Modern Women Meister

7/24/2019 Modern Women Meister

1/8

Crossing the Line: FranCe

and gertrude KseB

and artis

At the end of the nineteenth century there were three

types of photographers: the professional, the artist, and

the amateur.1The borders between them were distinct, if

permeable. Professionals relied on photography to make a

living, either by operating commercial studios or accept-ing assignments from illustrated magazines, and produced

unmistakably photographic workrich in detail and

intimately connected to the real world. Artists, for the

most part, sought recognition for photography as a means

of personal expression, imitating avant-garde efforts from

other mediums with such techniques as soft focus, exten-

sive darkroom manipulation, and compositional arrange-

ments derived from Japanese woodcuts, anything to

distinguish their work from that of their professional peers.

The amateur photographer emerged with the technical

developments of the 1880s: hoards of self-taught snap-

shooters enticed by George Eastmans advertising campaign

(You Press the Button, We Do the Rest) to take tens of

thousands of pictures of their children, friends, and vaca-

tions. To photographers who considered themselves artists

the sheer number of pictures produced by amateurs and

professionals was a threat to the consideration of photog-

raphy as a fine art.2It was during this increasingly divided

era in photographic history that Frances Benjamin Johnston

and Gertrude Ksebier first picked up their cameras.

There is ample evidence that women were participating

in the business and art of photography from its earliest

days, but it was the availability of commercially prepared

dry-plate glass negatives in the late 1870s, followed by the

development of rolled negatives on flexible film (which

Eastman placed inside his Kodak No. 1 Camera in 1888)

that precipitated a v

The profusion of adv

reflected Eastmans a

of the female marke

And despite the prevartist-photographer

by the presence of w

by the amateurs and

photographs for an e

Alfred Stieglitz

in photography at th

talented photograph

advocate for photogr

Artist-photographer

Stieglitz champione

Notes(from 1897 un

in 1903).6In 1902, c

status quo, he invite

his absolute dedicat

graphic art to join hi

Photo-Secession.7G

to protect photograp

commercialism, it is

with many of his adm

to earn a living maki

support were critica

photographers of th

no exception. It is re

support to these two

their claim neither a

als, but as profession

The categories o

Stieglitz and many o

mutually exclusive, w

female contemporar

1.g Kb

(ac,18521934).Blessed Art Thou Among

Women.1899. Pl p,

9 3/8x 5 5/8" (23.8 x 14.3 c).

t m f m a,

nw Yk.gf f m.hm.t

124


2/8

126 Crossing the Line

to transcending societal expectations (for example, defining

both home and studio as womens spheres). The way in

which Johnston and Ksebier bridged the divide between

art and commerce can help us understand this singularly

polarizing issue in the history of photography.

The woman who makes photography profitable

must have, as to personal qualities, good common

sense, unlimited patience to carry her throughendless failures, equally unlimited tact, good taste,

a quick eye, a talent for detail, and a genius for

hard work. In addition, she needs training, experience,

some capital, and a field to exploit. . . .

Any person of average intelligence can produce

photographs by the thousand, but to give art value

to the fixed image of the camera-obscura requires

imagination, discriminating taste, and, in fact,

all that is implied by a true appreciation of the

beautiful.

Frances Benjamin Johnston8

Frances Benjamin Johnston appeared undaunted by many

of the gender stereotypes that prevailed at the end of the

nineteenth century: she remained unmarried, established

her own commercial portrait studio, and photographed

herself with her skirt drawn up, a cigarette in one hand

and a beer stein in the othera defiantly improper repre-

sentation. Born in 1864 and trained at the Acadmie Julian,

in Paris, and the Art Students League, in Washington,

D. C., Johnston began her career writing a nd illustrating

magazine articles, often using photographs as the basis

for her pen-and-ink drawings.9Around 1890 she turned

exclusively to photography, which she learned from

Thomas Smillie, the Smithsonians first staff photographer,

and a few years later she went to work for George Grantham

Bain, founder of the first news-photography agency, making

her the first female photojournalist.10It was not until

1895, with the opening of her own studio, that she expan-

ded her practice to include portraiture. She must have

been pleased with her thriving studio and steady stream

of freelance assignments, but she also remained proud of

her artistic training; in 1896, with no little trepidation,

she submitted three prints to the first (and only)

Washington Salon.11All three were accepted, likely

encouraging her to submit work to the first Philadelphia

Photographic Salon, in 1898, where she would first cross

paths with Ksebier.

