Page:Camera Work No. 1 (January 1903).pdf/25

 Spitzer's two big works—a head and a full-length picture, both made from the same old pictorial model—are of necessity strong and attractive; but with his "Studie im Freien" of last year in one's mind, he hardly seems to have maintained his own very high level. But a Paradestück must not be expected of any one every year. Hugo Henneberg's work, too, I found a little disappointing, when compared with m y recollections of his breezy, blue landscape of the last Salon. But, carp as I may, his three exhibits possess much of the brilliance and broad treatment we are accustomed to look for from Vienna. Heinrich Kühn has a sepia and two blue landscapes. The latter, though dazzling at first, on closer acquaintance seemed less convincing. Professor Hans Watzek sends a landscape and a seascape, both of which are worthy of the good positions given them.

THE French pictures—at least those sent by M. Demachy and M Puyo—are of a particularly interesting character. The former has a portrait of Madame Demachy in profile, which, besides being a very perfect gum print, is a splendid likeness. But Demachy is the father of gum-bichromate and in his hands this bewitching medium of expression in printing is docility itself. He has been studying the engraving and lithograph exhibitions in Paris during the winter, and some of these prints are the result of this study. Not that they are servile copies of engravings, but Demachy has introduced into photography the extremely simple effects—composed chiefly of oppositions (which does not mean contrast in English)—that give that special charm and interest we appreciate so much in engravings. On the walls here he has eleven prints, one of which is a landscape, the rest being figure studies, some delicate and minute, others broad and vigorous, space alone preventing a detailed description of them. M. Puyo has some quite different work from that to which he has accustom ed us. Idealistic, partially draped figures have given place to a well-posed nude, which is an admirable flesh-study. But his Portrait (165)—a most original study in red chalk—was the cause of quite an altercation amongst a group of painters, in which I, photographer-like, detected a note of envy in the criticisms made. Grimprel, Le Bègue, Zollet, Bourgeois, Bucquet, Dubreuil and Bergon all contribute good work, some of the photographs by the last named being curious and puzzling in treatment. A sort of electric light seems to have been thrown upon the principal points of the pictures, which, presumably, has been accomplished by the use of artificial light in conjunction with diffused daylight. But the same worker's "Fille d'Opera" (171), with its comparatively simple treatment, is much more attractive. Indeed, an exhibition like this emphasizes and points the lessons of simplicity, or apparent simplicity, and the fact can not be disguised that impressionism is steadily gaining ground in photographic work. By this term I do not mean the careless, slipshod avoidance of the difficulties of technique, but an impressionism worthy of the old interpretation of the word, the result of the study of masters such as Rembrandt, Constable, and Whistler.