given. If the reports are very short or discuss photographs, then the articles have been copied; if administrative or technical in nature, they have not.
--“[Selection]” = This has been used when not all portions of a feature are copied, such as The Photographic News’ “Talk In The Studio”. If the word does not appear, then the entire feature was transcribed.
-- Some journals, e.g., The Art-Journal, cover both photographer and painting/drawing. As they frequently refer to the production of both the photographer and the painter as “pictures” it is not always possible to tell when photography is indicated. If there is doubt, it will be included but a note will be added stating that the names listed may in fact not be photographers.
--Mostly articles totally discussing technical aspects of photography, products, etc. are not transcribed unless they are part of a larger article covering photographs. When technical descriptions are too lengthy to transcribe that is noted.
--Cultural sensitivity – these are direct transcriptions of texts written in the 19th-century and reflect social comments being made at that time. Allowances must be made when reading some texts, particularly those dealing with other cultures.
1862: Art Journal, Jan. 1, vol. ?, # ?, p. 30:
The London Stereoscopic Company has published an extensive series of views in Paris. They are singularly well executed, sharp, clear, and, of course, accurate. We cannot say if they be the produce of French hands; probably they are; at all events they do great credit to the artist, who has skilfully and judiciously selected the best points for pictures. They consist principally of views on the Boulevards—the open and crowded streets, full of life and bustle. While looking into the stereoscope it is not very difficult to imagine oneself mingling in the throng. We know of no series at once so interesting and so well done. We may hope it will be augmented by interiors of some of the grand old churches, and of the ancient streets, so few of which, comparatively, yet exist; for the Paris of even our youth is to be seen no longer, except here and there, in bits of the cite, or along the quays that border the Seine.
1862: Art Journal, March 1, vol. ?, no #, p. 96:
Reviews:
Egypt, Nubia, and Ethiopia. Illustrated by One Hundred Stereoscopic Photographs by Frith, with Descriptions by Joseph Bonomi, and Notes by Samuel Sharpe. Published by Smith, Elder, & Co., London.
The names appended to this volume are a guarantee of its worth; it would not be easy to obtain the services of better men in each department, and Messrs. Negretti and Zambra, who produce the stereoscopic views, are also well known for tried ability. It is doubtless a great advantage to sit in London by a comfortable fire, and see the positive reflection of the antiquities of these most interesting and distant places, made by the unerring sun for our experience and instruction. Elucidated too by the remarks of a traveled artist like Bonomi, and a sensible scholar like Sharpe, we have indeed an intellectual feast in this beautiful volume, spread before us at a cost of travel and thought not to be lightly valued. It is a new feature in modern literature, this useful co-operation of many minds to one end, this union of science and literature. But while allowing all the praises due to photography, we must say we are “provoked” into an opposite criticism to that which we find printed in the course of the remarks made by Mr. Sharpe in his preface, who slights Art as an interpreter of nature, by telling us that scientific accuracy is sacrificed at time to artistic effect; “but when we look at photographic views we are troubled by no such misgivings. Here we have all the truthfulness of nature, all the reality of the objects themselves, and, at the same time, artistic effects which leave us nothing to wish for.” If we were to speak in the same “extreme” style, we should say that this is not only unjust but untrue. Certainly no artist can hope to rival the photographer in the production of such elaborate transcripts of sculpture and hieroglyphics as many of these views present; but when “artistic effects” are spoken of, we shall often look in vain at these views to find them. Indeed, there is a general blackness in some that is not at all characteristic of the brilliant climate of Egypt, and is simply the result of the effect of the hot air and bright sun upon the negatives from which they are produced. There never was, nor could be, such a dark mass of confusion seen in the colonnade at Philæ, or the Temple of Luxor (Pl. 27) as is thus by chemical accident produced. Shadows can scarcely be said to exist in this land of sunshine and sand, and the works of Roberts and Lewis are consequently far more truthful than any photograph in this volume; inasmuch as they delineate the pure sky and arid air, the transparent shadows, and clear beauty of Egyptian scenery. Let us give honestly to every branch of Art and science its due praise, but let us not overrate one by underrating another.
1862: Art Journal, March 1, vol. ?, no #, p. 96:
The Waverley Series of Cabinet [18” x 12”] Photographs.
Places and Scenes of Historical Interest in England and Scotland. By S. Thompson. Published by A. W. Bennett. London.
