Notes de lecture
|
|
|
|
Notes de lecture |
|
|
n° 5, nov. 1998 |
|
|
|
The husband and wife team of Michel and Michèle Auer first issued their Photographers Encyclopaedia International in 1985. Its two printed volumes presented information on more than 1600 photographers worldwide. As major collectors of photography, it is not surprising that the Auer's personal collection shaped much of the historical content of these volumes. Particularly valuable was their personal contact with contemporary photographers. The Auers worked on their printed encyclopedia for five years and this dedication is to be lauded. Once the printed version was released in 1985, they started their computer database of photographers, a private resource reportedly now extending to nearly 40,000 entries. In 1997, they generously shared a portion of this with the public by publishing a new edition of the Photographers Encyclopaedia International on CD-ROM. However much printed books are dear to us, this form of publication makes excellent sense for such a historical resource. It is possible to include full information on many more photographers and economical to deliver color illustrations of their work. Nothing of this scale would be economically feasible in printed volumes. The present CD-ROM includes detailed information on more than 3000 photographers and skeletal information on 3000 more. Nearly 6000 images are included. An enormous amount of dedicated work is represented here. The technical aspects of the CD-ROM are well thought out (this is an important consideration in such a production, for many CD-ROM publications are either difficult to use or are burdened by extraneous and glitzy technical add-ons). Using industry standard software, the Auers have produced a CD-ROM that is readable on most modern personal computers, whether they be Macintosh or Windows based. The installation is straightforward and can be configured for either French or English from the same CD-ROM. For those not familiar with this new way of publishing, the lack of any direction sheet might prove a bit disturbing. For example, the extended introductory sequence (the only part of the publication that has sound) could prove annoying after the first time or two. Simply hitting the space bar will terminate it and jump one to the index page. This page offers various options, including a "slide show" of photographs, a technical glossary, a historical chronology, and biographies of the photographers. Although it may not be immediately apparent, one can type in the name of the photographer in a box at the top of the alphabetical list and jump straight to that point in the list. Once this is mastered, navigating around the CD-ROM is logical and easy to do. It is most unfortunate, therefore, that the quality of the content of this edition falls far short of what it should be. There are some difficulties obviously related to the translation into English. A great portion of the market for photographic publications is in America and (sadly) many Americans can cope only with English (and their British friends would question even that). Thus, an English language version is essential for this reference work to reach the audience that it deserves. The errors in the present edition are so pervasive and so egregious that they cannot be ignored nor forgiven. Many of the translation problems are so obvious that they are easily detected. However, some are more subtle and confuse the factual content. Overall, the translation greatly reduces the professionalism of the entire publication. An even more serious problem is in the actual factual content of the Encyclopaedia. Differences of opinion and some errors are bound to creep into any publication of this dimension. However, the level of errors is so great as to render this highly unreliable as a reference resource. In the technical glossary, for example, Talbot's calotype is described as a "printing-out" paper "communicated to the Society of Science" in 1839. The whole point of the calotype, Talbot's second process, was that it was a developed-out paper; this is what gave the negatives their much greater sensitivity. There was no "Society of Science" - this would have been The Royal Society - and the communication of the calotype was not to them. It was made public by Talbot in 1841, not 1839. The explanation of Collodion perhaps suffers from translation. It is said to be a mixture of "cotton powder", a very different substance from the gun cotton that was actually used. Collodion was not used as a substratem below the sensitive salts, as indicated, but as a mixture actually incorporating the sensitive salts. The statement that wet collodion "was quickly replaced by dry collodion plates" is astonishing - had this been the case, much of the nineteenth century photography that we know and love would never have existed. The cyanotype did not generally produce "a positive print on sensitive paper" (although this was possible) but almost always produced a negative print. It would be tedious to continue past the letter C in this litany. Since many newcomers to the field of photography will rely on what is said in this section, any technical resource like this should have at least most of its facts correctly expressed. In looking at a particular photographer, it was convenient for this reviewer to use William Henry Fox Talbot as an example. In the "historical chronology" Talbot is listed as starting his research in 1835 - the correct date is 1834 - and there were several points of confusion after this. In the biographical section, the only "Talbot" photograph