Peter Henry Emerson (1856-1936)

Naturalistic Photography

It all started with George Davison (1854 – 1930) and a deceptively simple image,originally titled, An Old Farmstead. This charming photograph, reminiscent of an Impressionist landscape, was awarded a medal at the annual exhibition of the Photographic Society of Great Britain in 1890. Later retitled with a more descriptive and less nostalgic name, The Onion Field, Mersea Island, Essex (1890) was taken with a very old technique, the pin hole camera. According to photo-historian Helmut Gernsheim in his book, Creative Photography: Aesthetic Trends, 1839-1960, Davison, a follower of Peter Henry Emerson (1856-1936) wanted to soften the focus and to create an effect more akin to the beauty of a fine art print than that of a machine made image. The Times praised the photograph for its “atmospheric effects.” But his version or vision of Impressionism only angered Emerson, who apparently considered Davison’s ideas about photography to be misguided and spoke out strongly against him, in one of the many internal disputes that accompanied the re-definition of photography. Initially, Davison caused nothing beyond conversation about the “fuzzy” school of photography but when he submitted an image late to an exhibition of the Photographic Society, the petty dispute broke out in to a schism that led to a secession of a large group of the members. Both Emerson and Davison were “Links,” among the twelve founding members of the Brotherhood of the Linked Ring, along with Henry Peach Robinson (1830-1901), with whom Davison, called the “Lord High Executioner,” shared the duties of “hanging” the exhibitions. Emerson’s problem with Davison was, as shall be seen, that Davison used a pinhole camera to achieve a certain effect, while Emerson himself grounded his photography on scientific and philosophical concepts on human vision.


George Davison. The Onion Field, Mersea Island, Essex (1890)

In dealing with the ongoing debates within art photography, it is necessary to understand the increasing gulf between art and documentation and, in addition, the removal of the technology from the hands of the practitioners. However, there was a long tradition of photography as being part of a collective scientific endeavor, and the photographic theories of Emerson reflected the union of the camera and scientific experimentation. His ideas about how a photograph could become a work of art were very different from those of Robinson who, in his book, Pictorial Effect in Photography. Being Hints on Composition and Chiaroscuro for Photographers (1869), insisted that a photograph should follow the rules of painting, i.e., art. Reading Robinson’s book, supposedly for photographer, is like reading a how-to book for artists in a studio, not a darkroom. Robinson does not take into account the technique of photographing but stresses the significance of composition and design so that the final content or subject matter was so unified, it could be fully comprehended or “read” by the viewer and needed no explanation. As Robinson stated, “..if a picture is to be successful, it must have a nonsense of purpose or intention, a oneness of story, a oneness of thought, a oneness of lines, a oneness of night and shade. Everything must have a meaning, and the meaning must be the object of the picture..” In contrast to Robinson’s composite work, Emerson, insisted in his book, Naturalistic Photography for Students of the Art (1889), that photography should follow the lead, not of painting, which had nothing to do with a camera, but the science of human vision–the eye of which the lens was the counterpart.

Did the human eye “see” the same as the camera eye, the all-knowing lens? According to the theories of Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-1894), who began his groundbreaking research on the human eye in 1851, developed an instrument–the first of its kind–the the ophthalmoscope to observe the retina, and the ophthalmoscope to study the curvature of the eye, both of which allowed him to study the properties of vision. In his 1855 essay, “Accommodation,” Helmholz revealed that the eye, far from being perfect, had a defect that caused an astigmatism, meaning that we, as humans, cannot see horizontal and vertical lines at the same distance at the same time. As Helmholz said later, “The Human eye is not even centered, the magnitude of the corneal eccentricity appears to be quite irregular and adventitious, and so on.” In 1885 Helmholtz’s essay “The Recent Progress of the Theory of Vision” (1868) was translated and published in English. It is impossible to determine who well Emerson understood Helmholtz’s scientific ideas, which, according to his biographer, Leo Koenigsberger, were very complex and embedded in Kantian philosophy. Helmholtz worked in the gap between Kant’s epistemology, a theory of human knowledge investigating the interaction between perception–vision–and conception–the way in which the brain organizes data received through the eyes. It is well-known that the mind corrects vision to the extent that we are shielded from our “actual” vision, or how the eye itself sees. As Koenigsberger wrote in Hermann von Helmholtz (1906), “After pointing out in the lecture that physical science still professes the principles of Kant (whose Philosophy does not add to the content of cognition by pure thought, but derives all perception of reality from experience, and makes the sources of our knowledge and the degree of its justification the sole objects of investigation), he proposes the theory of Sense-Perception in man as the real theme of his lecture, since it is here that philosophy and natural science are most in touch. He inquires how the empirical data for the organ of the eye stand in relation to the philosophical theory of knowledge.”