The Philadelphia Photographic Salon marked thefirst time that a recognized American fine arts institution

sponsored a p hotography exhibition.12The organizers

pride and idealism would soon be tested by the tensions

between those who shared Stieglitzs singular vision

and those with broader notions of photographic accom-

plishment. Stieglitz was one of the salons five jurors, who

together selected only 259 works for exhibition from more

than 1,500 submitted.13Four of Johnstons photographs

were chosen, along with ten by Ksebier; only Stieglitz,

Mathilde Weil, and Clarence H. White were equally

well represented.

Johnston had also received glowing praise in the pages

of Camera Notes, a quarterly magazine Stieglitz had created

the previous year from his new position as vice president

of the Camera Club of New York (and, not incidentally,

chair of its publication committee). Stieglitz used Camera

Notesto champion photography as a fine art, to commend

those practitioners he admired, and to condemn (or, worse,

ignore) the rest. On its pages in October 1897 Johnston

was hailed, despite her professional background, as one

of the best known American amateurs and an eminent

name in the field.14In October 1898 a halftone reproduction

of one of Johnstons photographs accompanied an article

by Sadakichi Hartmann, which distinguished the work

of artistic photographers from the amateur work of

Kodak fiends, thus aligning Johnston with serious

creative endeavors.15Shortly thereafter Stieglitz wrote

to Johnston, Your work is capital, & I shall be glad to

see more of it when you get to New York. 16These were

not empty compliments: Johnstons photographs were

exhibited at the Camera Club in November 1898, con-

current with the first Philadelphia Salon.

The reviews of Johnstons work in Camera Notescon-

firm her enviable position. In January 1899 her photographs

and Stieglitzs were described as remarkable in equal

degree.17And in the f ollowing issue: If Miss Johnston

be not endowed with that erratic and uncertain gift called

genius, her works . . . give evidence at least of the posses-

sion of a high order of talent.18

This issue containedJohnstons first full-page gravure as well as the magazines

first halftone reproductions of Ksebiers photographs. For

Ksebier this would be the first of many appearances, but

despite the promise described in these reviews, it would

be Johnstons last reproduction or substantive mention.

It was a fast fall from Stieglitzs grace. Within a

month of this issues publication, when Johnston and

Ksebier were appointed jurors of the second Philadelphia

Photographic Salon (along with F. Holland Day, White,

and Henry Troth), Stieglitz wrote to Day, I like you as a

Jurorbut Miss Johnston! And even Troth. Why not Day

to represent the East, Ksebier the Middle States, and

White the West?19(The jurors sat together for a tintype

portrait at a local commercial studio, providing a precious

record of their demeanor [no. 2]. For jurors responsible

for upholding artistic standards of excellence to document

their role in such a pedestrian manner would have been

ironic, even deplorable, to Stieglitz.) For the third Salon,

in 1900, Stieglitz secured a seat for himself on the jury,

pleased to have Ksebier by his side and perhaps equally

pleased about (if not responsible for) Johnstons absence.

By then the rift was growing between Stieglitzs allies,

who felt that the modern photographic Salon stands

for art and a rt alone, and a number of members of the

Philadelphia Photographic Society, who felt that the selec-

tion criteria were too narrow. Johnston was among the

many whose work was excluded because it no longer fit

Stieglitzs definition of art photography.20

There were most likely several reasons for Johnstons

falling out of favor. The first and most significant is that

by mid-1899 her ph

had little in common

previous work that S

admired. Johnston r

the more expository

vocabulary she had d

during her years wo

and the illustrated p

the lessons of comp

absorbed under Stie

almost certainly ste

boycotts of salons a

regular basis or, mor

rejection of his posi


3/8


that was well suited to the subject and assignment but

anathema to Stieglitz and his followers, despite Johnstons

use of Pictorialist processeslarge glass-plate negatives

and platinum prints. Yet the most unforgivable aspect of

this work must have been the fact of its commission a nd

real-world function. The Hampton Institute, founded in

1868 to provide African Americans and, soon thereafter,

Native Americans with academic instruction and vocational

training, had commissioned Johnston to make photographsfor publicity and fund-raising purposes when public

support for their mission was waning.

The best of Johnstons Hampton Institute photographs,

most likely the same ones displayed in Paris, were com-

piled into an album, now in the collection of The Museum

of Modern Art.26The album introduces its subject slowly,

beginning with views of the campus, photographs of the

schools founders (not made by Johnston), a group portrait

of four hundred students, and a didactic series of before-

and-after views illustrating the improvements made

possible by a Hampton education (nos. 3 and 4). But it is

the more than one hundred tableaux vivants that follow

of students absorbed in formal instruction or engaged in

practical trainingon which Johnstons reputation rightly

rests (nos. 58). In some, the viewers eye, like those of

the students, is drawn to the subject of the days lesson

by the careful placement of desks and teaching tools; in

others, Johnston positioned the students like actors on a

stage, in arrangements that emphasize traditional compo-

sitional elements, with the force of her will keeping even

the youngest students in their poses until the long exposure

was completed. These photographs share the qualities of

fine craftsmanship and classical composition admired by

Stieglitz and his peers, but the images insistently photo-

graphic characteristics were antithetical to their sense

of aesthetic refinement.

