So. Hello. Good afternoon, everyone. Just before I start my paper,
I wanted to just say how good the sessions this morning were and to thank these
respective speakers and David just now as well for for their contributions.
There were two comments that struck home, particularly Rose said, let's get it right in the context of absence.
And Finn commented on the scarcities of sources pre British Journal of Photography.
And I want you to just hold those thoughts because they sort of underpin or lie at the heart of my own paper.
So just keep those in the back of your heads as I start talking.
So I especially like to start this afternoon by thanking Geoff Batchen for inviting me to speak at this conference
and for suggesting a subject for me to speak to and is probably moved away a little bit from where Geoff started.
But you'll see lots of images today and you'll be able to recognise some in the exhibitions.
In this presentation I wanted to dispel the notion that, to paraphrase the poet Philip Larkin, photographic literature began in 1853.
For those of us who spend time researching early photography, that might seem obvious.
But for many, the publication of the first British photography periodicals frequently provides
a more convenient and accessible entry point into photography's history.
As a result, the very early history to this the subject of a new power can be overlooked,
although obviously the exhibition now is turning that for us very, very well.
Combine this with the general absence of digitised resources and a perceived scarcity of primary source materials,
then one can start to see why photography is proto history,
by which I would define as the period up to the rapid expansion of commercial and
amateur photography from the mid 1850s can be seen as difficult to research.
What I want to do over the next 20 minutes or so is to explore what we might mean by photographic
literature in this period suggests that it's more extensive than it might first seem,
and to raise awareness of what we might usefully explore as historians,
I want to end with a play about how we all collectively might reconsider the literature from this early period just to manage expectations.
Although I will be showing plenty of slides, I would. I will only be dealing with printed materials, mainly books and periodicals.
And within the context of the exhibition and symposium, just those from Britain, I would hope to show that the period is far from barren,
and a quick use of Google Engrams gives both a sense and historical context for this period based on the appearance of the word photography.
It's inexact, of course, but it's a useful, useful starting point to take a deeper look.
So the term photographic literature has been used as a bit of a catchall to mainly focus on books illustrated with photographs.
It is this photographically illustrated literature that has been the bane of most interest to institutions and collectors.
Both the British Library and the Library of Congress and the New York Public Library have all
undertaken projects examining photographically illustrated books in their respective collections,
as indeed did the body,
and which commenced the project in the 1980s and has recently returned to it using knowledgeable volunteers to review its holdings.
The various anthologies of photo books from PA and batches, the photo book,
volume one to other national and thematic compilations have similarly concentrated on already graphically illustrated books.
There is, though, another side to photographic literature,
and one which I would argue is equally and for me is more significant and it's certainly been underappreciated.
There are a few studies that have looked at this other photographic literature, which is rooted in the books,
the menus, trade catalogues and other printed materials where they have been reviewed.
It's generally been in bibliographies of photography expertise.
Cinema history was broader than photography, but included a significant set of photography.
References. Bill Johnson's 19th century photography.
An annotated bibliography.
Attempts to pick out and categorise those references is stronger in the later citations and in those articles contained within the photographic press.
And geographically it focuses on Britain and the United States.
It was an ambitious endeavour, and because of this, its coverage is selective.
Johnson notes that his book contains nearly 21,000 references to books and periodical articles published between 1839 and 9 to 1879.
He breaks the period into what he calls explosive periods of growth and change.
I think we all know them. The 1840s and early 1850s, the period period from the early 1850s on, and then for him the early 1880s on.
Despite their limitations, Hecht and Johnson remain important and.
Points for research. A third key text is Helmut Gernsheim's.
Incunabula of British Photographic Literature 1839-1875, published in 1984.
This does not purport to be a comprehensive bibliography with its content anchored in Gernsheim's own library and collection.
Part one covers photographically illustrated books, which I am going to disregard today.
