Biography

Discussion

According to Carl Brun’s Schweizerisches Künstler-Lexikon (‘Swiss Artists Lexicon’), Louis Wegner studied in Munich (Germany) and Vienna (Austria) to become a lithographer, and in 1836, he reportedly began working in this profession in Lucerne and Zurich (Switzerland). The Rijksprentenkabinet (‘National Print Room’/Rijksmuseum Amsterdam) has four lithographs by Wegner in its possession: two printed by Grimminger, and two printed by Orell Füssli & Cie., with both companies located in Zurich. It is not known whether Wegner was already taking photographs prior to his arrival the Netherlands in 1849. A. Pietersen, a mirror-builder and daguerreotypist in Amsterdam with whom he initially lived, could perhaps have introduced him to the idea. On a label that can be dated to 1850, Wegner stated the following: ‘Daguerreotype Portraits of varying sizes for frames, etuis, broaches, cameos, etc./Silver Stylus Portraits and Lithographs, from nature and after daguerreotype or other paintings.’ Whether the term ‘silver stylus portraits’ is indeed a reference to salt prints rather than drawings, as has been suggested by G.A. Evers in his articles on early Dutch photography, remains uncertain. More likely is that Wegner produced drawings, as well as lithographs and daguerreotypes in his early days. For the Tentoonstelling van Kunstwerken van Levende Meesters (‘Exhibition of Artworks by Living Masters’) held in 1850, he as yet submitted three drawings and a lithograph (all portraits), and in the year 1852, four or six ‘prints of Photography’. It is not known what kinds of photos were submitted to the latter exhibition. Although initially accepted and included in the catalogue, a number of the photos were taken down from the wall by the exhibition committee, following complaints from a number of artists who maintained that photography was not to be counted as one of the arts. Wegner’s entry to the 1850 exhibition was accompanied by two notes, which clearly demonstrate he had not yet fully mastered the Dutch language. For the 1852 exhibition, he simply wrote his message in German. After this time, Wegner no longer participated in the exhibitions that followed. It is not known whether he was ever active as a portrait draftsman or lithographer at a later point in his career.

In the second half of the 1850s, Wegner produced a number of large-format portrait photos (besides the standard carte-de-visite portraits) that may be included among the finest examples of early Dutch photography. A number of these portrait photos are dated 1857 and 1858. Among the works currently known to have been produced by Wegner: five undated portraits of the painter Nicolaas Pieneman; one portrait of Hans Christian Andersen (1858, now only known in the form of a reproduction); several portraits of Edouard Mussche (1857) as well as other members of the Asser family; and the portrait of an unknown woman in front of a mirror. Especially Mussche and Pieneman are portrayed as individual personalities, thereby avoiding the flaw of many portrait photos, i.e. the empty gaze and unmotivated pose. Whereas contemporary portrait photos of a similar format taken abroad are characterised by the simplicity of their compositions and the absence of attributes, Wegner’s portraits are richly decorated. The portraits of Pieneman include painters’ attributes and are somewhat reminiscent of the portraits that Franz Hanfstaengl, who also incorporated an abundance of attributes in order to convey the profession of the person portrayed. Only one surviving photo of Wegner’s might be considered a study: the genre portrait of a monk.

A number of Wegner’s portraits are found pasted in the albums of the Amsterdam photographer E.I. Asser. The difference between the amateur (Asser) and the professional (Wegner) is demonstrated quite clearly. Despite Wegner’s skill, the poses in his photos are more calculated, less varied, and as well less cluttered, when compared to those of Asser. They lack the charm that comes with such clutter.

