Essay

In the years 1855, 1858, and 1860, three large international photography exhibitions were organised in the Netherlands. A closer investigation of the organisation, composition, and effect of these exhibitions is worthwhile for a variety of reasons. The Dutch public had its first contact with images produced by the new medium of photography on such a wide scale nearly fifteen years following its invention. It is interesting to examine the entries with the knowledge and insights of today, not least because there were also many important photographers from abroad who also took part in the Amsterdam exhibitions. Gustave Le Gray, Edouard Baldus, and Charles Nègre submitted their prints to be shown at the exhibition locales of Arti et Amicitiae (‘Arts and Friendship’) and the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt (‘Association of Industry’), presumably because they hoped it would boost the reputation of the ‘photographer’, at this time a still somewhat obscure profession.

Another reason why these photography exhibitions are interesting for the photo historian are the catalogues. Such publications serve as important sources that enable us to observe just how photography carved out a path of its own alongside and in competition with the other arts. Its position was that of a newcomer, initially practiced by resolute amateurs whose ambition was to show to the world what they had managed to achieve with their cameras and light-sensitive paper. How did the phenomenon of the photography exhibition evolve? Where, and in what capacity, did photographers show their work during this earliest of stages? The ambition of ‘exhibiting’ photography in a literal sense is even more strange, when one considers that photography was not yet the picture industry it was about to become. It was a new medium, chosen by assertive pioneers who had artistic aspirations during a period of transition to a new situation. After this time, the profession of the photographer was much more a given. It has now been eighty years since research into Dutch photography exhibitions was last conducted. As one of the very first Dutch photo historians, G.A. Evers devoted attention to this topic in his seminal series of articles concerning the history of photography in the Netherlands. [^[1]] While this series has proved its worth for many years, Evers’ findings can be supplemented with the help of the 1858 and 1860 exhibition catalogues. It is also important to investigate the status and significance of these trade exhibitions, but also to compare them with the Tentoonstellingen van Kunstwerken van Levende meesters (‘Exhibitions of Artworks of Living Masters’), as well as with the industrial art exhibitions held at the national and provincial level in the Netherlands, which were growing in significance. [^[2]] To a degree, the latter exhibitions organised at this time provided photography with a ‘stage’. Finally, all of these photography exhibitions should be examined within their international context and compared to photo exhibitions organised abroad during this same decade.

With the introduction of photography in the Netherlands, those who wrote about the new discovery described it in terms of ‘art’ as well as a ‘phenomenon of physics and chemistry’. Photography was batted back and forth from the one field to the other. During the 1840s, Dutch magazines such as De Algemeene Konst- en Letterbode (‘The General Art and Literary Newspaper’), the Tijdschrift ter bevordering van nijverheid (‘Magazine for the Promotion of Industry’), the Nederlandsch Magazijn (‘Netherlands Magazine’), and the Leeskabinet (‘Reading Cabinet’) regularly devoted attention to photography, which one moment was hailed as the competitor of the existing visual arts and the next described as an emerging branch of technology and industry. It appears that journals and newspapers were as yet the only place where the new medium was being discussed, as well as ‘publicised’ via advertisements. It is difficult to ascertain the frequency and the means by which those experimenting with photography were able to share their results with a larger audience in the 1840s. The best-known example is a work submitted to the Tentoonstelling van Kunstwerken van Levende Meesters, held in The Hague in 1839, by the painter Christiaan Portman. [^[3]] Portman had already been experimenting with daguerreotype, taking views—in all likelihood the very first—of Amsterdam and the Binnenhof (‘Inner Court’) in The Hague. Portman also submitted two photographs of Paris, though in this case, it is uncertain whether he had taken these himself.