So it is in those later parts that concern is here. Part two looks at photographic literature and part three the journals Gernsheim's.
Part two From 1839 to 1858, largely the period covered by the exhibition includes 175 items,
some of which note more than one edition of a publication. Well then many publications are in Gernsheim's own library.
He broadens his coverage to bring in material from the Royal Photographic Society's library,
now held at the Victoria and Albert Museum, the Patent Office Library and the Epstein Collection at the University of Columbia.
The Marshall Collection Sale Catalogue of 1852 and a compilation of books made by W.H. Jerome
Harrison and published in the Photographic News across multiple issues in 1886 and 1887.
And Eric Stanley's bibliography of photographic books in the English language.
Up to 1870, which was published in 1931.
Of these during Harrison's bibliography is the most significant, not least by virtue of the fact that was being compiled.
Only 40 years after photography's announcement, the bibliography was envisaged in five classes.
These are printed books. Let you read this for yourself. But printed books.
Periodicals. Papers relating to photography.
A short list of the principal books bearing from related subjects such as optics, chemistry, etc.
And part five important books which have been illustrated by photography.
So the first three are the most significant for this paper printed books, photographic periodicals,
and those magazine articles, which he notes, quote, includes some thousands of titles and quotes.
Harrison breaks the period up to 1886 when he was writing into three.
Much as Johnson did the pre collodion period from 1839 to 50,
the closed in age from 1851 to 78, and what he calls, quote, the days of gelatine from 1878.
As far as I can discover, Harrison's full bibliography was never published in full.
And it seems that classes two, three, four and five were not completed and published at all.
Whether his work informed his 1888 book, A History of Photography, his intention for publication in photographic news was also never realised in full.
Even for the first class of printed books, which appeared in photographic news and the Journal of the Camera Club.
This, too, seems to have been incomplete against his own notes.
Harrison records books by some 170 authors and 340 books for the period up to 1887.
Like others, he notes that, quote,
The history of photography from 1854 to 1888 is practically contained in the pages of the two established periodicals,
the British Journal of Photography and the Photographic News. I suggest later that this is not the case.
I would also draw attention to the work of John Wilson, who died last year.
John was an inveterate collector, researcher,
bibliophile and assembler assembled a remarkable collection of books and tracks on photography, which he describes as a research library.
Alongside this was a bibliography which brought together references from across the wider literature.
John section to the literature photography from 1839 to 1905 cites some 249 references to photography up to 1858.
These range from publications such as The Mirror to The Mechanic and Chemist
and The Penny Magazine through to individual publications in later journals.
He deposited copies of his two volume catalogue with various libraries and individuals.
Having mapped out some of the surveys of photographic literature,
I want to turn now to some of the detail of that early period up to 1858, much as Harrison and Gernsheim did,
it made sense to break out the publications into distinct groups and for the purpose of this paper,
disregard those photographically illustrated books. So I'll break these out into similar groups, those used by Harrison printed books, periodicals,
photography in non photographic books and photography in non photographic periodicals.
The most straightforward entry point into photography's literature is through the pinch.
Printed book exists and is usually a single entities.
They have been easy for libraries and collectors such as Guns Home to catalogue and record.
The British Museum Library, now the British Library began issuing a subject index to its collections in a series of volumes.
And the first four photography covered the period up to 1880.
It is arranged chronologically and covers both English language and non-English volumes.
It's partial and quite superficial. Today, of course, the British library collections are searchable online,
and catalogues of catalogues such as world cats have extended reach, although subject indexes still have much to commend them.
79 titles are listed for the period up to 1858,
which include books illustrated by photography such as Talbot’s Sun Pictures in Scotland but not the Pencil of Nature.
Harrison noted the difficulty in dating with such books, and I'm going to quote this arises from the fact that many of the books,
the smaller ones, more especially, were written for certain instrument makers and sold only at their shops.
Such books never found their way into booksellers lists and are now often only to be detected by chance.