The quality of Wegner’s portrait photos failed to go unnoticed. At the Tentoonstelling van Photographie en Heliographie (‘Exhibition of Photography and Heliography’) held in Amsterdam in 1855, he was awarded a gold medal. In the Amsterdamsche Courant, one anonymous critic spoke of Wegner’s ‘highly admirable pieces’. In the catalogue, ‘five photographs, from negatives on collodion, with and without retouching’ are listed. Apparently, Wegner had already made the switch from daguerreotypes to photographs on paper. Three years later, at the Tentoonstelling van Photographie (‘Exhibition of Photography’) in Amsterdam, where his photos were awarded once again, a more extensive discussion regarding his work appeared in the Amsterdamsche Courant: ‘Generally, one observes in his portraits the artist, who chooses his pose with discretion, while his photographs possess a translucent tint in the shadows with appropriate intensity, which allows the half-shadows to emerge exquisitely. Observing closely, we have examined whether an artificial retouching had come to the assistance of this product of photography, but we could find no trace thereof, quite the contrary, many pieces reveal the unmistakeable proof that the works, as they are presented, are indeed actually “sans retouche” [“without retouching”]’. Wegner’s surviving portraits indeed appear to confirm that he was disinclined to retouching. In a discussion of the permissibility of retouching published in the Tijdschrift voor Photographie written ten years following Wegner’s death, H.L.J. Haakman stated that Wegner never retouched a negative and that he did nothing more than add minor touch-ups to his prints. All of his surviving portraits are albumen prints. Most of them are in excellent condition, thanks to the gold toning.

In 1857, an anonymous critic of the French Revue Photographique observed that Wegner’s portraits could easily stand comparison with the work of Nadar, Mayer and Pierson, Le Gray, and others: ‘they form without exaggeration a masterful oeuvre; poses that are both intelligent and natural, the skilfully prepared attitudes of the head; a mellow and deep texture; soft tones, pure whites, well-conceived shadows, a clear definition of detail, nothing is missing in these tableaus (…)’ The Frenchman Philippe Burty was more critical of Wegner’s photos. In a discussion of an exhibition hosted by the Société Française de Photographie (‘French Society of Photography’) in 1859, he described Wegner indeed as a worthy competitor, but judged his photos to be corrupted by the worst of errors: ‘la prétention’ (‘pretension’). In Burty’s assessment, the female figures possessed a reserve that was exaggeratedly sweet, while the young men stared blankly off into the distance.

Wegner belonged to the first generation of photographers who produced carte-de-visite portraits. The usual attributes—throw rug, chair, table, curtain, pillar and railing—all recur in varying combinations. The women’s portraits are occasionally reminiscent of the figures in the paintings of A.H. Bakker-Korff: stern-looking elderly middle-class women, who probably spent more time indoors with gaslight than they ever did in the sunlight, and who, for all appearances, spent most of their time drinking tea, doing needlework, and gossiping.

It is not known precisely when Wegner and Mottu—who was twenty-four years Wegner’s junior—began associating with each other. The earliest known appearance of the company name ‘Wegner & Mottu’ can be traced to a letter from April 1862. At this time, the studio was still located at Prinsengracht 831 (BB 439), though it would soon be relocated to Kalverstraat 179 (D 26). In the Amsterdam city address book, the name of Wegner & Mottu appears for the first time in the 1863-’64 edition. Little is known of Mottu’s background. Accompanying the first mention of his name in the Amsterdam civil registry in October 1863, he is listed as a ‘kantoorbediende’ (clerical assistant). This information, however, must be regarded with some reservation, as the same source likewise states that Mottu’s father, Jean Marie David Mottu (born 1799– death after 1865), practiced the same profession as his son. The elder Mottu, however, was more than just a simple clerical assistant. From May 1863 to October 1865, he was one of the directors of the Algemeene Maatschappij voor Handel en Nijverheid (‘General Company of Trade and Industry’, a large financing firm.) There is no doubt that J.M.D. Mottu’s resignation was linked to the problems faced by the company, stemming from ‘an excess of financial optimism and fraudulent dealings’. It was in this same year that Mottu’s father moved to Switzerland.

