Thank you for dedicating Art Sunday to Scotland
but it made me think I had better do something a bit special this week.
I hope you like it. This; basically, is the history of Photography. A
big chunk of photographic history happened right here in Scotland
and this is the story. There is quite a bit of reading, but if you
enjoy photography hopefully you will find it interesting. Next time you
are out and about with your little digi camera, no bigger than your
mobile ‘phone, stop for a while and think about the origins of what you
are doing.
The work of Hill and Adamson is important to the whole history of Photography and to the history of Scotland.
This early photographic work provides a source of social commentary
from a period of change AND evidence of the developing technology from
that time.
Sir David Brewster
Chemical
experiments in preserving the images of the camera Obscura began in the
seventeenth century but did not have significant success until the
nineteenth century. The partnership of Hill and Adamson came about
thanks to a network of prominent people and events cantered around St
Andrews and Edinburgh
during the mid nineteenth century. A central figure to this was Sir
David Brewster. Brewster (1781-1868) was a leading physicist who had
specialised in the study of light and optics. He
was also Principal of St Andrews University. He was interested in recent
developments in photography and, along with other associates at St
Andrews University, had participated in early photographic experiments
using the technique of the French theatrical designer
Louis-Jacques-Mande’ Daguerre (1787-1851). A technique known as Daguerreotypie.
This involved a silvered copper plate being sensitised with iodine
vapour, exposed in a camera and developed with mercury vapour that was
heated over a spirit-lamp. This method resulted in a photographic image
being preserved on a copper plate that needed to be protected from
damage with a glass cover and sealed to prevent tarnishing by contact
with air. The exposure time of 20-30 minutes made this method unsuitable for portraiture but it did provide a way of producing high quality images of landscapes. Brewster’s
friend, Englishman and scientist James Henry Talbot Fox (1800-1877) had
been working on different methods of reproducing photographic images
around the same time as Daguerre, and Daguerre’s public announcement
encouraged Talbot Fox to make his own findings public sooner than he had
intended. Talbot fox’s technique was known as Calotype
meaning ‘beautiful image’; it used good quality paper coated with
silver iodide, sensitised with silver nitrate, developed with
gallo-nitrate of silver and heat then fixed with potassium bromide. The
disadvantage of Talbot Fox’s method was the relative poor quality image,
but the advantages were the ability to reproduce more than one
identical image per exposure and the possibility of faster exposure
times allowing for photographic portraits. The Scottish scientist James
David Forbes
(1809-1868), friend and colleague at St Andrews of Brewster, examined
both processes and favoured the French over the English method. The
chemical process invented by Talbot Fox was difficult to control until
Brewster introduced another of his colleagues, Dr John Adamson
(1809-1870) to it. Adamson began working with the process and
successfully managed to produce the first Calotype portrait in May 1842.
Dr John Adamson introduced his younger brother, Robert Adamson
(1821-1848) an engineer, to the chemical processes of Calotype
photography, and it was Robert Adamson who went on to refine and develop
this technology, enabling the Adamson /Hill partnership to thrive.
At
this point several things happened, Sir Brewster (remember him?, he
started the whole thing) took himself off to Edinburgh to the AGM of the
Church of Scotland; Robert Adamson (engineer turned early photographic
chemist) arrived in Edinburgh hoping to find premises for a new
photographic studio, and David Octavius Hill (1802-1870), well known Scottish landscape painter, came to witness the expected protests at the AGM. Hill, was commissioned commemorate the meeting with a painting. He planned individual sittings partly
due to the people involved and partly due to the enormity of the task
of sketching every single member of the synod, Hill was introduced to
Adamson with a view to using the Calotype process to cut back on the sketching. These
two men initially came together to work on the painting commemorating
the formation of the new Church, they continued working together, in
partnership over the next four years. The partnership lasted from 1843
to 1847 and ended with the premature death of Adamson in January1848.
From these few years over 1400 of their paper negatives survive; these
are possibly only a fraction of the total that were actually made. It
was the collaboration between Hill and Adamson on the photographic
‘sketches’ that began their partnership. Initially Hill thought of the
process as a means of obtaining fast accurate ‘sketches ‘ from which to
produce his paintings but he very quickly became enamoured with the
medium and recognised it as an art form in its own right. This
particular painting could be considered the forerunner of the Hill and
Adamson ‘social documentary’ photographs because it was the first time
the photographic process had been used to record an important event in
history.
What
the scientifically minded saw as the imperfections of the Calotype
image, Hill welcomed as positive attributes. Initially Brewster saw the
images as flawed because they had a ‘stippled’ effect as opposed to the
clarity of the daguerreotypie image. Hill saw
these variables as adding to the quality of the images rather than
detracting from them. The Calotype process produced images of a deep
red/brown hue, the process naturally lent itself to a slightly out of
focus ‘fuzzyness’, it had a ‘grainy’ texture. To
those from a scientific background, the photographic process provided a
means whereby images from life could be recorded in a clinical, accurate
manner; anything detracting from that accuracy was perceived as a flaw
in the process that should be avoided. Hill used the process to produce
images that were ‘art works’ and Adamson refined the method to
accentuate the natural properties of the medium not to eliminate them.