Currying favor with Stieglitz had been somewhat of

a distraction in Johnstons career, but his influence was

apparent when she returned to work made on assignment,

creating photographs that are exquisitely composed and

beautifully rendered

lead in assuming a r

of celebrating the ac

development of fem

of their status as art

Why should it no

desiring to be kno

apprenticeship innever be understo

one whose sense

and educated. . . .

tastes to train fo

photography. It se

them, and the few

with gratifying an

draws and paints,

consider the adva

ones being a tak

Gertrude

Gertrude Stanton w

that is now Iowa, an

twelve, her family m

took in boarders to s

of whom was Eduard

Wiesbaden, German

Stanton in 1873. Ks

their relationship, h

have contributed to

the domestic sphere

children were not ye

in the Regular Art C

The curriculum

female students wer

information, and su

The child-developm

encouraging indepen

were taught in teach

applications of p hotography were antithetical to the cre-

ation of art.21The third reason could have been Johnstons

increasing prominence as an arbiter of taste: her defining

of (generally female) photographic accomplishment was

a clear challenge to Stieglitzs authority.

Johnston was an official delegate to the International

Photographic Congress, held during the 1900 Exposition

Universelle in Paris, which Stieglitz and his coterie had

boycotted entirely, on the grounds that photography was

classified as Group III (Appliances and General Processes

relating to Literature, Science and Art) rather than Group

II (Works of Art).22In her capacity as delegate, Johnston

gathered nearly one hundred and fifty photographs to dem-

onstrate the artistic accomplishments of thirty-one of

her female American peersamateurs and professionals

alikeand this exhibition, along with two other exhibi-

tions of Johnstons recent work, constituted the only

American photographs on view in Paris.23Johnston had

sought Stieglitzs input in her planning, and his reply

was cordial, if conscious of posteritys judgment: The list

of women photographers you sent me is complete and I

can think of no one that you may have overlookedId

certainly ask them all. . . . The women in this country a re

certainly doing great photographic work and deserve much

commendation for their efforts.24The exhibition was

extremely well received; it traveled to Moscow in the fall

of 1900 and back to Paris in January 1901, and Johnston

wrote a series of seven articles about women included in

the exhibition forLadies Home Journal, beginning with

Ksebier.25She was asserting her voice in the debate over

what constituted photographic art.

The change in Johnstons photographic style may

have incited Stieglitzs intolerance of her extracurricular

activities, but it resulted in the work for which she remains

best known, which was also displayed in Paris in 1900.

More than 350 of her photographs of the Washington,

D.C., public school system, made in 1899, were displayed

in the United States Pavilion; about 150 more, made at

the Hampton Institute in December 1899 and Ja nuary

1900, were in the Palace of Social Economy as part of the

American Negro Exhibit. Johnstons rate of production

for these two bodies of work alone would have been anti-

thetical to the Pictorialists labored practices. There was

a clarity and uniformity to the images from each series

3. Fc B j(ac,18641952). The

Old Well.18991900.F

The Hampton Album (1900).

Pl p,7 1/2x 9 9/16"

(19 x 24.3 c).t mf m a,nw Yk.

gf f Lcl K

4. Fc B j(ac,18641952). The

Improved Well (Three Hampton

Grandchildren).18991900.

F The Hampton Album

(1900).Pl p,7 1/2x9 1/2" (19.1 x 24.2 c).t

m f m a,nw

Yk.gf f Lcl K


4/8


5. Fc B j

(ac,18641952).Thanksgiving Day Lesson at

the Whittier.18991900.FThe Hampton Album(1900).

Pl p,7 1/2x 9 9/16"

(19 x 24.3 c).t m

f m a,nw Yk.

gf f Lcl K

6. Fc B j

(ac,18641952).

History:Class in American

History.18991900.FThe Hampton Album(1900).

Pl p,7 1/2x 9 1/2"

(19.1 x 24.2 c).t m

f m a,nw Yk.

gf f Lcl K

7.Fc B j(ac,18641952).

Physiology:Class in Emergency

Work.18991900.FThe Hampton Album(1900).Pl p,7 9/16x 9 1/2"

(19.2 x 24.2 c).t m

f m a,nw Yk.

gf f Lcl K

8. Fc B j

(ac,18641952).

