Evening star., 1952-09-21
Camera Angles:
comero Angles:
An Indictment Of the Baltimore Experiment
By Alexander J. WeddeSburn
curator Of Photography
The Smithsonian institution


Experiment." to my way Of
thinking, is the greatest set
back that Photographic art has
! received since its birth, over 100
years ago. BY turning over the
print judging Of the 1852 Balti-
more Salon to a group Of artists
who work in entirely different
media. photography has jeop-
ardized its position in the world
of art by raising the question.
us photography indeed an art
form?" The great expert
ment," In effect, has produced
one net result-an admission by
photographers that they are not
capable Of appraising their own
talents.
Let's take a look at the rec~
ord. It appears that the 1851
Baltimore Salon was rejected by
the directors Of the Baltimore
Museum or. Art on the ground
that the artistic level of the ex-
hibit was not on a par with the
paintings, etchings, etc. which
were on exhibition at the mu-
scum. This was the privilege Of
the museum, as it is the privi-
lege Of any other museum or
gallery to accept or reject pro-
posed exhibits on this basis.
From this rejection came the
experiment"
The Baltimore Camera Club
proposed early In 1852 that the
Museum of Art exhibit the
forthcoming salon. officials Of
the museum agreed to accept
the show, provided that the mu-
scum be allowed to select the
judges. And to this amazing
proposal the Baltimore Camera
Club agreed. Instead of the
usual panel Of recognized art
lists and critics from photog-
raphy, this was to be a Jury
composed Of artists acceptable
to the Baltimore Museum of
Art). And so it came to
pass that the 800 photo
graphic prints Of the 1852 Balti-
more Salon were passed upon
by three men who are not pho
tographers - m e n unfamiliar
with the intricacies of photo
graphic print making. This is
not to say that the Baltimore
jury was not Of the highest
caliber. Indeed. each Of its
members was selected because
Of his recognized ability as an
artist Of great talent.
FoIIoeious Reasoning
Nevertheless. the acceptance
OF such a jury was a headlong
plunge into an abyss of con-
fessed defeatism by the we'll
meaning members Of the spon-
Soring group. In effect they
said: Although we are capable
OF making pictures which are
acceptable on an equal basis
with other forms of art, we are
not capable Of winnowing the
grain from the chaf and so we
are seeking the aid of artists
The fallaciousness Of this rea-
soning is obvious. for if a man
can produce a work of art he
certainly can discern q work Of
art when he sees it.
In painting circles an exhibit
juror is selected on the basis Of
his reputation as an authorita-
tive critic in the field Of paint
ing. as a recognized top-quality
artist, or for both reasons. In
salon or exhibit photography
1t Is the same: the Judges are
picked for their known ability
as Photographic artists or crit
les. Where then is the advar-
tage in bringing painters or ex-
ponents Of etching or lithogra-
ply into the realm Of photog-
raphy, where the techniques
employed are sure to be an un-
known quantity? There would
be as much logic in having a
jury of photographers rule on
the merits Of an exhibit of
paintings, Autographs. or etch-
ings. This, as we know, simply
does not happen because not
one in a thousand photogra-
pliers has any knowledge of the
techniques Of these art forms.
There is a common meeting
ground, Of course, in composing
and lighting. There the SINH
larity> terminates for the manu-
al artist uses pigments, ink. the
brush and the blade to produce
the end result-the picture.
while the photographer resorts
to chemistry and the action of
light to make his print.
Accept or Reject
Photographic salons or exhi-
bits must either be considered
collections Of works of art or
-