A few only of this series have yet reached us, but the prospectus that accompanied those we have, enumerates fifty “places and scenes” which it is intended to include. The views before us are Abbotsford, three of Melrose Abbey—the western front, the south porch, and the southern side—and Dryburgh Abbey. None of these are first-class photographs; with the exception of the west front of Melrose, which is extremely heavy, all are weak and wanting in detail: the delicacy of the architecture, the “chisellings” of the rude hand of time, are lost. The prints are of large size, about eighteen inches by twelve inches.
1862: Art Journal, Oct. 1, vol. ?, no #, p. 205-206:
Notabilia of the International Exhibition [selection]
THE SCREEN OF HEREFORD CATHEDRAL. [Photography not mentioned, but Bedford photographed the screen at some time.]
This noble work, which knows no compeer amidst the multitudinous gatherings that surround it, is well able to vindicate the honour of the architecture of England in the second of the Great International Exhibitions held on English ground. It is an example of architecture in metal, however; but the circumstance that this Screen is constructed of brass and iron and copper, instead of stone and oak, in no degree affects the character of the work as a triumphant expression of living architectural energy. At the close of the Exhibition the Screen will be removed to its final destination in Hereford Cathedral [it is not in the Victoria and Albert Museum], where it will discharge the two-fold duty of separating, and also of uniting, the choir and the nave of that most interesting edifice. The Screen is to form a part of the restoration of Hereford Cathedral, under the direction of Mr. G. G. Scott, R. A., and it has been designed by that gentleman. The work has been executed at Coventry, in the establishment for the production of Art-manufactures at the head of which is Mr. Skidmore; and to Mr. Skidmore is due the merit of having realised Mr. Scott’s designs in so admirable a manner.
Executed in more exact conformity with the most perfect processes of the mediæval metal-workers than had previously been even attempted in our own times, the Hereford Screen is a thoroughly original conception, and a work altogether of the present day. It exemplifies in the happiest manner what we have long advocated with such anxious earnestness—the revival of early Art, without even an inclination to reproduce (that is, in plain English, to copy)_ early works of Art. Mr. Scott has designed such a screen as might have appeared in the palmy days of mediæval Gothic, but yet no such screen is numbered amongst the relics of that era; and, in like manner, Mr. Skidmore has demonstrated his right to take rank with the very ablest of the metal-workers of the olden time, while, at the same time, he treats the metals in which he works as an artist who lives in the reign of Queen Victoria.
The Screen consists of an arcade of five main arches, each of them being divided to form two sub-arches: the central arch is of both larger and loftier proportions than the others, and above it rises a lofty pedimental canopy. Iron is the principal constructive material, copper and brass taking the principal parts in the more strictly decorative construction. It is in the use of these three metals, as the actual materials from which the Screen had to be wrought, that Mr. Skidmore’s true triumph has been achieved. In his hands the iron, which knew well how to form shafts that would stand erect and firm in rigid strength, had to be taught to assume that ductile docility which might empower it to realise the varying fantasies of the filigree-worker; the lesson was duly learned, and we have before us masses of iron filigree which are master-pieces of Art. The foliage, which clings in rich profusion to cornice and arch, to corbel and cusp and crocket, together with the passion and the everlasting flowers that are so significant as well as so beautiful, are all formed of copper, that retains its native colour; copper also has been used for producing all the foliated and flower-enriched capitals, whether of the large single columns, or of the smaller clustered shafts. And the brass does brass-work in the same masterly style; and it has been made to acquire a novel and most successful effect, through association with broad bands of lustrous vitreous mosaic, the brass surfaces themselves being studded with groups of bosses of various crystals and coloured marbles. The vivid colours of the mosaic work have been judiciously softened by inlaying the tesseræ in a framework, also of mosaic, formed of fragments of either white or pale grey marble. In the production of the copper capitals and foliage, the early system of repoussé treatment has been revived. The metal, rolled out in sheets of the required substance, has been cut into flowers and leaves in the flat, and then, with the point of the hammer, it has been struck into the perfect forms. As a matter of course, both flowers and leaves are formed of several separate pieces of metal fixed together. Like the copper, the iron, and the brass is all hand-wrought, so that the feeling of the artist and the workman is visible everywhere in the enduring impress of his touch.