Stairway of the Treasurers

Residence:Students at Work.

18991900.FThe

Hampton Album(1900).

Pl p,7 1/2x 9 1/2"

(19.1 x 24.1 c). t m

f m a,nw Yk.

gf f Lcl K


5/8


in public lectures and articles.30Such peaceful coexistence

of practical advice with artistic education augured the

combination of professional success and artistic recogni-

tion that would define Ksebiers photographic career. It

was also at Pratt that Ksebier began to investigate the

concept of motherhood, which would become central to

her art in, for example, The Manger andBlessed Art Thou

Among Women(both 1899, nos. 9 and 1), two of her earliest

and best-known explorations of this theme (the gentle

maternal encouragement toward independence in the latter

work, symbolized by the threshold, can be interpreted as

an illustration of Froebels theories). The female figures

in both works are garbed in timeless white gowns, func-

tioning as symbols of purity and also as a nod to those

viewers who would have been familiar with Ja mes McNeill

Whistlers Symphony in White, No. 1: The White Girl(1862).

The light tones evoke a dreamlike atmosphere that obfus-

cates the photographs connections to the real world.

There was no formal instruction in p hotography at

PrattKsebier was in fact criticized by her teachers for

submitting a photograph to a contest run by a local arts

magazineso she satisfied her photographic yearnings

by taking pictures of her own children.31While packing

for a trip to France after graduation in the summer of

1894, Ksebier had just enough room in her trunk for her

camera; that summer she recognized photography as hertrue calling. She stayed in Europe for the remainder of the

year, then returned to New York determined to become

a photographer. She apprenticed at a commercial studio

in Brooklyn, where, she said, I served in the sky-light;

I developed; I printed; I toned; I mounted; I retouched.

I acquired the knack of handling materials in quantities,

and caught the swing of business. I purposely forgot for

the time, that I had any aim other than to be a commercial

photographer.32Once armed with this training, however,

she began submitting her photographs to art exhibitions,

the first in November 1896 at the Boston Camera Club.

Ksebier opened her first studio by early 1898, and soon

wrote to introduce herself to Stieglitz.33Within a year, she

not only knew Stieglitz well but had earned his respect,

as evidenced by her solo exhibition at the Camera Club of

New York in February 1899 and her increasing prominence

on the pages of Camera Notes.

In July 1899 painter Arthur W. Dow (Ksebiers former

instructor at Pratt) wrote of her, Being a painter herself,

with experience and training, and a knowledge of what

constitutes fine art, she chooses to paint her portraits with

the camera and c hemicals.34Another reviewer remarked,

Of the exhibitions of individual photographic work

shown at the New York Camera Club, none excited

more attention nor incited more earnest discussion

than that of Mrs. Gertrude Ksebier . . . though

professional work, it was marked by an entire absence

of the confectioner-like and inartistic methods. . . .

This is the more remarkable when it is remembered

that these pictures were not the carefully studied

compositions of leisure hours, but examples of work

done professionally for the general public, without

any chance to exercise a choice of models.35

Stieglitz may have given up on Johnston as an artist as

a result of the commissions she accepted, but Ksebiers

artistic success within a commercial operation forced him

to soften his antiprofessional stanceat least on the pagesof Camera Notes. In fact, most of the photographs that

have come to define Ksebier as an artist were not made

on commission, and any selection of her best work (by

Stieglitz or this author) includes few examples in which

she was not able to choose and pose her models.

9. g Kb

(ac,18521934).The Manger.1899. Plp,12 13/16x 9 5/8" (32.5 x

24.4 c).t m f

m a,nw Yk.gf

f m.h m.t


6/8


Island (includingHappy Daysand a portrait of her friend

Baron Adolf de Meyer [no. 13]), reveal her increased inter-

est in asymmetrical composition and working outside

the studio.

For the remainder of her career, however, Ksebiers

work changed very little, which might have been as

abhorrent to Stieglitz as her commercial practice. Camera

Workdid not review her exhibition at Stieglitzs Little

Galleries of the Photo-Secession in early 1906, and the

final substantive consideration of her work on its pages,

in October 1907, was not illustrated, had already been

published in a Londo

included such slight

as her artistic geniu

position she now ho

Stieglitzs support.