After this, it is quite some time before one comes across any mention of photographs or exhibitions. The next listing of a photographic entry to an exhibition is encountered in the catalogue of the Tentoonstelling van Inlandsche Nijverheid en Kunst (‘Exhibition of Indigenous Industry and Art’), held in Utrecht in 1847, which cites the submission of daguerreotypes by Friedrich Wilhelm Deutmann, a photographer from Haarlem. [^[4]] Unfortunately, Deutmann’s five photographs—including a view of the city hall of Haarlem and a view of the Spaarne River—are found under the heading of late entries. As a result, it is impossible to determine from the catalogue in what area the exhibition committee had determined his photographs were to be classified: either as ‘Typographie, Steendrukwerk, Boekbinderswerk, Papeterie’ (‘Typography, Lithographic Works, Bookbinding Works, Works on Paper’), or as ‘Schilderijen en andere voorwerpen van Beeldende Kunst’ (‘Paintings and other objects of Visual Art’). What one also notices is that there are still no photographic instruments included among the submissions in the category ‘Natuurkundige Werktuigen’ (‘Physics Instruments’). In the catalogue accompanying the July 1849 exhibition of ‘indigenous’ industry of South and North Holland, held at Delft, not a single reference is made to photography, neither in the category of printed matter and paper nor in that of physics instruments. No photographers’ instruments were to be found displayed alongside the prisms, magnifying glasses, cylindrically cut glass, artificial eye model, and a camera obscura for drawing purposes. [^[5]]

In the same year, Deutmann submitted daguerreotypes—this time, however, without success—to the 1849 Tentoonstelling van Kunstwerken van Levende Meesters (‘Exhibition of Artworks of Living Masters’) held in Amsterdam. The committee rejected Deutmann’s entry, with the six photographs retrieved a week later. [^[6]] Not until 1852 did a photographer again participate in the annual Tentoonstelling van Kunstwerken van Levende Meesters in Amsterdam. This time, the dubious honour was bestowed upon Louis Wegner. His photographs were taken down from the walls during the exhibition itself, following protests from other artists. [^[7]] Ironically, two photographs from Egypt submitted by the French photographer Maxime Du Camp apparently raised no objections and were allowed to remain on the wall. [^[8]] It remains a valid question, however, as to whether such exhibitions are in fact an accurate gauge for evaluating the acceptability of photographs as objects worthy of display. After all, most of the works exhibited were paintings, with artworks on paper—e.g. drawings and engravings—shown only on occasion. [^[9]]

At the onset of the 1850s, the photo as an exhibition object was decidedly out of the question, regardless of the category. It was still too early for this. A substantial growth in the number of professional photo studios, where chiefly daguerreotype was applied, had taken place only a short time before, at the end of the 1840s. Mainly amateurs used photography on paper. Photography could not yet be seen as a form of large-scale industry, or as an art form suitable for exhibitions. [^[10]]

The Great Exhibition of 1851 held in London acted as a catalyst for the appreciation of the new invention. At the Crystal Palace, dozens of countries displayed the products they had to offer. Photography as well made an appearance—albeit on a small scale—at this international market of novelties. On exhibition were almost fifty daguerreotype portraits of well-known Americans produced by Mathew Brady. Gustave Le Gray submitted thirty-eight paper negatives. On display were also prints on salt paper by Henri Le Secq, Nicolaas Henneman, Hugh Owen, and Hill & Adamson. [^[11]] The literature of the day consistently makes mention of the unique charm of stereophotography, presented for the first time at the 1851 exhibition. Queen Victoria was said to have marvelled at the stereoscope and the three-dimensional effect of stereo photographs. [^[12]] It is interesting to examine in which category the visitor to the exhibition was able to find products of photography, as this provides a degree of insight into the standing and appreciation of these images. The extensive exhibition catalogue was illustrated with 150 beautiful salt prints depicting all kinds of products—in itself one of the largest enterprises ever undertaken in photographic book illustration of the nineteenth century. Here photographs are listed under the category of ‘Philosophical, Musical, Horological, and Surgical instruments’. Prints on silver (daguerreotypes), as well as on paper and glass, were accepted to the exhibition. [^[13]] Stipulated in the exhibition’s regulations was the express clause that all forms of industry and no expressions of art were eligible for showing. Samuel Bleekrode, a professor of chemistry from Delft, wrote an extensive account of his findings at the ‘kristal-paleis’, in which he informed his fellow Dutchmen of what was to be seen at the exhibition. Bleekrode also wrote about the experiments in photography he had encountered, mentioning ‘(…) a beautiful chemical image (…), and ‘(…) what the sun of the United States, the sun of Great Britain, etc., had drawn from east to west (…)’. He described photography as an invention of great importance, which gave France so much honour, and as an ‘oeuvre de génie’, comparable to the art of printing. [^[14]]

