Paul Strand

"The Art Motive in Photography"1923

Paul Strand ( r 89o- r 976) claimed to have learned the modern-ist aesthetic from looking at art in "rgr," Stieglitz's gallery.In the nineteen-teens, he applied that aesthetic to semi-abstract pictures of grouped bowls or picket fences. His streetpictures of the time, direct and sharp focus, were usuallytaken through a lens on the side of his camera; the subjectswere unaware they were being observed. Stieglitz devotedthe last issue of Camera Work to Strand, marking a shift frompictorialism to sharp-focus, cubist-inspired photographs.Strand became a vocal proponent of the new style. He wasamong the first to be fascinated with precision machinery,especially the car. In later years he made films and put to-gether extended photographic essays in several differentcountries.

(From an address delivered at the Clarence White School of Photosra-phy in r9z3)

A discussion of all the ramifications of photographic mcthotls in rnotl-ern l i fe would require morc t i rnc i r r r t l spct ' i : r l l i r ror , r ' l r '< lgc t l r : r r r I hrrvc rr tmy disposal . I t worr l r l inclrr t l t ' : r l l t l r r . r l iv t ls t . us(.s l ( ) u l r i t . l r p l rotogr:r-t , - ( t

THE ART MOTIVE IN PHOTOGRAPHY 211

lrhy is being put in an essentially industrial and scientif ic civil ization.Some of these applications of the machine, the camera, and the mate-rials which go with it, are very wonderful. I need only mention as alcw examples the X-ray, micro-photography in astronomy as well ast he various photo-mechanical processes which have so amazingly giventhe world access to pictorial communication, in much the same revo-lrrt ionary way that the invention of the printing press made extensivevcrbal communication possible and easy.

Of much less past importance than these in its relationship to l ife,Irccause much less clearly understood, is that other phase of photogra-phy which I have particularly studied and worked with, and to whichI will confine myself. I refer to the use of the photographic means as arrredium of expression in the sense that paint, stone, words and sound,rre used for such purpose. In short, as another set of materials which,in the hands of a few individuals and when under the control of therrrost intense inner necessity combined with knowledge, may become,rn organism with a l ife of its own. I say a few individuals, becausethey, the true artists, are almost as rare a phenomenon among painters,sculptors, composers as among photographers.

Now the production of such living organisms in terms of anynraterial, is the result of the meeting of two things in the u'orker. Itinvolves, first and foremost, a thorough respect and understanding forthe particular materials with which he or she is impelled to work, and:r degree of mastery over them, which is craftsmanship. And secondly,t hat indefinable something, the l iving element which fuses with crafts-rnanship, the element which relates the product to life and must there-lirre be the result of a profound feeling and experience of l i fe.( lraftsmanship is the fundamental basis which you can learn and de-r, 'clop provided you start with absolute respect for your materials,which, as students of photography, are a machine called a camera andthc chemistry of l ight and other agents upon metals. The living ele-rncnt, the plus, you can also develop if i t is potentially there. It cannotl)c taught or given you. Its development is conditioned by your ownli 'cl ing which must be a free way of l iving. By a free u'ay of l iving Irrrcan the diff icult process of f inding out what your o\\/n feeling abouttlrc world is, disentangling it from other people's feelings and ideas. Inotlrcr words, this wantingto be what may truthfully be called an artist,is thc last thing in the world to worry. You either are that thing or you: l r ( ' I l ( ) t .

Now thc ge rtcml notion of art ist is t lui te a dif fcre nt matter. Thisrrot iorr r rscs thc word to t lcscr i l rc r l r )y()nc n, l - ro hrs a l i t t le ta lent and:r l r i l i ty , l l : r r t i t ' t r l : r r ' l \ t i r t t l tc t tst 'o l 'pr t i r t l , : t l t t l t ' , , l t l j ts ts t l r is t : l lcnt , t l ter

278 PHOTOGRAPHY rN PRrNT

commonest thing in the world, with the exceedingly rare abil ity to useit creatively. Thus everybody who slings a l itt le paint is an artist, andthe word, l ike many other words which have been used uncrit ically,ceases to have any meaning as a symbol of communication.