While Johnstonended her relationsh

invited to join the Ph

with Stieglitz was m

not precipitated by

because she was one

photographers at th

Stieglitz was willing

commercial ambitio

treatment in Camera

Photographers of Ne

a surprise that she w

Photo-Secessions o

Stieglitz complained

Ksebier was savvy enough to realize that remaining

in Stieglitzs favor was in her best interest, and for many

years she worked hard to stay that way. When Stieglitz

founded the Photo-Secession (leaving the Camera Club

of New York and Camera Notesbehind him), Ksebier was

one of twelve photographers he picked to join him as a

founder and fellow. And when he created Camera Workto

celebrate photography as a means of personal artistic

expression, he chose Ksebier to be the featured photog-

rapher of the inaugural issue in January 1903and asked

Johnston to write a tribute:

Mrs. Ksebier is great as an artist, and as such her

unrivaled ability is everywhere conceded, but she is

greater still as a professional photographer. . . . To

portray with artistic insight all sorts and conditions

of men . . . requires not only genius but a rare

combination of other qualitiesintuition, tact,

sympathy and infinite patience. Gifted with such a

temperament, this is what Mrs. Ksebier is doing.36

Another review noted that a new magazine, devoted to

the higher interests of photography . . . not inaptly opens

with a survey of the work of M rs. Gertrude Ksebier. For

this lady has won a most enviable reputation both for the

quality of the work and for the tact with which she hasunited artistic endeavor to business considerations.37

And an unsigned editorial comment (by Stieglitz) reads,

In devoting our first number mainly to the work of

Gertrude Ksebier, we feel that we are but doing justice to

one whose art-example has been so potent in influencing

the tendencies of modern portrait-photography. The

selection made by us shows, though inadequately, the range

and many-sided qualities of the work of this woman who

prides herself upon being a mere commercial photogra-

pher.38Stieglitz justified his decision to Edward Steichen

with the explanation that Ksebier was the pioneer,

but it was also true that, simply by selecting a woman as

the focus of its first issue, Stieglitz was aligning his new

magazine with a progressive agenda.39Despite the repeated

mention of her professional activity, at most two of the

six photographs reproduced in the inaugural issue were

commissioned works, and two othersBlessed Art Thou

Among Womenand The Mangerhad already appeared

on the pages of Camera Notes. Stieglitz also reproduced

The Red Man(1900), from Ksebiers extended series of

Native Americans, a close-cropped man virtually unadorned

and shrouded in a dark blanket, although the traditionally

costumed figure inAmerican Indian Portrait (c. 1899, no.

10) is more characteristic of the series. Ksebier photo-

graphed the subjects, who were traveling through New

York with Buffalo Bills Wild West troupe, in her Fifth

Avenue studio. Their finery may have symbolized their

Indian-ness, but it also echoed the props a nd costumes

used in the commercial studiosfrom which Stieglitz

and the Pictorialists worked so hard to distinguish them-

selveswhich may have been why he chose the atypical

image for publication. Portraits made outside her studio,

such as her contemplative profile of Steichen smoking a

pipe atop a balustrade (c. 1901, n o. 11), were also not repre-

sented, although a view of a p icnic, echoing douard

Manets 1863 paintingLe Djeuner sur lherbeand made

on the same 1901 trip to Paris, was included as a halftone

reproduction.

Ksebiers name appeared regularly on the pages ofsubsequent issues of Camera Work, but it was most often

in the context of international exhibition reviews or Photo-

Secession membership updates. It was not until April

1905 that her photographs were once again reproduced,

and this time with only the brief mention that she was

one of our most prolific p hotographers as well as one of

the foremost pictorialists.40Happy Days(1903, no. 12),

one of six images reproduced as a full-page gravure, is

a plein air scene whose bright sunshine and shadows,

overlapping figures, and abrupt cropping all signaled new

directions in Ksebiers work. The summer of 1903 was

a productive one for Ksebier, and the photographs she

made at or near her summer home in Newport, Rhode

10. g Kb

(ac,18521934).

American Indian Portrait.

c.1899. Pl p,8 x 6"

(20.3 x 15.2 c).t mf m a,nw Yk.

gf f m m t

11.g Kb

(ac,18521934).

Edward Steichen.c.1901.g

bc p,8 1/16x 6"

(20.5 x 15.3 c).t mf m a,nw Yk.

gf f m. m.

e m.scwz


7/8


necessity that explains the blurring of art and

commerce in their work: having already tran-

scended the prevailing female stereotypes of

their day, Johnston and Ksebier found the

artistic/professional divide to be similarly

surmountable. Stieglitz was comfortable rec-

ognizing womens artistic achievements (and

he likely enjoyed the progressive association

that this open-mindedness afforded him),

but the taint of commercialism proved to be

much more difficult for him to overcome.