Whether people in the Netherlands—two years later—were also able to read about the first real photography exhibition, held in London in 1853/54, remains uncertain. At this time, no mention of the London exhibition has ever been ascertained in the Dutch press of the day. It was in the exhibition halls of the Society of Watercolour Painters that members of the newly founded ‘Photographic Society’ in London exhibited almost 900 photographs, covering a wide variety of themes: landscapes, still lifes, architectural photographs, portraits, sculpture photographs, as well as countless art reproductions, all on paper. Travel photographs shot that same year in Russia by Roger Fenton were shown at the exhibition, along with Hugh Diamond’s portraits of the mentally disabled. Most of the participants were British, with a few originating from France. A small catalogue accompanied the exhibition in which 839 titles were listed, organised by photographer. The sequential number and title was cited for each work, followed by the applied technique: wet collodion glass plate, ‘waxed’ paper negative, calotype, talbotype, daguerreotype, or albumen glass negative. Next, the name of the photographer was stated, and in the following column, the ‘exhibitor’. This last category listed the names of those representing the photographers, as was also customary with the sale of prints. The Photographic Society of London was responsible for the organisation. Starting in this year, the association hosted an exhibition on an annual basis. [^[15]]

After London, Amsterdam was the first to have its turn. In May and June of 1855, a large international photography exhibition was organised at Arti et Amicitiae. A catalogue likewise appeared for this exhibition, which provides ample insight into the medium’s reach and the dissemination of foreign photography in the Netherlands at this point in time. [^[16]] This booklet guides us through an exhibition in the early days of photography, which any lover of nineteenth-century photographs might dream of attending. During this first encounter with these new images, the Dutch were able to view some of the most beautiful photo series created in the history of photography. Arti’s walls are certain to have been covered from floor to ceiling with photographs. The organising committee received more than 710 photographs from approximately 65 different exhibitors: from individual photographers and photography firms, as well as their representatives, i.e. book and print dealers. [^[17]] Most of the participants originated from France, with 28 in total. Charles Nègre submitted fifteen paper photographs of collodion negatives, which included numerous architectural shots of French monuments and genre photographs of various street types. Nègre’s colleagues in the field, e.g. Edouard Baldus, Henri Le Secq, and the Bisson brothers, as well submitted architectural shots. Baldus worked with paper negatives, Bisson with wet collodion negatives, and Le Secq with both.

Olympe Aguado showed six landscapes, while Charles Marville showed the same number of photographs ‘after nature’, all from paper negatives. After France, the Netherlands was the country best represented, with approximately twenty participants. One of the Dutch exhibitors was the amateur photographer Jan Adriaan van Eijk (1808-1887), the secretary of the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt. From Amsterdam, the photographers Louis Wegner and the duo Edouard Isaac Asser and Marie Eugène Bour also submitted photographs. From Rotterdam, there were the photographers C.F. Kellenbach Jr. and Peter Wotke, and from The Hague, the brothers Charles and H. Mouhot. Nicolas Henneman, a Dutchman trained in Great Britain by William Henry Fox Talbot, sent in a special series of photographs: his photographs of Zulus, which he had photographed in London. Dutch artists working with photography were likewise represented, including D.F. Jamin with eight daguerreotype portraits. [^[18]] In addition, photographers from Hamburg, Dresden, and Berlin submitted entries. Remarkably, only a few photographers from Great Britain—photography’s other source of origin—entered to the Amsterdam exhibition. One of them was the Comte de Montizon, whose entry comprised thirty of his famous animal photographs from the London Zoo. [^[19]]