However, when you look back over rhe development of photog-raphy, when you look at what is being done today sti l l in the name ofphotography in "Photograms of the Year," in the Year Book of thePictorial Photographers, it is apparenr that this general erroneous no-tion of artist has been and is the chief worry of photographers and theirundoing. They, too, would l ike to be accepted in polite society asartists, as anyone who paints is accepted, and so they try to turnphotography into something which it is not; they introduce a paintfeeling, In fact, I know of very fell' photographers whose work is notevidence that at bottom they would prefer to paint if they knew how.Often, perhaps, they are not conscious of their subjugation to the ideaof painting, of the absence of all respecr and understanding of theirown medium which this implies and which steri l izes their work. But,nevertheless, either in their point of view toward the things they pho-tograph, or more often in the handling of certain unphotographic ma-terials, they betray their indebtedness to painting, usually, second-ratepainting. For the patheric part is that the idea which photographershave had of painting is just as uncrit ical and rudimenrary as this p

u 8o PHOTocRAPHY IN PRrNT

emerge, to be used consciously as a medium of expression. In thoseother phases of photographic method which I menrioned, that is, inscientif ic and other record making, there has been at least, perhaps ofnecessity a modicum of that understanding and control of purely pho-tographic qualit ies. That is why I said these other phases were nearerto a truth than all the so-called pictorialism, especially the unoriginal,unexperimental pictorialism which today fi l ls salons and year-books.Compared u'ith this so-called pictorial photography, which is nothingbut an evasion of everything photographic, all done in the name of artand God knows what, a simple record in the National GeographicNl[agazine, a Druot reproduction of a painting or an aerial photographicrecord is an unmixed relief. They are honest, direct, and sometimesinformed with the beauty, however unintentional. I said a simple rec-ord. Well, they are not so simple to make, as most of the pictorialphotographers would find out if they threw away their oil pigmentsand their soft-focus lenses, both of which cover a multitude of sins,much abscnce of knou,ledge, much sloppy workmanship. In realitythey do not covcr them for anyone who sees.

Gums, oils, soft-focus Ienses, these are the worst enemies, not ofphotography which can vindicate itself easily and naturally, but ofphotographers. The whole photographic past and present! with feu'exceptions, has been weakened and steri l ized by the use ofthese things.Bctween the past and the present, however, remember that there isthis distinction-that in the past rhese exrrinsic methods were perhapsnecessary as a part of phorographic experimentation and clarif ication.But there is no such excuse for their continued use today. Men likeKuhn and Steichen, who were masters of manipulation and diffusion,have themselves abandoned this interference because they found thcresult was a meaningless mixture, not painting, and certainly not pho-tography. And yet photographers go right on today gumming andoil ing and soft-focusing without a trace of that skil l and convicriorrwhich these two men possessed, r.vho have abandoned it. Of course ,there is nothing immoral in it. And there is no reason why they shoultlnot amuse themselves. It merely has nothing to do with photographv,nothing to do with painting, and is a producr of a misconccprion ol'both. For this is what these processes and materials do-oil and grrrrrintroduce a paint feeling, a thing even more alien to photograph.v thrrrrcolour is in an etching, and lord knows a colourcd etching is cnorrglr ol 'an abominat ion. By introducing pigmcnt rcxturc you l

282 PHOTOGRAPHY IN PRINT

with its own unalienable character, with its own special quality ofexpressiveness! as any fully realized product of other media.