illustrated is in fact a view by his friend the Rev. Calvert R. Jones ("100. Mary of St Ives and Liberty on a mud berth at Swansea"). We are told that in 1831 Talbot received grants from The Royal Society for work in physics and mathematics. He never requested nor received any such grants (but 1831 was the year he was elected a Fellow of the Society). Perhaps the most misleading statement occurs for 1833: "after acquainting himself with the work of Herschel, Humphry Davy and Thomas Wedgwood, he sets off for Italy with a Wollaston camera lucida and attempts to photograph Lake Como. He is the father of modern negative/positive photography (with H. Bayard). There is absolutely no evidence that Talbot researched the question of photography before leaving for Italy and this in fact flies in the face of Talbot's own statements and those of his contemporaries. He certainly made no attempt to photograph Lake Como - instead, it was his failure to make pencil drawings of the scenery there with the camera lucida that got him thinking about photography. To state that the brilliant and determined French inventor Hippolyte Bayard was co-father of negative/positive photography with Talbot is a disservice to both men. The description continues that in 1836 Talbot was elected to the "Board of the Royal Society" - there was no such board. In 1839 we learn that his communication was to the "Royal Society of Science" (they were The Royal Society of London - science, although central to their activities, was never a part of their name). More seriously, Talbot's first process of photogenic drawing is confused with his later Talbotype process. The sections on Talbot's contributions to the photogravure process, arguably a contribution of importance on a par with his original invention of photography, are greatly confused. Talbot is listed as dying at Lacock Abbey "where he lived all his life." Talbot's peripatetic nature, particularly as a young man when he lived in a succession of homes, is essential to understanding him. The bibliography appears to have been based largely on the author's own collection rather than on standard scholarly sources. It suffers from numerous but generally obvious typographical and translation errors. I could be annoyed that many of my own publications on Talbot are not listed. However, most serious omissions are Gail Buckland's 1980 biography, Fox Talbot and the Invention of Photography and Hubertus von Amelunxen's 1988 Die Aufgehobene Zeit; Die Erfindung der Photographie durch William Henry Fox Talbot. Together these excellent and critically important publications represent the two most serious examinations of Talbot's imagery and the two most valuable printed sources of his photographs. Finally, the most important collection of Talbot's photographs (comprising more than 6000 original negatives and prints) is listed as being in the Science Museum in London. This collection was transferred to the National Museum of Photography, Film & Television in Bradford, England a decade ago. It is to be assumed that the information the Auers gathered from working with living photographers is generally accurate. However, spot checking of other historic photographers revealed widespread difficulties similar to those of the Talbot entry. Robert Adamson is listed as practising the collodion process - he died in early 1848, several years before the process was introduced. His partner, David Octavius Hill, fares little better. Under collections, the defining collection at the Scottish National Portrait Gallery is not mentioned at all; neither is the one at the Glasgow University Library, the second largest collection and one with 500 original negatives. Sir John Herschel is illustrated with a cyanotype that is not his. The biography lists his father as getting a gold medal from the Royal Astronomical Society for his discovery of Uranus in 1781 - the Astronomical Society of London was not formed until 1820 (John Herschel was one of its founders) and it did not become the Royal Astronomical Society until 1831. He is incorrectly credited with being the President of the Royal Society in 1848 and the "technical director" of the Great Exhibition in 1851. Although his stay at the Cape of Good Hope briefly overlapped that of Charles Piazzi Smyth, Smyth was never his assistant there. At first I was puzzled by the absence of Smyth in the comprehensive listing - until by chance I found him filed under "P" for Piazzi. The only biography of this interesting figure is not mentioned: Hermann and Mary Brück's 1988 The Peripatetic Astronomer; The Life of Charles Piazzi Smyth. Later in the century, the amateur Paul Martin is credited with being "an active member of the Linked Ring" from 1893-1909 - he was never a member of the secessionist group. The overwhelming number of outright errors seriously undermines the usefulness of this volume as a reference work and indeed seriously calls into question its authority. In spite of this, the effort the Auers have put into sharing their information with the public should be greatly admired and encouraged. It is to be sincerely hoped that they view the present CD-ROM edition as a work-in-progress and that they have the energy left to continue to improve it. It is in desperate need of thorough revision and editing and of an impartial outside review. The Auers should encourage comments and contributions and anyone interested in research resources in photography should feel obligated to aid them in this effort. The field has a critical need for such a resource. Larry Schaaf |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