In 1886, Emerson incorporated the ideas of Helmholtz into his own photographic work, a series called, “Life and Landscape on the Norfolk Broads,” the result of a collaboration with the painter Thomas Goodall, who wrote an accompanying essay on landscape and art. And Goodall was a member of the New English Art Club, which published a journal named The Artist. It was in this periodical that Emerson saw reproductions of works by James Whistler. Whistler was hitting his stride, nearing his peak as an artist, attracting followers and disciples, tempering his reputation for being “notorious” by joining the relatively staid Society of British Artists. As Elizabeth Prettejohn pointed out in her 1999 book, After the Pre-Raphaelites: Art and Aestheticism in Victorian England, the word “Impressionism” was used to indicate the French artists and Whistler’s tonal paintings. Whistler’s paintings and how he painted them were quite different from any of the numerous French Impressionists, but, in order to understand British Pictorialism, it is necessary to stress that the English artists responded to their Anglo-American colleague, as Prettejohn wrote, “Characteristic of the English version was the use of a restricted palette, which kept the painting to a close variation in tone rather than color contrasts.” When Emerson became acquainted with the work of Whistler, the artist was a force to be reckoned with, and the impact of his nocturnes, which, as Prettejohn pointed out, were “tonal,” and thus more easily translated to photography than the work of the French Impressionists, who worked with colors, not tone, and clarifying light, not obscuring atmosphere.

It is possible to make an argument that the particularly English version of Impressionism and hence of Pictorialism was due to the local climate, its famous fogs and rains and general dampness. The forty images lyrically responded to life in the marshlands and fenlands of East Anglia and its inhabitants, studied and captured in the act of scratching out a living in what was life of peasant life in England. In the same year he gave a lecture entitled, “Photography A Pictorial Art,” introducing his main themes that photography should resemble a picture, not a photograph. At this point in time, the amateur had been making photographs only four years. His serene and beautiful photographs the farmers and fishermen of this border territory between land and sea were softened in order to mimic the irregularities of the human eye, but the photographs also functioned as the anthropologist’s examination of a group of people whose way of life was facing extinction. However, these images were not documents and although Emerson distanced himself from the subjects, the laborers, with his camera techniques, he deliberately sought certain exemplary “types,” linking his artistic images to the mindset of classification, typical of the period. Jennifer M. Green commented on Emerson’s procedures in her 1995 article, “The Right Thing in the Right Place. P. H. Emerson and the Picturesque Photograph,” explaining how his work in Norfolk–both text and image–represented his “early claims for Photography as a naturalistic art.” “Yet the relation between life and landscape on the Norfolk Broads is one not of aesthetics but of labor; and labor provides the true subject of these pictures. Between Emerson’s theories photography and his conceptions landscape, however, that subject vanishes into the picturesque, the laborers themselves reduced to mythical, powerless creatures, faceless models of charming work..the accompanying photographs in this and other books by Emerson present increasingly romanticized and abstracted views of life in rural Norfolk and Suffolk.


Peter Henry Emerson. Ricking the Reed (1886)