Various works of an exceptional nature were shown at the first photography exhibition in the Netherlands. Claus Pruter of Hamburg—who would later settle in the Netherlands as a photographer—sent in two ‘photografiën’, produced in 1834 (sic!) by a certain ‘Halgraff’, long before the official invention and introduction of photography. [^[20]] Significant attention was also given to photomechanical applications: photolithography and photogravure. The Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt displayed works such as a photogravure of an etching by Rembrandt, which the association had acquired from the French photographer Nègre. [^[21]] Other applications included books illustrated with photographs that were still pasted in: a book produced by the photobook publisher Louis-Désiré Blanquart-Evrard with twenty-two photographs. [^[22]] The Amsterdam publisher J.H. Laarman submitted photographs by Louis Wegner, which he had used to illustrate a book. Baron Alexander von Minutoli, originating from Germany, sent in various sample books with approximately 175 photographs of glass models for artists and manufacturers. [^[23]]

Likewise on display were the photographer’s instruments: cameras, objectives, thermometers, paper, chemicals, bottles, negative holders, storage cabinets, and photo papers. In this respect, the Amsterdam exhibition distinguished itself from the British and French exhibitions, where prints were shown to the exclusion of all else. It would appear that Frederik Martin Billroth—an Amsterdam mirror manufacturer, goldsmith, art dealer, and supplier of painting frames—was likewise an important distributor of cameras, lenses, as well as all kinds of other photographic supplies. [^[24]] His firm was also the Dutch sales base for La Lumière.

A quick count reveals that approximately 500 framed photographs on paper made up by far the largest share of the exhibition. These images included architectural photographs, cityscapes and landscapes of France, Great Britain, the German states, Spain, Greece, and elsewhere. Images of the Netherlands included cityscapes of The Hague, Amsterdam, and Rotterdam. Furthermore, the visitor was able to view numerous portraits and art reproductions: from the etchings of Raimondi and Rembrandt to the paintings of Rosa Bonheur and Cornelis Kruseman. The number of daguerreotypes was limited. Seventeen photographers, including ten Dutchmen, exhibited approximately seventy daguerreotypes in total. Half of these were portraits, the other half art reproductions and cityscapes. One exceptional daguerreotype was a shot of Niagara Falls, submitted by Deutmann and likely to have been imported from the United States. Stereo photography—in daguerreotype, and on paper and glass—was also well represented. [^[25]] Various stereoscopes and several dozen examples of stereo photography were on hand to admire. Little is known of the exhibition’s installation, except that all of the works were framed and that a number of the frames held multiple photographs. The daguerreotypes were mounted on two partitions, while the stereoscopic photographs and viewers were standing on a table. [^[26]] One can only assume that the Amsterdam exhibition was no different than the installations of other exhibitions during this period: the frames with photographs were hung very close together, covering the walls from top to bottom.

Because the archive of the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt was lost during the 1929 fire at the Paleis voor Volksvlijt (‘Palace of Industry’) in Amsterdam, it will probably never be entirely clear how the Amsterdam photography exhibition came into being and how it took form. In any event, the minutes of Arti et Amicitiae, the exhibition’s host, relate the initiating role played by the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt. The photography exhibition was to be the second such event organised by this association—the first, which had previously taken place in 1853, concerned the topic of building materials. Volksvlijt’s request for exhibition space to be made available at Arti et Amicitiae was discussed on 20 March 1855, as recorded in the minutes of the board meeting on this date. After consultation with the ‘committee of the art hall’, Arti’s general board decided to make its exhibition spaces available to the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt for a period of six weeks ‘(…) and then on the condition of half of the net profit and 5 per cent of the objects sold for the Widows and Orphan fund (…)’. [^[27]] Another condition was free entry for the members of the artist’s association. Arti’s minutes provide no indication of any further involvement, i.e. no Arti member is cited as an organiser in the records of the meetings. [^[28]] Three of its board members, however, did sit on the exhibition jury. The assumption exists that the amateur photographer Van Eijk—then secretary of the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt—played the most crucial role in the exhibition’s organisation. [^[29]] As well with later photography exhibitions, he consistently acts as the spokesperson. The Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt’s active involvement is likewise confirmed by the significant attention bestowed on photography as a new branch of industry in the association’s magazine De Volksvlijt, which was under the impassioned editorial direction of the very same Van Eijk. [^[30]]

