"Pictorial Photography" - Lauren

What is particularly interesting about Stieglitz’s article, “Pictorial Photography”, is that it directly contrasts what Franz Roh said in his article, “Mechanism and Expression” (and what I discussed in my previous response) regarding his opinion that photography can be categorized as art as long as the photo is taken by a professional. Stieglitz on the other hand states that a true artistic photograph comes from the love of photography, not the profession of photography.

“Nearly all the greatest work is being, and has always been done, by those who are following photography for the love of it, and not merely for financial reasons” (117). According to Stieglitz, the lover of photography is the amateur, not the professional, such as a portrait photographers. But then again, Stieglitz is not saying that Ol’ Average Joe who just got his new Kodak camera can take an artistic photograph valued at “upward[s] of one hundred dollars” (122). Rather, he is saying that an artistic photograph of this caliber not only comes from the photographer who loves his hobby, but is also “the result of an artistic instinct coupled with years of labor” (118).

After reading the introduction to this article, the short biography of Stieglitz, what is really interesting to me is considering how Stieglitz and other “amateur” photographers survived if they weren’t making a profit. Stieglitz published pamphlets and journals—neither of which would have created much of a profit—and held an exhibition for several of years…. One wonders how he bought his film…