While Wegner focused on portraits—as surviving photos clearly affirm—Mottu’s interest was broader: architecture, hydraulic engineering works, portraits, and art objects. The four photos Mottu shot of the interior of the Paleis voor Volksvlijt (‘Palace of Industry’) in Amsterdam in 1864 are outstanding examples of early Dutch photography. The airy beauty of the empty building—only rows of chairs, tables, building materials, and an occasional figure can be be seen—is well-captured. Although signed ‘W&M’, these photos should actually be attributed to Mottu rather than Wegner, considering the former’s interest in architecture. In the early 1870s, Mottu photographed various buildings designed by the architect H.J. van den Brink: the Aartsbisschoppelijk Seminarie Rijsenburg (‘Archbishop’s Seminary Rijsenburg’) and the villa ‘De Brink’, both in Driebergen; P.G.C. Hajenius’ cigar warehouse ‘De Rijnstroom’, and the De Groote Club Society, both in Amsterdam. The Rijksmuseum, designed by the architect Pierre Cuypers, was photographed in its final building phase (1884-’85). In the late 1860s and early ’70s, the firm also photographed the construction of the North Sea Canal, and a decade later, a number of sluice bridges in Brabant. Hydraulic engineering projects such as these were photographed not only by Wegner & Mottu, but also by others. Refined vistas along the longitudinal axes of bridges, canals, dikes, and dams, such as found in the photos of J. van Gorkom Jr, J.G. Hameter, Pieter Oosterhuis, and Julius Perger, are almost entirely lacking in Mottu’s work.

Under Mottu’s direction, Wegner & Mottu grew to become a highly diverse company. A rather ineloquently formulated jury report from the Internationale Tentoonstelling van Photographie (‘International Exhibition of Photography’) of 1877 reveals just that. As a jury member for this exhibition, Mottu himself was ineligible for the Gouden Stedelijke Medaille (‘Gold Civic Medal’), upon which it was decided to award the prize to Pieter Oosterhuis. In the jury report, we read the following: ‘Were Mr. Mottu not a member of the Jury, then the firm Wegner & Mottu, through its numerous and important entries encompassing virtually the entire field of photography, would have been eligible for the highest distinction.’ The firm also enjoyed a good reputation outside photographers’ circles. In response to the J.P. Oppers’ request to receive the title of ‘hoffotograaf’ (‘court photographer’) in 1874, the mayor of Amsterdam observed: ‘By now I believe that he [Oppers] must not be placed higher than the firm Wegner & Mottu or the photographer Offenberg here, who are both very laudable in their profession.’

‘The entire field of photography’ stated in the 1877 jury report was also made in reference to photographic printing via photomechanical techniques. Mottu demonstrated a great interest in technical innovations, especially those in the area of photomechanical printing techniques. Accounts of meetings held at the APV (Amsterdamsche Photographen Vereeniging, ‘Amsterdam Photographers Association’), of which Mottu was president from 1872-’74, indicate he experimented regularly with new processes and chemicals, as well as optics. In 1874, he sat on a committee for experimentation with new techniques. At a certain point, Mottu even added a photography studio to the printing company. Mottu applied most of the photomechanical printing techniques: collotype, photolithography, ‘mottutype’ (i.e. photogalvanography), photogravure, and relief halftone. For various magazines and books, particularly in the areas of architecture and art, Mottu printed illustration material, e.g. for the three volumes of the De Nederlandsche Kunstbode (‘The Netherlands Art Courier’, 1879-1881), and from 1881, various volumes of the Bouwkundig Tijdschrift (‘Architectural Magazine’) and Bouwkundig Weekblad (‘Architectural Weekly’). In most cases, this primarily involved photomechanical printing techniques such as photolithography and collotype. While numerous examples of this work have been preserved, very little is known about the printing company itself.