The first announcements appeared in the French photography magazines Bulletin de la Société Francaise and La Lumière, on 16 and 17 March 1855 respectively. The Bulletin cites a written statement released by the Dutch consul in Paris. [^[31]] On behalf of the association, he addressed ‘(…) all the French artists, amateurs and manufacturers (…)’, inviting them to participate. Entries could be submitted in the categories ‘(…) plates, paper, glass, etc., [photo-] gravures, heliographics, equipment, chemical products, etc.’ The regulations were submitted too late to be printed in the bulletin, but information was available at the association’s secretariat. French artists, amateurs and manufacturers were encouraged to participate, and to contribute to the advancement and popularisation of the new medium. Expenses and transport costs were to be paid for by the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt.

It was not until several weeks later that an announcement appeared in a Dutch magazine. Under the heading ‘Kunstberigten’ (‘Art Notices’), the 7 April 1855 issue of the Algemeene Konst- en Letterbode stated that the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt had released a list of regulations written in French, in which the objects to be exhibited were described in highly precise detail. [^[32]] It concerned four categories:

a. épreuves photographiques sur plaque, papier, toile, verre et toute autre matière (‘photographic prints on plate, paper, canvas, glass and any other material’),

b. gravures obtenues sur plaques, acier, pierre etc, par Ie procédé héliographique, (‘[photo-] gravures obtained on plates, steel, stone, etc., according to the 1st heliographic process’),

c. appareils et produits chimiques servant à obtenir les épreuves et gravures susdites et autres accessoires, tels que stéréoscopes etc. (‘equipment and chemical products applied to obtain the aforementioned prints and [photo-] gravures, as well as other accessories, such as stereoscopes’), et (and)

d. tout ce qui peut servir à éclaircir 1’histoire de la découverte, les progrès et 1’état actuel de 1’application des propriétés chimiques de la lumière dans un but artistique et industriel (‘anything that can be used to clarify the history of the discovery, progress and current state concerning the application of the chemical properties of light for artistic and industrial purposes’).

The fine print in the exhibition catalogue as well provides additional information of interest with respect to the form of the organisation. [^[33]] The works were to be sent in already in their frames. The exhibitor was required to state his technique and method. Equipment was to be accompanied by an instruction manual. With retouched or coloured photographs, ‘an undrawn’ print was also to be submitted. No mention is made with respect to the actual sending. The works from France may possibly have arrived in the Netherlands via Alexis Gaudin, a Parisian photographer and photo publisher, as this was the case at a later point, for the exhibition of 1858. The Amsterdam dealer and distributor Billroth—as well an exhibitor—may have been of some assistance in this regard. Both photographers and dealers submitted works. The photographs were available for sale at a price determined by the exhibitor himself. Ten per cent of the sales price went to the organisation, with half of this amount going to Arti. Foreign photographers were exempted from import duties, which apparently in most cases still had to be paid if their photographs were actually sold in the Netherlands. The unsold photographs were returned.

