File:The American annual of photography (1922) (14594901519).jpg

Identifier: americanannualof36newy (find matches)
Title: The American annual of photography
Year: 1922 (1920s)
Authors:
Subjects: Photography
Publisher: New York : Tennant and Ward
Contributing Library: Harold B. Lee Library
Digitizing Sponsor: Brigham Young University

View Book Page: Book Viewer
About This Book: Catalog Entry
View All Images: All Images From Book
Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book.

Text Appearing Before Image:
high as five hundred. A small clubmembership is sometimes due to so-called exclusiveness andsometimes to the inability to interest others. But progressive-ness is the dominant factor in enrolling large numbers. From these facts one can readily see that our country isfar behind in the matter of photographic societies. This isthe more apparent to anyone who has become familiar withthe activities of our English cousins who can proudly boastof a society in every town of any size. And you mustremember that the area and population of the British Islesare small compared to those of the United States. While I have no accurate knowledge in proof of my state-ment, I venture to say that only a small percentage of thepictorial workers of America are members of any local cameraorganization. By pictorial workers I mean those whosenames are usually seen in the Salon catalogs. Now thequestion why? From my own experience, I believe tharf:the entire fault does not lie with the pictorial worker. Some 68
Text Appearing After Image:
THERES ONE. LOUIS F. BUCHER. 69 of the clubs are to blame in that they have discouraged theadvanced worker from joining their forces by being too readyto classify him as professional, or, as is often the case,because of just plain jealousy. It is logical to assume thatthe majority of workers in any Camera Club consists of thosewho give little thought to the really serious side of photog-raphy, and the majority can be the means of making orbreaking the club by its condemnation of camera work thatis way above their heads. They cannot appreciate it. Butthat does not mean that it is not good work, nor that it shouldbe called or classified as professional. In fact, I am firmlyof the belief that professionals, in the true sense of the word,should be encouraged to join forces with the amateur. Ofcourse such workers would not care to, and should not beexpected to compete in club competitions with the amateurs,at least not with the beginners, for that would discouragethe latter. It is my opini

Note About Images