In the annually published Algemeen Adresboek voor den Boekhandel (‘General Address Book of Booksellers’, later ‘Brinkman’s Address Book’), which lists the printing companies in the Netherlands for each year, Wegner & Mottu’s business name appears starting in 1878 under the category ‘Photographie- Copiëer-Inrichtingen’ (‘Photography-Copying-Institutions’), and starting in 1885, under ‘Photographie-Copiëer- en Phototypie [= lichtdruk]-Inrichtingen en Agenturen’ (‘Photography-Copying-and Collotype-Institutions and Agencies’). The company is not found once under the heading photolithographic printing companies, even though Wegner & Mottu are known to have done photolithographic printing work as early as 1869. It was in this year that the two men began working with the lithographer A. Kroon. At the new ‘Photo-Lithographisch en Lithographisch Etablissement’ (‘Photo-Lithographic and Lithographic Establishment’), the E.I. Asser variant of photolithography was applied. Primarily architectural drawings appear to have been printed using photolithography. In a prospectus, the business partners also recommend this technique for regular commercial printed matter. In 1872, this collaboration was ended. Both Mottu and Kroon continued to apply Asser’s method. During the Internationale Tentoonstelling van Voorwerpen voor de Huishouding en het Bedrijf van den Handwerksman (‘International Exhibition of Objects for the Craftsman’s Household and Business’), held at the Paleis voor Volksvlijt in Amsterdam in 1869, Mottu took an extensive series of shots featuring the building, the grounds around it, the stands, and the objects exhibited. Although he announced plans to make and sell both photographic and photolithographic prints of these shots, no examples of the latter are known to exist. Mottu is likely to have changed his mind about printing with this technique due to the mediocre reproduction of tonal greys. Photolithography would ultimately prove to be most suitable for reproducing line drawings. Magazines and books published in the last quarter of the nineteenth century include various examples of Wegner & Mottu’s work in this area. In 1881, Mottu began printing photolithographic illustrations for the magazines Bouwkundig Tijdschrift and Bouwkundig Weekblad. He continued to do so for years.

In the same period, Mottu also applied the collotype process. Along with Julius Schaarwachter, he is certain to have been the first in the Netherlands to do so. Mottu is likely to have been in contact with C.M. Tessié du Motay and Ch.R. Maréchal as early as 1867, as it was in this year that a collotype was made from one of his negatives. Jakob Husnik, another inventor of the collotype, offered his invention to various individuals for sale in late 1868. In a letter addressed to Vojto Naprstk and dated 14 December 1868, Husnik wrote that he had asked a price of Dfl. 2,000 from Wegner & Mottu, without giving up his right to sell to other interested parties. Mottu, however, wished to receive sole rights. Husnik turned down Mottu’s offer to make him the director of a collotype printing company in Amsterdam: he had no desire to leave his wife and family behind, nor to give up his pension insurance. It remains unclear whether Mottu went ahead and obtained a license for Husnik’s process or chose to acquire one from his competitor, Joseph Albert. The earliest known collotypes by Mottu date from 1871: a portrait and a cityscape appearing in the Photographische Correspondenz (‘Photographic Correspondence’), and two shots of the steamship ‘Willem III’, which was probably published as loose plates by Jan D. Brouwer. In a business prospectus from March 1872, Mottu wrote the following about the collotype process: ‘To make this method known, since a couple years we have worked with it ourselves and processed orders, but for some time we have been receiving more and more orders, so that as time goes by it would no longer possible for us to give this necessary care, more so because there are numerous difficulties associated with the process mentioned, and one has to be working with it exclusively in order to produce perfect, good work.’ Consequently, from this time forward, the firm would contract this work out to an undesignated printing company abroad, with orders of less than 100 prints being refused.