Visitors paid ’25 cents’, with no entry for children under the age of six. The exhibition was opened on 30 April and lasted through 25 June. [^[34]] Revenue in the week of 8 May amounted to Dfl. 105.50. [^[35]] Arti et Amicitiae’s earnings would have been approximately six times this amount. Regarding the exhibition, the society’s 1855 annual report stated the following: ‘This exhibition, as important as it was new, managed to draw the attention of the cultured public to a high degree, because, in addition to the large number of members from the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt and the Society, who naturally received free entry, it was attended by 4128 persons. The goal of this exhibition was the promotion of a branch of industry, that can be incalculably consequential for the visual arts.’ [^[36]] After appearing at Arti et Amicitiae, the exhibition was presented with the same setup at the Haagse Teekenakademie (‘Hague Drawing Academy’). [^[37]] The entries were judged by a jury, as was also customary with exhibitions of industrial art. The jury consisted of several members from the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt: Van Eijk, the chemist Samuel Sarphati—who was also a collector of Amsterdam cityscapes—and the previously cited professor of chemistry from Delft, Samuel Bleekrode. They in turn were assisted by the artists Pierre Louis Dubourcq, Charles Rochussen, and Johan Willem Kaiser: all board members of Arti et Amicitiae. The members of the jury were assigned the task of assessing which of the submitted works excelled in its ‘(…) deugdelijkheid, sierlijkheid en vinding (…)’ (virtue, elegance and ingenuity’). [^[38]] Unfortunately, the jury’s argumentation is no longer extant. Consequently, we shall never learn why Wegner was the only photographer active in the Netherlands deemed worthy of receiving a silver medal, alongside the French photographers Baldus, Disdéri, Le Secq, Aguado, Bisson, and Nègre. [^[39]] The remaining Dutch medals went to Kellenbach, Wotke, and Rensing, who were each awarded a bronze medal. Asser & Bour, Billroth, Jamin, and Deeleman [^[40]] each received an honourable mention. La Lumière proudly announced the twenty-one medals awarded to the French photographers. The same magazine greatly commended both the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt and Arti. Thanks to the protection of the king and his brother, Prince Frederick, these expressions of photography received the recognition they deserved, ‘(…) dans la patrie des Ruysdaël, des Rembrandt, des Gerard Dow, des Paulus Potter et de tants des peintres illustres.’ (‘in the homeland of Ruysdael, Rembrandt, Gerard Dow, Paulus Potter, and so many illustrious painters.’) [^[41]]

The catalogue, together with the programme and the exhibition regulations, provides insight into the organisers’ motivation. It is there that Van Eijk and Kaiser professed their belief that the Dutch were obliged to be aware of the progress occurring in this field: ‘The important advances in photography and heliography that have been made abroad since a couple of years, where these arts have become an important part of nationality, and the grand results that, with increasing perfection and expansion, they will provide for art and industry (…)’. They expressed the hope ‘(…) that their attempts to bring together the most beautiful products of skilled practitioners from various places in Europe for viewing here, and to benefit the industry and artistic sense of the fatherland, will be received and acknowledged with interest by their fellow countrymen.’ [^[42]]

The goal of providing insight into the history of the invention and the advancement of the new medium confirms that the organisers were well aware of photography’s historical significance. The situation in the Netherlands was quite different from that of France and Great Britain. In the Netherlands, there were no photographers’ trade associations. For this reason, the task of overseeing the interests of those practicing the new profession was still in its early stages. Similarly, the thoughts and written words expressed regarding the topic of photography were not nearly as specialised as in the other two countries. Some of the Dutch magazines, such as the Kunstkronijk (‘Art Chronicle’), reported virtually nothing about the new art. Yet other magazines and newspapers—such as the Amsterdamsche Courant, het Algemeen Handelsblad and the Algemene Konst- en Letterbode—published both short and extended pieces on the topic of photography with some regularity, including exhibitions and publications concerning the medium. Notably, the 1855 exhibition held at Arti et Amicitiae was discussed in two articles in the Amsterdamsche Courant, expressed in highly specialised terms that were as well decidedly aesthetic/technical in nature. [^[43]] The anonymous critic devoted significant attention to the quality and diversity of the photographic prints: ‘The tone of the pieces by Lesecq, according to the catalogue produced on so-called negatives of papier ciré [‘waxed paper’], is very lovely and have an exquisite effect. And who has not admired with us the beautiful scenes of Bilordeaux. What a delightful effect of light and brown, what depths are perceived in these photographs. One cannot pretend to be seeing flat drawings, but believes to be observing unintentionally exalted work (…) the photographic prints sent in by [LL.M.] Asser and Bour were very much to our liking due to their pleasing tone (…)’, wrote the critic, with a substantial eye for the photographs’ finishing. Tone, tint, and effect were notions of which he was apparently well aware. It was as if the photographs’ content was less important than the mastery of the negative and printing method. The print quality of the representation was given chief merit. Changes in technique were also addressed in the Amsterdamsche Courant: the article’s author observes that the daguerreotype had been pushed to the wayside by photography on paper. The photographs on silver were as alluring as ever, because of their ‘(…) particular delicacy and softness, somewhat silvery in tone (…) recommendable for portraits (…)’. But the properties of the wet collodion process as well received ample praise. The essence of photographic quality—i.e. the depiction of numerous details and the conveying of surface texture—was pointed out: ‘But what is certain to captivate to a high degree are the images of buildings, bas-reliefs, and objects of this nature. What photography in talented hands offers in this area cannot be improved by any painter’s paintbrush. Light paints the finest singularities so faithfully and accurately, reflects the nature of materials so perfectly, that one, when standing before these photographs, acquires a complete overview of the whole; yes, we would almost dare say, better than when observing the original itself, which, with any protraction, can only be viewed at a distance that does not allow details to be observed.’ According to the Courant, Baldus was the ideal exponent in this respect. Unfortunately, the identity of the author making these astute observations can no longer be ascertained.