As ally or enemy, Stieglitz was the central

figure in American photography at the turn

of the twentieth century and beyond. As

such, he is a critical point of reference for

Johnstons and Ksebiers work, and for

this reason the publications he edited and

the exhibitions he controlled provide the

framework for this essay. Johnstons work

flourished once she moved beyond Stieglitzs

unequivocal equation of personal artistic

expression with photographic achievement,

but her success as an artist and advocate

owes much to his example. Ksebier, when

her motifs and means of expressing them

ceased to change, became an easy target forStieglitz, who chafed against compla cency,

continually aligning himself with avant-garde

creation. Yet the photographs she made

between 1898 and 1905 are extraordinary

examples of Pictorialism, and Stieglitz was

among the first to recognize and celebrate her achieve-

ment. Stieglitz may have determined the present for both

of these photographers, but he could not control their

futures; even without his ultimate support, their place in

the history of the art of photography remains secure.

submit work to the Artistic Photography

Section of the Dresden International

Photography Exhibition that year; she

submitted it, perhaps out of spite, to

the Professional Section instead.42He

successfully solicited her work for what

turned out to be the Photo-Secessions final

exhibition, at the Albright Art Gallery

in 1910at which point several of the

works he chose, includingBlessed Art

Thou Among Womenand The Manger, were

more than ten years oldonly to hold it

up as a negative example in Camera Work.43

Ksebier finally submitted her resignation

from the Photo-Secession in January 1912.

Given the contentious relationship between

artistic and professional photographers

at the turn of the twentieth century,

Johnstons and Ksebiers insistence that

they should be considered both has stirred

great interest among scholars and critics,

such as the prominent art c ritic who

wrote of Ksebier, [She] will tell you

that she is a commercial photographer;

unquestionably she is an artist. The unionin her work of these two motives forms

a study of more than usual interest. 44

Stieglitzs financial means enabled him

to look down on art made for anything

other than arts sake, yet for several years

he tolerated the commercial aspirations of both Johnston

and Ksebier. Neither Johnston nor Ksebier had the

luxury of ignoring photographys potential for profit:

Johnston was unmarried and supported herself through

her photography, and Ksebiers husbands health and

financial well-being were constant concerns from the

mid-1890s until his death, in 1909.45Yet it is not simply

12. g Kb

(ac,18521934).Happy Days.1903. g p,

12 1/2x 9 3/4" (31.8 x 24.8 c).

t m f m a,

nw Yk.gf f m.h

m.t


8/8


1901):1.Subsqu cls

fud mld Wl,

Fcs d my all,e

Fsw,ev Ws-

Scuz,Zd B-Ysuf,

d elzb Bw.

26.F ugful,f dd,

duc s wk,s

Lcl Ks,The Hampton

Album(nw Yk:t musu

f md a,1966).F

c ccl lyss,

s J m.Pzyblysk,ac Vss Ps

exps,1900:a Lk

FcsBjJss

hp Pgps,Art

Journal57,.3 (Fll 1998):

6168;d Carrie Mae Weems:

The Hampton Project(nw

Yk:apu Fud,

2000).

27.Js ug wll

ug f s cssd

wk sub C

Clubs mbsexb

(myJu 1901),w

f v pgps w

ld Study of School Children,

s pd CameraNotes

5,.2 (ocb 1901):144.

28.Ksb,lcu dlvd

Pgpc Scy

f Pldlp,1898;pd

s Suds Pgpy,

Photographic Times30,

.6 (Ju 1898):26972;

pd P Bull,d.,

A Photographic Vision:Pictorial

Photography,18891923(Sl

Lk Cy:Pg S,

1980),pp.8486.

29.t dv publc

Ksb s Bb L.

mcls,Gertrude Ksebier:

The Photographer and Her

Photographs (nw Yk:hy

n.abs,1992). F

ccs csd,s

tuck, The Womans Eye,

pp.1327.

30.mcls, Gertrude

Ksebier,pp.1718,26.

31.Ksbs s p-

gp,f usbd d

yug by (lkly s),ws

gv Sglz 1900 d s

w p f alfd Sglz

Cllc t mpl

musu f a,nw Yk.

ibd.,p.19.

32.Bull,A Photographic

Vision,p.85.

33.D m.Sglz,i fl du yslf xpl wy i

yu dw.i pg-

p dsss .. .d i fl

su yu culd d wuld gv

s vlubl suggss.

of cus,i sll b dlgd,

f yu wll cll up y

sud... .i v kw yu

ug yu wk f lg

.Vy scly,Gud

Ksb,Ju 11, 1898.alfd

SglzCllc,Cllcf

ac Lu,Bck

r Bk d muscp

Lby,Yl Uvsy,nw

hv;qud mcls,

Gertrude Ksebier,p.45.