Mottu applied photolithography and collotype depending on the subject at hand. Line or pen drawings were chiefly carried out with photolithography. The collotype was used for the remaining subjects, as Mottu wrote in 1881: ‘For the replication of subjects not comprised exclusively of lines and points by means of the press, such as e.g.: photographs, oil paintings, watercolours, pastels, etc. etc., the best process is the Alberttype, also called the Collotype or Photogravure.’ Wegner & Mottu’s art reproductions were produced with both techniques. It would appear that Mottu scarcely printed photogravures. On a written estimate drawn up in 1885 for Het Rijks-Museum te Amsterdam (‘The Rijksmuseum of Amsterdam’), an album that was to be published under the supervision of P.J.H. Cuypers, Victor de Stuers wrote in the margin: ‘ask Wegner & Mottu of he can do that. If not, then he has to learn it’. In this case, however, Mottu was never obliged to learn photogravure, as the commission to print the album was ultimately awarded to someone else.

Mottu also worked with photoxylography, a technique that involved transferring the image photographically to a wooden block, after which it was engraved by hand according to the standard method. In 1869, Mottu had five of his photos from the Internationale Tentoonstelling van Voorwerpen voor de Huishouding en het Bedrijf van den Handwerksman transferred to wood for publication in the magazine De Hollandsche Illustratie (‘The Dutch Illustration’). These woodblocks were likely engraved elsewhere. In illustrated magazines such as De Hollandsche Illustratie, no high-quality photomechanical techniques such as photolithography or collotype were ever applied. At most, the photoxylography was used, i.e. the photographic equivalent of the wood engraving. Wood engraving had long been the most frequently applied technique when it came to illustrating printed matter for more modest purposes. As the nineteenth century progressed, competition grew with the emergence of all kinds of graphic and photomechanical techniques. Among them was also Mottu’s variant of Paul Pretsch’s photogalvanography, called the ‘mottutype’. Mottu himself referred to this technique also as the ‘phototype’ or ‘phototypography’, with which he experimented starting in about 1870. In any event, his intention was to ‘replace the wood engraving’. Not only were reproductions of engravings and drawings made with the mottutype, but also prints of photographic negatives that were produced ‘from nature’. The results are highly similar to wood engravings. Pretsch had already patented the principle of photogalvanography in relief printing in 1854. There are no indications that Mottu introduced any significantly new improvements to the original. In 1873, two examples of the ‘mottugraphy’ were donated to the Société Française de Photographie.

One of Mottu’s last activities prior to leaving for Paris in 1887 was his collaboration on the album Het Rijks-Museum te Amsterdam (with text by Victor de Stuers), which, after years of preparation, appeared in volumes during the years 1891 to 1895. Mottu was one of the parties who had submitted an estimate in 1885 to P.J.H. Cuypers, the building’s architect and the person overseeing the publication, for the printing of the album. In the end, Amand received the commission. Notwithstanding, Mottu did in fact furnish forty-five negatives for the collotype images. With the exception of one, these shots were taken between May 1884 and February 1885, i.e. prior to the building’s completion. No more than ten of the negatives were ultimately used in the album.

Mottu left the Netherlands, but continued to be a partner in Wegner & Mottu. As far as can be determined, he returned to Amsterdam once a year to personally review the company’s activities. Without doubt, Mottu was no longer taking photos himself. In the years following his departure, no works of remarkable quality are known to have been produced. Pieter Jan Dekema took over the running of the company. After 1887, portraits appear to have comprised the biggest share of the firm’s production. They are hardly to be distinguished from those produced by the other major portrait studios. The firm continued to produce printed matter, with most evidently done with photolithography. The company ceased to exist during the years of World War I.

From circa 1850 to circa 1917—almost seventy years—the firm that bore the names of Wegner and Mottu held an established place in Dutch photography. The two original partners each had their part in the outstanding achievements of the company’s early days. Mottu likewise contributed to the development and distribution of printed photography. Following Mottu’s departure in 1887—Wegner died in 1864—the business was affected by the general malaise in Dutch photography. The portraits produced by the studio, albeit in large quantities, rarely surpassed above-average quality. After 1887, Wegner & Mottu survived for an additional thirty years without any noticeable achievements. This would indeed have negative repercussions for the two photographers’ reputations, whose names would long be associated with mediocre work.

Documentation