At this time, photography criticism in France and Great Britain was further developed than in the Netherlands. In the summer months of 1855, the Exposition Universelle was held in Paris, with photography amply represented. For Ernest Lacan, chief editor of La Lumière, the exhibition would serve as an inspiration to write an extended series of articles covering all of the photographic genres and methods of the day. While the Exposition Universelle did not feature a separate section for photography, photographs were found dispersed among the participating countries’ respective entries. [^[44]] As such, photography was a component of a much wider range of images, which also included industrial design drawings, engravings, books, geographical maps, and lithographs. [^[45]] Nonetheless, it was Lacan’s desire to describe and evaluate the photographs in ‘art historical’ terms. His reflections resulted in the book Esquisses Photographiques (‘Photographic Sketches’), published in 1856—one of the most important photography critiques dating from this period. [^[46]]

Lacan discussed the results that photographers had achieved with the various negative methods: talbotype, ‘papier ciré’ (‘waxed paper’), albumen glass negative, and wet collodion glass negative. He also described the various photographic genres in detail, as well as the specific character of each: scientific photography, monuments and landscapes, art reproductions, portraits, genre photography, and the photography of events. In addition, he examined the talents of various photographers, including their mastery of negative methods and execution of prints. ‘Gravure heliographique’ (‘heliographic engraving’) and photolithography were discussed separately, along with their applications.

The Dutch art magazine the Algemeene Konst- en Letterbode had no desire to risk losing its identity by adopting such an approach. Photographic realism was a major obstacle for the magazine. In response to Antoine Claudet’s stereo daguerreotypes exhibited in Amsterdam in 1855, the magazine praised photography only in one respect: it was a rich and exemplary branch of industry. In the author’s view, it had nothing to do with artistic expression. Art also had something to learn from photography, namely ‘(…) that one should learn to understand and appreciate more generally what it, and only it, has to offer.’ [^[47]] These thoughts are in line with the on-going debate occurring in the second half of the nineteenth century, which concerned the level (or absence) of realism in art. [^[48]]

Less than one year later, in response to the photography exhibition hosted by the Photographic Society in London in 1856, the Algemeene Konst- en Letterbode addressed the topic of a distinction between painting and imitation. The exhibition had apparently led to a more positive assessment on the magazine’s part: ‘Since a while back, an exhibition of photographs has opened in London, which will last two months, and which attests to the large bounds with which this young art has again progressed in the last year. Such as it is now practiced and viewed, it is rich in lessons for the artists, to whom it communicates the secrets of light and brown in a surprising manner. Truly, it requires time and courage to follow the rapid development and the hundred-fold applications of this joining of art, science, and industry in detail. A manual that today might be considered complete risks being out-dated already by tomorrow.’ [^[49]] The few reviews presented here provide remarkable insight into the reception of international photography in the Netherlands: there is no question that it was examined and evaluated in its various nuances.