Allusions to the Met when wading through the literature of the subject generally.
Harrison also notes that of his 18 early works on photography, published between 1839 and 1850,
quite only those by Tiger Talbot, Hunt and Larry will have claim to much originality.
The others are mainly compilations.
Having examined having examined many of these publications, particularly in the context of Wedgwood more recently, that seems fair criticism.
I would argue it's only really Hunt, who provides original research on the early origins of photography and those sections in other publications
merely paraphrase or rewrite his texts only occasionally adding something that's pertinent to the new title.
However, those other books, manuals and extended trade catalogues frequently provide insights into the practice of photography to the
variance of its chemistry and advice and guidance for knowledgeable authors that extends beyond the history.
That was Harrison's particular interest. The distinction between a book and trade catalogue is a nuance for another time.
Harrison sometimes added his own comment to entries on his published bibliography.
And it's worth quoting one example.
And the quote is the first edition of Archer 1852, which is The collodion process showing here is so scarce that I've never seen a copy.
The author appears to have tried to buy up the all that were in the market and what and with what objects.
It is difficult to conjecture. We come back to that a bit later.
Hunt and the first editions of Hard, which is Manual of Photography, are cited as particularly useful.
It's worth noting that subsequent editions of these and other titles are frequently revised and updated bringing in new additions,
bringing in new descriptions, processes, and describing new equipment, reflecting the rapidly changing nature of photography during this early period.
Tracking down some of these different editions is frequently worthwhile, especially as some titles such as Hard,
which in some way its guide to photography went through numerous editions over long periods.
So the next few slides, I'm just going to show a few examples.
I'm not going to talk to them, but I just wanted you to get a sense of some of the publications from this early period.
And some of these will be familiar to you from the exhibition.
So moving on to photography periodicals, the first photography periodicals in Britain appear in the 1850s.
The Photographic Society of London later.
The Aaps Journal was first published in March 1853 and concerned itself mainly with matters pertaining to the society,
such as reporting council meetings in the society's administration, as well as publish papers that were read at its meetings.
And they covered the breadth of photography, the mechanics of the camera, the chemistry,
the optics, the arts, and matters relating to exhibitions and the subject generally.
The Journal's reach was far in excess of the society's membership and early on had a print run of almost 3000.
It was sent to other institutions and libraries as a way of disseminating what was happening within photography.
The following year, the precursor to the British Journal of Photography appeared and variously represented the proceedings of the
Liverpool and Manchester Photographic Societies before it became the British Journal of Photography in 1860.
In 1856, Thomas Sutton began publishing photographic notes,
which at various times was also the official publication of the Manchester, Scotland and Birmingham Photographic Societies.
Throughout its existence, it was also a vehicle for Sutton's own views and prejudices.
The British Journal of Photography was joined by the photographic news in 1858, and both titles had a broad remit across photography and trade.
The photographic news and BJP, with their particular audiences and the interests of their respective editors,
provided weekly insights into differing aspects of photography.
Want to turn to the non-specialist photographic press. This is harder to access without a direct reference.
Often that bears perseverance. Photography.
Photography falls into three distinct areas science publications dealing with general science, chemistry or optics.
Art where photography can form part of this, or more usually a specific chapter.
And then techniques such as engraving, where photography similarly can form a chapter, is part of a discussion of techniques.
Harrison noted that, quote,
I found that 42 had at some time or other included the word photography or some equivalent thereof as part of their titles up to circa 1887.
So prior to the first specialist photography period with periodicals, which appeared between 1853 and 1858 and those specialist printed books,
it was the non-specialist periodicals, including newspapers that carried news of developments and progress within photography.
Harrison noted that in particular, the literary Gazette's and notes inquiries were particularly important,
and he produced a list of photographic subjects from the 12 first 12 volumes from 1849 to 1855 of notes and queries.