Clearly, given the intent of Emerson, the laborers and their “trades” were objects of aesthetic pleasure to the eye, representations of how a photograph could become a work of art. Despite the Impressionistic surface of his nostalgic platinum prints, Emerson approached photography with an academic intellectualism and a zeal for proselytizing among his fellow amateurs. His seminal work, Naturalistic Photography, has been described as having the impact of a “bombshell dropped at a tea party,” although the identity of the original author of his clever riposte seems to have been long lost. Emerson himself wrote, “Nothing in nature has ahard outline, but everything is seen against something else, and itsoutlines fade gently into something else, often so subtly that youcannot quite distinguish where one ends and the other begins. In this mingled decision and indecision, this lost and found, lays all the charmand mystery of nature.” Described as a “gentleman of letters,” Cuban-born, American-educated Emerson drifted into photography, entered into to the debates of the 1880s and proved himself to be a pugnacious combatant. A photographer should work in the terms of nature itself, not in terms of art, meaning that the photograph should mimic the human eye–focus at the center and blurriness around the edges. The image should be the sharpest and most clear at the focal point, or the main center of attention, an effect that can be achieved with certain camera lenses and, although Emerson denied it, some manipulation during the developing stage. Unlike Robinson who responded to academic art, Emerson modeled himself artistically after the Impressionist paintings which were becoming well-known in London by the end of the century. As one might expect of a close relative of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Peter Henry Emerson recommended a close relationship with nature which should be lived in, not just visited on sketching trips. By becoming closer to the landscape and its culture, the photographer could achieve an inner vision or internal command of a “sense of place” which allows the artist to reveal the “mystery of nature.”


Peter Henry Emerson. Marsh Reeds (1895)

By thinking in terms of “landscape,” Emerson was also remaking upon what his society, the Victorian culture, considered to be a “picture.” In fact, Naturalistic Photography is very much a how-to manual, combining a history of photography, his philosophical position on how photography should be undertaken, and instructions on the techniques of making a photograph. In his section on terminology, Emerson explained in his pedantic tone, “to Us Impressionism means the same thing as naturalism, but since the word allows so much latitude to he artist, even to verging on absurdity, we prefer the term Naturalism, because in the latter the work can always be referred to a standard–Nature.” But responding to nature–the visual response, not the emotional reaction–is complex. As Emerson stated, there is a theoretically perfect physical image has been described by physicists as being both bright and sharp in definition but the theoretically perfect image does not exist. Emerson noted that in both the human eye and with the photographic lenses there are faults, such as “dispersion” which causes a “slight blurring of the sharpness of outline, since the size and position of the optical images thrown by the differently bent rays is not the same.” Emerson quoted Helmholtz as saying that the vision of the “central spot” was “imperfect.” He continued, “We have shown why the human eye does not see nature exactly as she is, but sees instead a number of signs which represent nature, signs which the eye grows accustomed to, and which form habit we call nature herself..The great heresy of ‘sharpness’ has lived so long in photographic circles because firstly the art has been practiced by scientists, and secondly by unphilosophical scientists, for all through the lenses has been considered purely from the physical int of view, the far more important psychological and psychoschological standpoints being entirely ignored..”

The notion of differential focus–sharpness on the element apparently gazed upon directly and soft focus around the edges–was Emerson’s labored attempt to situate photography in the realm of nature, the natural, by means of science, thus escaping technology. To the reader today, the unanswerable question is if Impressionist painting had not made forms without linear edges and paintings without details acceptable, what would Emerson’s photographs looked like? There is an interesting and coincidental confluence between Pictorialism and the theories of Helmholtz on the irregular and imperfect vision of the human eye. For two decades, the soft focus, aided with surface manipulation on the photograph itself seemed to be the means to convince the art public of photography’s freedom from the camera’s dictates. For example, despite the availability of very sharp lenses, the pinhole camera, which did not use lenses became very popular, and by 1892, some four thousand of them had been sold in London alone. In answering his critics, Emerson said,

“Some persons are laboring under a great misconception; we have nothing whatever to do with any ‘fuzzy school.’ Fuzziness, to us, meaning destruction of structure. We do advocate broad suggestions of organic structure, which is a very different thing from destruction, although there may at times be occasions in which patches of “fuzziness” will help the picture, yet these are rare indeed, and it would be very difficult for any one to show us many such paths in our published plates. We have, then, nothing to do with “fuzziness” unless by the term is meant that broad and ample generalization of detail, so necessary to artistic work..”

Eventually Peter Henry Emerson, who had studied to be a doctor, grew tired of the internal arguments within the ranks of British amateurs in art photography, gave up on photography altogether in 1900 and retired from the ranks of active artists.

If you have found this material useful, please give credit to

Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette and Art History Unstuffed. Thank you.

