Who are our 'masters'?

[P3D Richard A. Wood <akrare@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Jamie Drouin's excellent question, "who are our 'masters'", is too 
complex to fully answer here. A huge book could be written on this 
subject.  One should read Darrah's "World of Stereographs" for an 
introduction to this subject. There were great stereo photographers in 
the nineteenth century.  Most considered themselves artists. Many 
called themselves artists, not photographers.  I'm researching a 
Keystone stereo photographer; his 1900 federal census data lists his 
occupation as "artist".  Many of the earliest photographers were 
painters.  Some even predicted that photography was the end of the 
artist's livelihood.  Many artists jumped to the new art of 
photography.  They still called themselves artists, to the end of the 
nineteenth century.  There are countless thousands of nineteenth 
century stereographs that are artistically rich.  There were many 
nineteenth century stereo photographers that were great artists.  One 
problem in considering nineteenth century stereographs as art is in 
the format.  Todays art photography collectors are used to looking at 
large prints.  Indeed, many nineteenth century photographers embraced 
the mammoth plate camera.  It is more difficult to convince the art 
critic that a print smaller than your fist is "art".  Art photography 
collectors might argue that twentieth century photographers set out 
with their cameras to create art, whereas nineteenth century stereo 
photographers set out to create a product that would sell as a 
souvenir.  I wonder how the nineteenth century stereo photographer 
would answer this?  How would Muybridge or O'Sullivan or Watkins or 
Jackson describe their stereo photography? How would the Bierstadt 
brothers, the Langenheims, or Edward Anthony's photographers explain 
their stereo photography in terms of its artistic merit?  There is 
Notman of Canada, William England, Wilson, and Sedgfield, of Britain.  
I could go on to all the other countries.  They all had great stereo 
photographers in the nineteenth century.  Most fine-art photography 
collectors today are not interested in the nineteenth century.  But 
when I look at auction catalogs from the major houses, and see what 
these collectors will pay $2000 for, it amazes me.  A lot of these 
images are, in my opinion, right on the border between fine art and 
nonsense.  Many of these collectors have more dollars than sense.  In 
the words of Harold Rosenberg: "No degree of dullness can safeguard a 
work against the determination of critics to find it fascinating".  
Recently a daguerreotype of a cat, intently looking into a bird cage, 
sold for $68,500.00.  The purchaser was quoted as saying "Because it 
takes so long to create a daguerreotype image, it is clear that the 
cat is transfixed, which makes the tableau into a multi-layered 
metaphor about nature, culture, looking, and desire, as well as about 
manipulation".  I just see a great dag of a cat.  Others would say 
"get ree-aall, it's just a dumb picture of a cat".  So, interperting 
nineteenth century stereo photography will be a personal endeavor.  
We'll each have our favorite masters, as there were scores of them.  
Collecting nineteenth century stereographs is a worthwile hobby.  Many 
are great works of art by great photographers.  And most are available 
for a tiny fraction of their worth.  When these stereo photographers 
squeezed the shutter bulb, they were thinking about sales and 
souvenirs and putting bread on the table, but they were also thinking 
about technical considerations, composition, lighting, balance, 
aesthetics, and art.


------------------------------