The iron portions of the Screen are painted, the colours having all been obtained from oxides of the metal itself. They are the colours that nature has qualified iron to produce; and thus they may claim to have a peculiar title to minister to the beauty of such works as may be wrought in iron. Gilding has been introduced with a sparing hand: perhaps, in the lower portions of the Screen, here and there a touch of gold might add to the effectiveness of the colouring. Still, it must be borne in mind that t his colouring can be understood only when the Screen has been fixed in the cathedral; that is, when it stands in the midst of cathedral associations, and is lighted as cathedral windows admit the light. And further, the colouring of the lower portion of the Screen, of its side panels, and of the shafts, with the mouldings, cannot have its effect determined until the central gates of brass are in their places, and doing their duty at Hereford. It must be understood that a cresting of open-work will eventually rise above the cornice, and form the crowning adornment of the Screen. We would suggest that the large open circle in the tracery of the central canopy should be filled in with a monogram, formed of the Greek characters alpha and omega.
A series of seven statues, executed in copper, complete the decorative accessories of this noble Screen. In the centre, in front of the large pointed vesica panel of open-work, standing upon a corbel that rises above the capital of the central shaft, is a figure of our Lord, represented as in the act of resurrection; on either side of Him, placed over the clustered capitals of the shafts of the main archway, appears a group of two winged angels in adoration; and two other angelic figures, with instruments of music, are placed to the extreme right and left of the entire composition. These figures are as original as works of Gothic sculpture, as the Screen itself is the embodied image of a fresh conception of Gothic architecture; and they vindicate both the high capabilities of living Gothic artists, and the happy harmony that exists between the noblest sculpture and the most perfect Gothic architecture.
This Hereford Screen must be regarded not only as a triumph in itself, and a work that necessarily will become typical of a class of somewhat similar productions, but also as suggestive of most comprehensive inquiries into the principles which ought to govern our treatment of all true Gothic Art. This example of architecture in metal sets before us an independent metallic style of architecture: and, at the same time, it incidentally shows how essentially metallic in their primary expression are many of the more beautiful forms of Gothic decorative construction. The Screen itself suggests the idea of being goldsmith’s work powerfully magnified; and, therefore, it silently but significantly indicates that architecture, even in its mightiest and most massive works, may often find the most valuable types and models in the delicate and minute productions of artist-goldsmiths. But this is a subject that needs to be thought out and worked out; and our Gothic architects will do well to pursue the inquiry that the Hereford Screen places before them.
Grouped with the Screen are two beautiful gas standard, like the Screen itself, formed of iron, brass, and copper; and a large gas corona, entirely of iron filigree-work, studded with chrisolite, which is to accompany the Screen to Hereford Cathedral, now hangs high above it from the roof of the Exhibition building.
The excellent photographs that are judiciously disposed about the platform on which the Screen now stands are too interesting to be passed over without special notice. They attract the attention of all thoughtful visitors, and they serve to illustrate in a most effective manner Mr. Skidmore’s architectural metal work. The photographs of the statues are singularly beautiful, and convey a very truthful idea of the admirable manner in which these sculptures are modeled.
THE PHOTOGRAPHS.
The treatment of photography by the Royal Commissioners is one of the most perplexing matters connected with the Great Exhibition. The works of all foreign photographers have evidently been left at the disposal of the ruling authorities in each country; and accordingly, foreign photographs appear just where they may be best seen, and where their peculiar capabilities may be of the greatest service. There is no collection of either foreign or colonial photographs; but they are ubiquitous, in small or large groups, and their presence is everywhere welcome and always effective. On the other hand, the English photographs have been collected together, and a special depository (we might have used a less euphonious term) ahs been assigned for their reception. The locale of the said depository, however, together with the general views relative to photography enunciated by the Royal Commissioners while the Exhibition was in the course of preparation, were more than sufficient to act as an interdict against the formation of any really first-rate collection of English photographs; and, consequently, the photography of England cannot be said to be worthily represented in the Exhibition. This is the more to be regretted, because the English photographs which are actually present are grouped together, and must be inspected as a collection. Their collective character, therefore, impresses upon them the appearance of representing their own art; and thus they must inevitably be estimated upon a standard altogether different from that which applies to the casual groups or choice single specimens from the Continent and the colonies.