[email protected]

The Origins of Neoclassicism


The Rediscovery of the Past

Classicism, since the Renaissance, had been the foundation of an expression of all that was superior and exhaled in the fine arts. Capable of morphing, the classicism of the Renaissance, of Raphael and Michelangelo, became the Mannerist distortions of Pontormo and the drama of the Baroque and even the eroticism of the Rococo. By the eighteenth century, “classicism” had become so overridden by the new styles and the new demands of the new patrons that its distinguishing characteristics were nearly invisible. The idiosyncrasies of Mannerism and the drama of the Baroque were alien to the internal calm and self-sufficiency of the classism of ancient Greece and Rome. During the Renaissance, classical sculptures were unearthed and provided the basis for a fifteenth century reinterpretation of the antique. But no authentic example of painting, beyond vases, was available, allowing the classicism of the Renaissance and the Baroque to flourish iwht invention but without discipline. What made Classicism “new” again in the late eighteenth century was a discovery of a new authentic source of Classical painting at Pompeii and Herculaneum, two resort towns near Naples and far too near to the looming volcano, Vesuvius. Buried since 79, these towns were the ancient equivalents of the Hamptons on Long Island, and the wealthy inhabitants had commissioned wall paintings to provide decorations for the unbroken expanses of walls, illustrating ancient and fanciful myths and events of everyday life in antiquity. The significance of the uncovering of the ancient murals is that, after centuries of basing “classical” on sculptures, now there were, amazingly, actual paintings (almost certainly provincial) for contemporary artists to study. These ruins inspired the beginnings of archaeology, however primitive, that fit in well with the practice of scientific analysis and the new respect for empirical knowledge. Throughout the eighteenth century Pompeii (discovered in sixteenth century and excavated in 1748) and Herculaneum (discovered in 1701 and excavated in 1738) were being excavated, a process that continues to this day.

Early archaeologists and artists and architects explored and discovered the remains of classical civilizations and these recoveries were made available to the public and to artists through carefully engraved reproductions. In addition to the significant public displays of the remarkable specimens of classical art from the long buried cities was the circulation of drawings of ancient architecture, also in Italy, through portfolios of drawings, such as Bernard de Montfaucon’s 15-volume work, L’Antiquité expliquée et représentée en figures (1719-1724)and Le Antichità di Ercolano (The Antiquities of Herculaneum) (1744 and 1792). The former was translated by Davy Humphreys (one of the early experimenters in photography) as Antiquity Explained. Even more remarkable was the work done by the English architects, James Stuart and Nicholas Revett who, thanks to the easing of travel restrictions to Greece, were able to make careful measurements and beautiful drawings of the ruins of ancient Athens. The years after their field work, they were able to publish The Antiquities of Athens in 1762. Books such as these, combined with an increase in tourism, the English Grand Tour to Italy, and the support of the French government of artists who lived and worked in Rome, suggested the very real possibility of a “return” to a more authentic, historically rooted form of “classicism.”

The Roman ruins were especially compelling as crumbling lessons of morality. Roman virtue was more than a dream, for Rome–ancient Rome–had become the climax point of every Grand Tour. Politically, the example of antique virtue, as seen through eighteenth century eyes, provided an example to the French Revolution, which could serve as a call to return to the “roots” of the proper moral and ethical government that existed prior to the imperialism of the Roman Empire. Artistically, the new interest in ancient cultures fired the imagination of artists, who, in the beginnings of Neo-classicism, used ancient Rome as a kind of fashion statement. Joseph-Marie Vien reimagined pretty people, usually women, dressed (or undressed) in diaphanous draped gowns, posing for genre scenes of life in antiquity. Indeed the long named catalogue of the 1972 exhibition at the Victoria and Albert, The Age of neo-classicism: a handlist to the fourteenth exhibition of the Council of Europe [held at] the Royal Academy and the Victoria & Albert Museum, London, 9 September-19 November, 1972, pointed to Vien as the tastemaker of his time and the father of Neo-Classicism. As Alice Mackrell pointed out in her book, Art and Fashion. The Impact of Art on Fashion and Fashion on Art (2005),

The 1770s in France were notable for the re-emergence of costume books hat conveyed a specialist antiquarian knowledge of dress. Michel-François Dandré-Bandon spent the years 1726-31 studying in Rome..A vivid draughtsman and theoretician, he wrote and illustrated a number of books, including his magnum opus, Costumes des ancient peuples. Published in six volumes in 1772-74, he dedicated it to the marquis de Marigny in recognition of his encouragement of le goût grec. André Lens’s book, Le Costume des peoples de l’antiquité appeared in 1776.