The unintell igence of present-day photographers, that is of so-called pictorial photographers, l ies in the fact that they have not discov-ered the basic qualit ies of their medium, either through the misconcep-tions of the past or through working. They do not see the thing whichis happening, nor which has happened, because they do not know theirown tradition. This is proven by their continued puerile use of theunphotographic methods iust dealt with, evidence that they are sti l ldominated by a rudimentary, uncrit ical conception of painting, thatthey see in a half-baked, semi-photographic product a short cut to whatthey conceive painting to be, and to the recognition of themselves asartist. But, above all, the lack of knowledge of their own tradition isprcrved by the fact that thousands of numbers of Carnera Work lie idletoday in storage vaults, in cellars, clutter up shelves. These marvelousbooks which have no counterpart or equal, which contain the onlycomplete record of the development of photography and its relationshipto other phases of l i fe, to the publication of which Stieglitz devotedyears of love and enthusiasm and hard l l,ork, photographers have leftto rot on his hands, a constant weight upon him, physical and financial.That he has not destroyed every copy is a miracle. But he conrinues topreserve them as well as the collection of photographs represenring rhispast development of photography, the only collection of its kind rnexistence, and most of which he purchased-all this he preserves per-haps because he has faith in photography, in the u'ork he has done, andin the young generation of students, who, he hopes, wil l seek them outand use them; that is, use all this past experiment, not to imitate, butas a means of clarifying their own work, of gror.ving, as the painter u'hois also an artist can use his tradition. Photographers have no othcraccess to their tradition, to the experimental work of the past. Forwhereas the painter may acquaint himself with the development antlpast achievements of his medium, such is not rhe case for the studcnt-worker in photography. There is no place where you can see the workof Hil l, White, Kasebier, Eugene, Stieglitz as well as the u'ork of'Europe, on permanent exhibit ion. Yet the photographers do nor sccrrrto be interested. They have done nothing to help preservc or usc rhcs('things. This is in itself a crit icism of their intensity, and it shou's in rlrcquality of their work. All the way through there is this abscncc of f-rrir lrin the dignity and worth of their own medium, how,cvcr trscri or rrusused, and, at the same t ime, thc absurd at tempt to provc to t l rc rvor ' l t lthat they too, are art ists. - lhc tu,o th ings c lo not j i l re. So I srr , r , l { ) \ ' ( ) r lagain, t l rc rccorcl is thcrc, r rct ' t 'ss i l r l t ' t ( ) :ur \ ' ( ) l l ( ' sul- f i r ' i t ' r r t lY i r r t . r tst t , l .

rHE, AR'I 'MOTIVE IN PHOTOGRAPHY 263

If when you have studied it, you sti l l have to gum, oil, or soft-focus,that is all r ight, that is your experience to go through with. The humananimal seems unable for some reason or other to learn much from eitnerthe blunder or the wisdom of the past. Hence the war. But there are,nevertheless, laws to which he must ult imately conform or be de-stroyed. Photography, being one manifestation of l i fe, is also subiect tosuch laws. I mean by laws those forces which control the qualit ies ofthings, which make it impossible for an oak tree to bring forth chest-nuts. Well, that is what photographers have been trying to make pho-tography do-make chestnuts, and usually old chestnuts, grow on anoak tree. I won't say it can't be done, but it certainly has not beentklne. I don't care hov' you photograph-use the kitchen mop if yourrrust, but if the product is not true to the laws of photography, that is,if i t is not based on the inherent qualit ies I have mentioned, as it wil lr )ot , you have produced something which is dead. Of course, i t doesrrot follow that if you do make what has been called a good straightl)hotograph, you wil l thereby automatically create a l iving organism,lrrrt, at least, you wil l have done an honest piece of work, somethingu hich may give the pleasure of craftsmanship.

And if you can find out something about the laws of your ou/nltr)\{. ' th and vision as well as those of photography you may be able tort ' late the two, create an object which has a l ife of its own, whichrlrrnscends craftsmanship. That is a long road, and because it must be\ ( )ur own road nobody can teach it to you or f ind it for you. There arerro short cuts. no rules.

Perhaps you wil l say, But wait; how about design and composi-tion, or in painter's l ingo, organisation and significant form? My an-',u e r is that these are words which, when they become formulated,"rr:rrify, as a rule, perfectly dead things. That is to say u'hen a veritable( r '( 'rtor comes along, he finds the only form in which he can clothe hisl.t l ings and ideas. If he works in a graphic medium he must f ind a wayr,, sirlplify the expression and eliminate everything that is irrelevant torr l,.very part of his picture, rvhether a painting, etching, or a photo-li lrrph, must be meaningful, related to every other part. This he doesnrrl ur':r l ly and inevitably by using the true qualit ies of his medium in itsrr ' l : r t ion to his exper ience of l i fe. Nou'when he has done this t ranscen-, l t r r t t l r ing, af ter much hard u,ork, exper iment and many fai lures, the, rit ic :rnrl thc profcssors, ctc.r appear on the scene usually f ifteen ort \ \ ( r ) t \ ' y ,ctrs rr f tcr thc nran has dicd, and they deduce from his workrrr l t s ol - t 'or t rposi t iorr r r r r i l r lcs ign. ' l 'hcn thc school grou's and academicrrrr i l r r t iorr , r r r r t i l l i l r : r l l r ' : r r r , t l r t ' r ' rn ln ( ' ( ) r ) t ( 's r r long, l rnd, a lso natural ly,rnr l i r t t ' r ' i t r r l r l \ ' , l r r t ' : r l is : r l l t l r t r r r l , s u ' l r i r ' l r t l r< 'cr i t ic : r r r t l thc prof i 'ssors