Guggenheim to noted that the Literary Gazette was important and said it ranked in first importance for the period from 1839 up to about 1850.
He said that, quote,
Notes and queries was one of the most popular and active British journals promoting photography argued that it is the non-specialist,
photographic periodicals and other publications that provide the key sources for that early photography.
Accessing information has in some ways become easier than it once was.
20 or 30 years ago, when one would have to find a library with periodicals, preferably on open access shelves,
check the publications index where it existed, or simply turn pages to find a reference to photography.
That said, many of these have still yet to be digitised and made more accessible.
Resources such as the British Newspaper Archive and newspapers com, which is part of ancestry,
have made available millions of searchable pages which have allowed historians to get into the local level of photography.
The seminal work of Pauline Heathcoat, who looked at the daguerreotype in Britain,
was all undertaken through hundreds and hundreds of hours of manually searching newspapers at the newspaper library, then at Colindale.
Her publication and research notes are now all available online.
It stood the test of time, though that was rose to be has shown there was much further important information waiting to be found.
And again, just a few examples of some of those other publications.
They the trust google and archive dot org with its partners such as the National
Library have made some of those key photography resources available online,
such as notes and queries in the art journal and also, more importantly, searchable.
And Harrison's elusive first edition of Scott Archer's book is now available as a pdf download from an original in the app's library.
There's a caveat here, though, much as access to print journals and publications limited,
how photographic history was researched and written about digitisation remains partial,
and there is a risk that similarly, only that which is digitised or readily accessible will continue to be used more frequently,
especially by people outside of this room. There are, of course, other sources that can be described as photography's printed literature.
Well, I'm going to stretch this definition very slightly to include some manuscript material,
and they form part of the primary sources that we we often refer to patents,
design registrations, low court reports, company documents, wills, for example, and printed broadsheets.
Some of these will be specifically concerned with photography.
So just in conclusion, from the foregoing survey, I'd like to just wrap up with some general conclusions now.
Harrison's five classes provide a useful way of dividing up for photographic literature.
The first and the first two and fifth printed books and photographic periodicals have a straightforward, photographically illustrated.
Books have had far more attention than I'd argue they deserve.
But we can have that conversation later. Although there are two there, I think there are still many more to surface.
It is Harrison's third and fourth classes.
Photography in non photographic books and in photography in unfairly graphic periodicals where I would argue that inside is still limited.
I can do no better than to quote William Harrison and say, quote, This class of papers dealing with photography,
which have not appeared in photographic journals, stands really more in need of such less than any other.
Such papers are too apt to be lost, buried and forgotten.
They lie out of the track of the investigator, and they're almost certain to be missed.
Harrison started this work,
but seems to have confined his bibliography to the more significant or more available publications such as The Philosophical Magazine,
The Art Union, Edinburgh Review, the Athenaeum, the Art Journal, British Association, Sport Journal of the Society of Arts, amongst others.
But there are many more that he overlooked. Looking at the summary of the work of guns, Heim and others.
John Wilson's significant leap in a number of references to books and especially public published articles relating to photography,
shows that there was a significant corpus of material on early work photography, that he was able to serve his thesis through diligent searching.
John was working in a digital age and I believe there still remain plenty of new references in waiting to
be exposed in periodicals and newspapers that will enhance our understanding of early British photography.
My own research suggests that this is the case. Of course, some of these would be publications reprinting texts from the London press,
although even that can show how photography was being disseminated.
But there will be local reports that will improve our own knowledge of early photography and early photographers on a local basis.
The play I flagged at the start of this paper is that there needs to be.
There is a need for an online annotated bibliography of early photography that moves beyond the photograph and the illustrated book.
It would extend the work of Wilson, Harrison and others and would expand the list of books in their editions,
but more usefully would surface those early references to photography that still remain hidden within general periodicals,
newspapers and publications. By doing so, the inconsiderable literature this paper's title would be more readily accessible for students and scholars.
So thank you.