These simple new fashions for the aristocrats, especially the women, who obligingly clad themselves à la grec were well suited to be both a statement of that which was “natural” and politically wise, given the rising political criticism of insensitive displays of wealth. Scholars and tourists inspected the ruins, and artists, such as Hubert Robert (1733-1808) and Canaletto, responded to the demand for Italian vistas with view paintings. For his part Canaletto (1697-1768) provided veduta paintings of Venice to tours who had reached their Italian destination, but Robert satisfied the desire to contemplate the past. The crumbling and romantic ruins of Robert (“Robert des Ruines”) were a painted mix of modern fantasies of the meaning of the ancient world and past grandeur and accurate descriptions of actual remaining buildings. Antiquity, from the reading of Homer to the use of the ancient as a suitable subject for artists, became the order of the day from the mid-eighteenth century on.


Joseph-Marie Vien. La Toilette d’une jeune mariée dans le costume antique (1777)

Preference for classical art was articulated by Johann Winckelmann (1717-1768), the first modern art historian, who recommended copying the ancients in order to study nature more thoroughly. In 1755, Winckelmann, the secretary and librarian to Cardinal Albani in Rome, published Thoughts on the Imitation of Greek Works in Painting and Sculpture, which was an attack on Rococo and an assertion of the superiority of the art of the Greeks. Winckelmann established the idea that art was created within a particular cultural and social context. The writer concluded that the temperate climate of Greece and the Athenian emphasis on outdoor sports as performed by the young males (in the nude) fostered ideals of “noble calm and simplicity.” Using Cardinal Albani’s collection of antique art, Winckelmann wrote his History of Ancient Art in 1764 in which he conceived of the development of Greek art in successive phases within a political, social, and religious context. Winckelmann put forward the idea that art evolved within a society in a teleological fashion, reaching a peak of perfection. For the art historian, the peak was the antique art of Classical Greece, and the modern artist could do no better or no more than to emulate the Greeks. In 1755 Winckelmann wrote,

The only way for us to become great, and, if indeed it is possible, inimitable, is through the imitation of the ancients, and what someone said of Homer, that the man who has learned to understand him well learns to admire him, is also true of the works of art by the ancients, especially of the Greeks.

Two years later, an Englishman, Sir William Hamilton (1730-1803), envoy extraordinary to the court of Naples, published a four-folio volume of antiquities as a result of his participation in excavations (and unabashed looting). Hamilton’s post as ambassador did not pay well and he created a side line as an art dealer, excavating Greek vases from ancient sites of colonial settlements in Italy, inflating their value, and selling them to the British Museum. One group of vases arrived safely to England but the another batch of antiquities sank with the HMS Colossus in 1787. Hamilton’s discoveries, including the famous Roman cameo vase, the Barberini Vase, sold to the Duchess of Portland, provided additional information about the drawing style of ancient potters. The luxury folio which presented exquisite illustrations of the vases was titled Collection of Etruscan, Greek and Roman Antiquities (1766-1776). Although the text was in English, the line drawings, strict and plain, created a series of illustrations that were influential internationally and studied by potter Josiah Wedgwood, artists John Flaxmann, Henry Fuseli, Jacques-Louis David, and Jean-August Dominique Ingres for inspiration and information. Continuing his efforts to revive interest in ancient art, Hamilton published another set of folios, Collection of Etruscan, Greek and Roman Antiquities from the Cabinet of The Honble. W. Hamilton, illustrated by Johann Heinrich Tischbein, director of the Naples art academy, in 1791-95. The folio drawing were flat outlines that deftly handled details without becoming orange or cluttered, giving the illustrations a restrained and severe appearance.