Hill provided the artistic inspiration while Adamson provided the
technical expertise. They expanded the boundaries of science and
technology while at the same time produced images that were unique.
These images are our evidence of how, in a relatively short period, the
seemingly impossible dream of preserving a mirrored or reflected image
from life suddenly became possible. These images are unique in being the
first photographic social documentary evidence of the lives of everyday
Scottish people and the world in which they lived. They are uniquely
the product of combined artistic and technical inspiration that came
into being thanks to the cooperation of an interdisciplinary network of
scientists, artists, academics, theologians and other prominent people
who converged together at one particular time and place in our history.
The
partnership began with the calotype image being used as a substitute
for sketches for the painting ‘The signing of the Deed of Demission’,
but in the space of four years the partnership recorded many images that
were not related to this painting. Hill and Adamson recorded a series
of images known as ‘The Fishermen and Women of the Firth of Forth’, many
of these images have a quality more usually associated with paintings
than photographs with attention being paid to the composition and
overall effect rather than to the accurate recording of detail.
This
series of images, the bulk of which were taken in Newhaven with a few
from Prestonpans, Leith and St Andrews, were used primarily as
experiments in the effects of light and shade taken at different times
of day.
These images may have begun as a means by which Hill and Adamson
learned how to manipulate the calotype process to their satisfaction
but, they have become valued and valuable images in their own right.
They record an extinct way of life in images, in a way that communicates
to the audience a ‘feel’ for the way things were. They are more than an
accurate recording, photographic images are accurate recordings of what
lies in front of the camera, but the content of a photographic image
can be manipulated as much as the content of a painting can. The image
‘Newhaven Fishermen: Rutherford, William Ramsey and John Liston
‘Fishermen Ashore’ is a composed portrait of three local fishermen. The
image records accurately what was before the camera and leaves us with
perfect insight into how these people dressed for their work but the
composition itself is contrived. These people would have needed to hold a
set pose for some time in order to achieve this result. This was no
natural ‘snapshot’ of people at work. This image is a combination of new
technology in the hands of a talented technician and the artistic input
of a well-known and respected artist. The result is an image
that passes to future generations as part social documentary evidence
of a lost way of life and part art work using a new medium.
Hill
and Adamson also recorded the progress of the building of the Scott
monument between the years 1843-1845. They recorded the monument itself
in different stages of completion but they also recorded the craftsmen
working on the monument.
Hope
you enjoyed this rather different art Sunday, I'm going to post the
photographs in an album where hopefully you will be able to get a better
look at them.
In
no way is this meant to imply that politicians have learned anything
about art in 150 years. If they have, it is a well kept secret,
considering how they keep taking money away from funding the arts. Then
they do keep their jobs by representing their constituents. Hmm, this
could get curiouser and curiouser!
|
then what did they know about art? 
forgetmenot525 wrote on Sep 28, '08
DID????? ...............you mean they learn a few things since then???
|
Thank you for the link. It is a most interesting comparison.
Originally Bennett said that she would like to see a blog on Mathew Brady, it grew from there. Brady did continue to use the French method. Since his primary claim to fame, at the time, was portraits of many powerful people, grainy wouldn't have been appreciated in Washington and New York, then what did they know about art? |
philsgal7759 wrote on Sep 28, '08, edited on Sep 28, '08
I had no idea this all started in Scotland.This is quite fascinating reading
Thanks |
lauritasita wrote on Sep 28, '08
Loretta,
this is so educational for me. I must come back and read it again
because there is so much to read and understand here! Thanks so much.
|
wickedlyinnocent wrote on Sep 28, '08
Thanks for the great blog on Hill and Adamson and the history of photography.
|
Thank
you for this posting Loretta, most informative. I first learned of
Hill and Adamson and their accomplishments and influence on photography,
when I researched background for a blog post on Mathew Brady. Brady
was our pioneer in 'on the scene photography' during the civil war era.
http://veryfrank.multiply.com/journal/item/97/Entry_for_May_14_2008_-_Mathew_Brady_Photographer_and_Photo-journalist |
aimlessjoys wrote on Sep 28, '08
Good
to know more about the gradual advance & importance of the
photographic art. It must have seemed like magic, indeed. Thanks for a
great overview of the path to my beloved digital cameras. Thanks!
|
brendainmad wrote on Sep 28, '08
How
artistially done these early photographs are. I admire people who today
can take a photo that looks like a painting. Even with my digi I'm not a
good photographer. Thanks for another interesting post.
|
 |
starfishred wrote on Sep 28, '08
Very Very nice you know I almost did him it was a toss up him or the poem and pic-this was great loretta
|
No comments:
Post a Comment