264 PHOTOGRAPHY IN PRINT

have neatly t ied up with blue ribbon. And so it goes. In other words,composition, design, etc., cannot be fixed by rules, they are not inthemselves a static prescription by which you make a photograph oranything that has meaning. They signify merely the way of synthesisand simplification which creative individuals have found for them-selves. If you have something to say about l i fe, you must also find away of saying it clearly. If you achieve that clarity of both perceptionand the abil ity to record it, you wil l have creared your own composi-tion, your ou'n kind of design, personal to you related to orher people's,yet your own. The point I wanr ro make is that there is no such thingas -lhe Way; there is only for each individual, his or her way which inthe last analysis, each one musr find for himself in photography and inliving. As a matter of fact, your photography is a record of your living,for anyone r.vho really sees. You may see and be affected by the otherpeople's \r 'ays, you may even use them to find your own, but you wil lhave eventually to free yourself of them. That is what Nietzsche meantwhen he said, "I have iust read Schopenhauer, now I have to get rid ofhim." He knew how insidious other people's ways could be, parricu-larly those which have the forcefulness of profound experience, if youlet them go between you and your vision. So I say to you that compo-sition and design mean nothing unless they are the moulds you yourselfhave made, into which to pour your own content, and unless you canmake the mould, which you cannot if you do nor respect your materialsand have some mastery over them, you have no chance to release tharcontent. In othcr words, Iearn to photng.rph first, Iearn your craft,and in the doing of that you wil l f ind a way, if you have anything rosay, of saying it. The old masters were craftsmen first, some one

286 PHOTOGRAPHY IN PRINT

I do not want to discuss in detail this work of Stieglitz, as anotherexhibition of his most recent photographs opens April first at the An-derson Galleries. Go and see these things yourself. If possible, look atthe earlier photographs in Carnera Work, so that you can follow thedevelopment of his knowledge and of his perceptions, Stieglitz hasgone much further than Hil l. His work is much wider in scope, moreconscious, the result of many more years of intensive experiment.Every instrument, form, texture, l ine and even print colour are calledinto play, subjugated through the machine to the single purpose ofexpression. Notice how every obiect, every blade of grass, is felt andaccounted for, the full acceptance and use of the thing in front of it'Note, too, that the size and shape of his mounts become part of theexpression. He spends months sometimes iust trying to mount a pho-tograph so sensitive is the presentation. Observe also how he has usedsolarisation, really a defect, how he has used it as a virtue consciously,made the negative with that in mind. That is truly creative use ofmaterial, perfectly legitimate, perfectly photographic.

In other words, go and see what photography really is and what itcan record in the hands of one who has worked with intense resPectand intell igence, who has l ived equally intensely, without theorics,Stieglitz fought for years to give other people a chance to work and trrdevelop, and he is sti l l f ighting. The photographers failed. They didnot develop, and did not grow. Stieglitz has done for photograplrywhat they have not been able to do. He has taken it out of the realm ol'misconception and a promise, and made it a fulf i l lment.

In his exhibit ion two years ago he set aside the question of whethcr'photography is or is not art is of no importance to him, just as he ditlthirty-five years ago. Exactly, because nobody knows what art is ot'God or all the other abstractions, particularly those who make clairl lsto such knowledge. There are a few, however, who do know whrttphotography is and what painting is. They know that there is as mttcltpainting which is bad photography as most photography is bad pairrting. In short, they have some idea whether a thing is genuine and rl l ivcor false and dead.

In closing, I wil l say this to you as students of photography. l)orr'tthink when I say students that I am trying to talk down. Wc art' rrl lsrudents, including Stieglitz. Some a l itt le longer at it than the ttt ltt 'rr 'a l i tt le more experienced. When you cease to be a student you nrigllt r l\well be dead as far as the significance of your work is conccrnctl. So Iam simply talking to you as one student to others, ottt of l lry o\\ 'rrexperience. And I say to you, bcf