This burgeoning historicism allowed identification with an ancient past that could be understood in relation to contemporary political goals. To Europeans, Rome was far more accessible as the source of ancient art than Greece. Greece, dominated by the Ottoman Empire, was cordoned off, making it difficult to travel to the territory of Plato and and the Parthenon. Actual (ancient) modern Greece was virtually unknown to most Europeans. But in a remarkable act of cultural imperialism, an ambassador to the Ottoman Empire, a native of Scotland, Thomas Bruce, the 7th Lord Elgin, convinced the Sultan in charge of the Parthenon, an ancient temple of incomparable beauty and perfection, to allow him to take all the sculptures, external and internal to England. On the surface this stripping was nothing less than an act of vandalism, but there was a counter argument. The Athenians were using the stones of the Parthenon to build their own houses and the building was being slowly dismantled. But Elgin was not interested in saving the building; he wanted the sculptures, because the French wanted the sculptures. Due to the shifting alliances during the Napoléonic wars, the French were shut out of Greece long enough for Lord Elgin to spring into action and was granted permission through a series of firmans or letters of instruction to acquire the art of the Parthenon.

The Muslims in charge did not care about Western relics and watched while the priceless works of art were removed from the building and shipped to England. Even at the time of these actions, cries of “vandalism” could be heard, but Elgin claimed he was protecting the sculptures for their own good. The cost of removing the sculptures and transporting them to England was astronomical and bankrupted the Bruce family. The British government, which eventually acquired the sculptures, never paid Elgin back for his troubles, giving him only half of what he had demanded. As was pointed out, the “acquisition” of the marbles played out during the war against France, led by the tyrant Napoléon. As Ian Dennis Jenkins wrote in his 2007 book The Parthenon Sculptures, “Against a background of British post-war patriotism and a new-found sense of self a liberator of Europe, a Parliamentary select committee sat in 1816 to investigate the prospect of acquiring Lord Elgin’s Athenian marbles for the nation..They went on show at the British Museum in a temporary makeshift gallery that opened to the public in 1817. From the time of their arrival in London until the present day, these sculptures of the Parthenon have been objects of exceptional fascination. Even those, moreover, who revile his actions must admit that Lord Elgin’s acquisition of them is now and irreversible part of their history and, indeed, has to a large extent made them what they are.” The English public was stunned at the realism of these actual works by the workshop of Phidias himself. It would take years before the artists could reconcile the abstraction of the Greek vases, as illustrated by Tischbein, and the physicality of the “Elgin Marbles” still on view in the British Museum today. In her 2012 book, The Modernity of Ancient Sculpture. Greek Sculpture and Modern Art from Winckelmann to Picasso, Elizabeth Prettejohn wrote of the divided reception of the Elgin Marbles, pointing out that their condition was (predictably, given their exposed condition and lack of maintenance) fragmentary and rough, disconcerting to those used to the line drawings of Greek art. “Interestingly, the draped figures of the female figures were much more difficult than the nude males for most witnesses to accept: the broken folds of the drapery appeared incompatible with the notions of the wholeness and serenity of the classical ideal.”

But as Pettijohn noted, the surprising sculptures had an eloquent and very early defender in Georg Hegel in his series of lectures on Aesthetics, beginning in 1818. By the 1820s, he had taken up the issue of the Elgin marbles and their place in antiquity, breaking away from Winckelmann who had seen only Roman copies of Greek sculptures. “The whole body, except the head, witnesses to the truest treatment and imitation of nature. Even the accidental feature of the skin are imitated and carried out excellently with a marvelous handling o f the marble; the muscles are strongly emphasized, the bone structure of the body is indicted, the shapes are constrained, by the severity of the design, yet reproduced by such knowledge of the human organism that the figures almost deceive is into thinking that they are alive, why! even that we are almost scared by them and shrink from touching them..” Hegel wrote, “..even the minutest detail has its purpose..and yet it remains in continual flux, counts and lives only in the whole. The result is that the whole can be recognized in fragments, and such a separatated part affords the contemplation and enjoyment of an unbroken whole.” As Pettijohn explained, “Ingeniously, Hegel has managed to produce a theoretical justification for appreciating the Elgin Marbles in their fragmentary and fractured condition, perhaps the greatest sticking-point to their reception.” In retrospect, it is interesting that Neo-Classicism, as a style, would be identified as “French,” not English, despite the absence of authentic examples in Paris, largely due to the work of Jacques Louis David, a painter.

Also read: “French Neoclassicism: Sculpture and Architecture” and “French Neoclassicism”

Also listen to “Neoclassicism” and “Jacques-Louis David”

If you have found this material useful, please give credit to
Dr. Jeanne S. M. Willette and Art History Unstuffed.

Thank you.
[email protected]