34.au W.Dw,ms.

Gud Ksbs P

Pgps:F Ps

P f Vw, Camera Notes

3,.1 (July 1899):2223.

35.J[sp] t.K[ly],ms.

Ksbs Ps,Camera

Notes3,.1 (July 1899):34.

36.Js,Gud

Ksb,Pfssl

Pgp, Camera Work,

.1 (Juy 1903):20.

37.Cls h.Cf,ms.

Ksbs Wka

appc,bd., p.17.

38.t Pcus ts

nub,bd., p.63.

39.ivw w Cl.edwd

J.Sc.FldF24,

GudKsb Pps,mS

cllc .149,Uvsy f

Dlw Lby;qud

Kl Py, Modernism and

the Feminine Voice:OKeeffe

and the Women of the Stieglitz

Circle(Bkly d Ls

agls:Uvsy f Clf

Pss,2007),p. 16.

40.ou illuss,Camera

Work,.10 (apl 1905):50.

41.Kly,Gud Ksb,

Camera Work,.20 (ocb

1907):2731;glly pub-

lsd Photography:AJournal for Every Camera User

17,.801 (mc 19,1904):

22327.Kly ccluds w

s bsvs:of du

sz d cld

fullss f gu ... uly

clss f dss pp-

cs ... f ll

s gy-skd,d s s

gd;pulsv,quck-

wd,gl,dvd

,Gud Ksb,p

by g,pgp by

cc,b f Lkd

rg,d fud d Fllw

f P-Scss.. .s

f s skg gus

d vl fcs

pfssl pgpc

wld.

42.mcls,GertrudeKsebier,

p.128.

43.hw kd cs

bw s d xb

f Gud Ksb,w s

sc spsbly d

dffc cqu;

s cuus pulsvss;s

bld gpg ...

ss y sg lck f

ppc p f

s.Kly,t Buffl

exb, Camera Work,

.33 (Juy 1911):2329.

44.Cf,ms.Gud

Ksb d asc-

Ccl P,

Photography as a Fine Art:

The Achieve

Possibilities

Art in Amer

Dubldy,

45.mc

Ksebier,p

.1).as J

i v

sg f

ug f

yg

publs p

blw sf yslf

d Sck

p.27.Suc

b

cly f

1.i wuld lk gfully

ckwldg vlubl

sc sssc f Jyc

Kucl,S oKf,d

Lsl U,s wll s

ccl cy pvdd

by Lsl hs,hp

mgy,d CBul.

abv ll i wuld lk k

ely hll,w udsds

pcsly wy s dsvs

s ckwldg.

2.t gl us f wdu gd pg-

py ( d--

cuy egld) pld

sd pfssl

sus,bu f pupss f

s ssy i wll us u

f sly ac,

ps-Kdk usss.o

ccl dvlps f

s dld ss

bw sc d pfs-

sl bs,s J

Szkwsk,Photography Until

Now(nw Yk:t musu

f md a,1989),pp.

69172.S ls P Glss,

tw Ss,American

Photography 18901965 from

The Museum of Modern Art,

New York (nw Yk:t

musu f md a,1995),

pp.1125.

3.o sug fl

pgps,s P e.

Plqus,Camera Fiends

& Kodak Girls:50 Selections

by and about Women in

Photography,18401930(nw

Yk:mdc as Pss,

1989).F bd sy,

s n rsblu,A

History of Women Photog-

raphers(nw Yk:abbvll

Pss,1994).ad f

ccl csd,s C.

J Gv, The Positive Image:

Women Photographers in Turn

of the Century America(alby:

S Uvsy f nw Yk

Pss,1988).

4.o Kdks dvsg

cpgs,s ncy m

Ws,Kodak and the Lens of

Nostalgia(Clsvll:

Uvsy Pss f Vg,

2000),pp.1935, 5360,d

11435.

5.o alfd Sglzs dvccy

s S Gug d

Ju hl,Alfred Stieglitz:

Photographs and Writings(Wsg,D.C.:nl

Glly f a,1983);d m

ms hbug,F 291

t musu f md a:

Pgpy nw Yk,

191037, The New Vision:

Photography Between the

World Wars(nw Yk:t

mpl musu f a,

1989),pp.363.

6.Sglz publsd Camera

Workul 1917,bu by 1910

d bc dsllusd w

w pcvd b

cplccy f Pcls

pgps,d csd

fu wk.

7.t l dcls

Sglzs ds lg s

w gup w ps,

sculps,d ccs w

d fudd V

Scss fwysbf,

psgs cs-

vs f Vs

sbls.