When visitors have been induced to ascend the wearisome flights of steps that lead to the loft above the central entrance to the Exhibition building in Cromwell Road, they discover that the department of English photography and general educational appliances have been closely associated, and placed together at the same unwelcome elevation. Having determined which is the photographic portion of what, perhaps the Commissioners are pleased to entitle a “Court,” visitors will experience the unexpected gratification of finding themselves surrounded with really beautiful works, which have been arranged to the best possible advantage. By what means so many able artists could have been induced to send their works to such a place, and hot it was that the secretary of the Society of Arts consented to undertake the direction of the “photographic department,” we are altogether unable to surmise. Without dwelling upon the noble collection that might so easily have been formed, and which would have been so signally attractive had it been the right thing in the right place, we now are content to remark that the catalogue enumerates upwards of nine hundred specimens, or groups of specimens, including portraits of various styles and sizes, landscapes, architecture, stereographs, and miscellaneous subjects. Almost all are good; some are very excellent, and a few are scarcely worthy of the companionship with which they have been honoured.
What photography is doing on the Continent is significantly suggested rather than faithfully and fully exemplified. The grand photographs of Rome and of certain famous works of Italian masters, which are hung carelessly enough about the cavern-like enclosure that bears the lofty title of the “Roman Court,” and the equally noble views of Florence near at hand, are expressive specimens of Italian photography,--comprehensive in their range, sharp and clear in definition, pure in tone, and beautifully suffused with atmospheric effect. In the Austrian Courts the German photographers have exemplified their powers with similar effectiveness. The Austrian portraits are singularly striking. Indeed, all the foreign photographic portraits are attractive, if only from the freshness of their style, and the new faces that they introduce to us; but they have also decided merits of their own as photographs. To enumerate even a few of the more important of these foreign groups, and to point out the happy manner in which, in so many instances, they have been introduced to illustrate the various collections of works of Art and manufacture, would far exceed our present purpose; but we do desire, not only to record our admiration of the photographs which stud the foreign departments of the Exhibition, but also to direct to these works the attention of such of our readers as would search out for careful study all that is best and most excellent in this Great Exhibition, and would treasure up the remembrance of the lessons which may thus be learned.
There are points connected with the colonial photographs, and with the contributions by the photographers of France (which in themselves amount to a collection) that demand from us a separate and special notice on a future occasion. [rest omitted]
1862: Art Journal, Oct. 1, vol. ?, no #, p. 211:
Mr. Bedford’s Photographs.—This is the most interesting series of photographs that has ever been brought before the public. There must have been many failures, but nothing can be more beautiful than the precision of these views; they give us that which is masked in pictures, that is, the ground surface, on which most frequently is written ruin and decay. In comparison with these obdurate realities, all pictures of Egypt and the Holy Land are pleasant dreams. We have, for instance, the Vocal Memnon; we are disabused of his being now a monolith; he has been repaired in vulgar piecemeal, at least so he looks here, and he does not look either so human or so mythological as Roberts paints him. Again, the Pyramids appear small, and the ground around them is strewn with a kind of desolation that reminds us the curse lies heavy on every part of the land. The series commences with Cairo, of which there are not less than twelve views. We know not whether the Pasha has seen these views; if he have not, he has lost an opportunity of congratulating himself on the contrast presented by the region under his immediate sway with those under the direct dominion of the Porte. From Cairo we proceed to Gizeh, where are shown the Pyramids; after which comes Philæ, whereof there are six views, comprehending, of course, the famous Hypæthral Temple, known as the Bed of Pharaoh. Then follows the Temple of Edfu, a building of the time of the Ptolemies. The figures and names of several of them are commemorated in the sculptures on the pyramidal towers of the gateway, and on the faces of the temple. Thebes supplies not less than nineteen subjects, as the Hall of Columns and other portions of the Temple of Karnak, the Memnonium, the Colossi, the Temple of Medinet Hâbu, the Temple of Luksur, and the Egyptian subjects, and with the gateway of the Temple of Dendora. The Views in the Holy Land and Syria commence with Joppa, which is followed by seventeen of the most interesting sites in and about Jerusalem, as the Mount of Olives, the Mosque of the Dome of the Rock, the Golden Gate, the Valley of Jehoshaphat, the Garden of the Gethsemane, the Monuments of Absalom, James, Zacharias, the Village of Siloam, the Hill of Evil Counsel, &c.; then come Bethany, Mar Saba, Hebron, Nablus, and then Damascus—“O Damascus, pearl of the Eats, as old as history itself.” The views number one hundred and seventy-two, and in some of them are grouped the Prince of Wales, and the distinguished persons in attendance on his Royal Highness. The tour terminates at Malta, and the series is, perhaps, the most interesting ever offered to the Christian and the scholar. We had almost forgotten to mention that the exhibition is held at the German Gallery, in Bond Street.