8.Fcs Bj Js,

W W C D w

C, LadiesHome Journal

14,.10 (Spb 1897):

67.

9.F bgpcl f-

,s a tuck,The

Womans Eye(nw Yk:alfd

a.Kpf,1973), pp.2943;

P Dl d ryd

Sck, A Talent for Detail:The

Photographs of Miss Frances

Benjamin Johnston,18891910

(nw Yk:hy Bks,

1974);d B Bc,

The Woman behind the Lens:

The Life and Work of Frances

Benjamin Johnston,18641952

(Clsvll:Uvsy

Pss f Vg,2000).

10.i ws psp w

Gg G B

Js d bs-

kw ws pcus 1899,

f adl Gg Dwy d

s sls bd USS

Olympia,fs f

vcy Plpps.

11.a ac Pgp,

The Photogram4,.46

(ocb 1897):285.

12.o Pldlp

Pgpc Sls,s

Wll is h, Pictorial

Photography in Philadelphia:

The Pennsylvania Academys

Salons,18981901

(Pldlp:Psylv

acdyf Fas,1984).

13.ibd.,p.12.

14.ts dscps pp

bf usgd cl ls-

g fuu pcps

C Club f nw Yks

gup xbs.P

exbs,Camera Notes1,

.2 (ocb 1897):51.

15.Sdkc h,a Fw

rcs au d

asc Pgpy,Camera

Notes2,.2 (ocb 1898):

4145.

16.Sglz, l Js,

1898;qud Dl d

Sck,A Talent for Detail,p.7.

17.rb Dcy,t

acs Ps Sl,

Camera Notes2,.3 (Juy

1899):107.

18.W.h. muy,mss

Fcs B.Jss Ps,

Camera Notes2,.4 (apl

1899):16768.

19.Sglz, l F.hlld

Dy,mc 31,1899;qud

esll Juss, Slave to Beauty:

The Eccentric Life and

Controversial Career of

F.Holland Day,Photog rapher,

Publisher,Aesthete(Bs:

Dvd r.Gd,1981),p.137.

20.Jsp t.Kly,t

Pcl mv

Pgpy d

Sgcc f md

Pgpc Sl,CameraNotes 4,.1 (July 1900):

1823.

21.i 1901 Pldlp

Pgpc Scy

ucd s fu sl

wuld clud wk f

ss,pfssls,d

us.my Pcls

pgps,cludg

Sglz,pcvd s s

bdf sc

dls d fusd pc-

p y wy.Js ws

f pgps

w gd sv s ju,

vdly dff suc

g-dd xclusvy (d

sk f fu lg

Sglz), ls pgc

ug ss ppu-

s s xpsu g ffd.

nvlss, bsc f

Sglz d s sscs

ud u b fl; 1901

Pldlp Sl ws

ls .

22.J.h.Ss,Harpers Guide

to Paris and the Exposition of

1900(nw Yk:hp &

Bs,1900),pp.15657.

t clssc f xbs

s dscbd dl

d ks cl bss f

Sglzs byc:Gup ii

(xbd Gd Pls

ds Bux-as) cpss

Pgs,Cs,Dwgs;

egvg d Lgpy;

Sculpu,d egvg f

mdls d Pcus Ss;

accu,wl Gup iii

cpss typgpy,

Vus Pg Pcsss,

Pgpy,Bks,muscl

Publcs,Bkbdg,

nwspps,Pss,mps

d appus f Ggpy

d Csgpy, tpgpy,

mcl d Scc

isus,Cs d mdls,

mdc d Sugy,musclisus,tcl

applcs d Pls.

23.o xb f p-

gps by ac w

gzd by Js,s

Bwy a.e. Gf,d.,

Ambassadors of Progress:

American Women

Photographers in Paris,1900

1901(Gvy,Fc:mus

da ac Gvy;

Wsg,D.C.:Lby f

Cgss,2001);d tby

Quslud,h F

Cllgus:Pgps d

Ls Cllcd by Fcs

Bj Js 1900,

Jsp Ws,Women

Artists in Washington

Collections(Cllg Pk:

Uvsy f myld a

Glly d Ws Cucus

f a,1979), pp.97109.

24.Sglz, l Js,

Ju 8,1900. Js Pps,

Lby f Cgss,

Wsg,D.C.Gud

Ksb ws lly luc

pcp,pssbly

bcus f Sglzs byc

bcus s ws busy,bu

vully s s

pgps.

25.Js,t Fs

W Pgps f

ac:t Wk f ms.

Gud Ksb,Ladies

Home Journal18,.6 (my

Modern Women Meister

Documents

Transcript of Modern Women Meister