The exhibition of 1858 ran from 19 May to 31 July and was ultimately much smaller than that of 1855. [^[50]] More than 230 photographs were shown in an upstairs exhibition space at the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt on the Bloemmarkt in Amsterdam. Van Eijk, Peter Wotke, and Pieter Oosterhuis exhibited a number of daguerreotypes and portraits ‘on glass’, in all likelihood ambrotypes. Stereoscopic photography was also well represented. [^[51]] Pieter Oosterhuis submitted various stereoscopic photographs on silver, glass, and paper. The publisher Andries Jager did the same, as did A. Jacobs, an important dealer in Amsterdam selling a wide variety of photographic supplies. Jacobs’ name also appears in the 1860 catalogue. The bookseller W.H. Kirberger submitted photographs of Amsterdam taken by an ‘English’ photographer. This is certain to have been Benjamin Brecknell Turner, who produced a series of cityscapes of Amsterdam during his trip to the Netherlands in 1857. [^[52]] In its publication Volksvlijt, the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt stated why it wished to exhibit photographs once again after three years: ‘(…) primarily in the interest of the nation’s photography (…) so that everyone would be given the opportunity to observe the ladder of development achieved over a period of three years and to become familiar with the fruits of so many diligent studies (…)’. [^[53]]

The same article named the medal winners: Louis Wegner, Henri Lowenstam, Carl Rensing, and J. Schaarwächter all received silver medals. The foreign photographers who managed to win a silver medal were: Delehaye & Sluyts of Antwerp, Belgium, ‘(…) for copies of paintings and photography on wood’; De Béranger from Paris, ‘(…) for photography on waxed paper’; and Niépce de St. Victor ‘(…) for scientific investigations into the chemical properties of light’, as well from Paris. Bronze medals were awarded to C.F. Kellenbach, F.W. Deutmann, J. Vrolijk, Victor Plumier, Dr. Wotke, and Caro & Van Loo. Honourable mentions were bestowed upon Mastenbroek & Deeleman and Groote & Romeny. The jury was comprised virtually of the same people as in 1855: Van Eijk, Sarphati, Dubourcq, and Kaiser returned. Only Rochussen was replaced by P.F. Greive.

Photographers from France—in 1855 still present in large numbers—now responded with indifference. After the exhibition closed, La Lumière published a letter written by Van Eijk, voicing his regret that there had not been more French submissions: ‘Though very much regretting that your customary kindness, for us very pleasant, has not been crowned with greater success, in terms of the number of prints sent through your intermediary and through the good care of Mr. Gaudin.’ Lacan wrote a response that was published alongside Van Eijk’s letter, in which he offered his apologies. The French photographers had unjustly disregarded the Dutch exhibition, just as they had done with the provincial exhibitions in their own country. [^[54]]

It remains unclear why the exhibition of 1858 was so much smaller and less successful when compared to that of 1855. One explanation might be that the organisation was poor, or that French and British photographers were able to exhibit their works in the context of their own associations every two years. Moreover, associations such as the Architectural Photography Association in Great Britain were organising photography exhibitions focusing on one specific genre. The second half of the 1850s was marked by a profusion of photography exhibitions, with the market perhaps becoming saturated. In any event, there was no more talk of the land of Rembrandt and Ruisdael being a place worthy of photography. [^[55]]

By contrast, the Amsterdam exhibition of 1860—this time held in the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt’s exhibition hall on the Hoogesluis in Amsterdam—was much larger. [^[56]] From early January until 18 March, the visitor was able to admire more than 1,500 photographs on paper. [^[57]] There were forty-eight exhibitors in total, with sixteen from France and seventeen from the Netherlands. The French photographer Gustave Le Gray exhibited four photographs—a reproduction of the Mona Lisa and three of his renowned seascapes—with Henri Le Secq submitting ‘six photographs of dead wild game’ among others. The Bisson brothers of Paris displayed their views of the Alps and other works. Charles Nègre’s large-format heliogravures, which included shots of the portal of Chartres, were also on view at the Amsterdam exhibition. Following his absence at the exhibition of 1858, Eduard Isaac Asser exhibited several prints made with his own personally developed photolithographic method. The British photographer Charles Cifford submitted views of Spain, as did E.K. Tenison. The Alinari brothers, C. Cuccioni, Pietro Dovizielli, and Frédéric Flacheron all exhibited Italian cityscapes. Thirty-three prints by Gabriel de Rumine were on display, perhaps the photographs he shot in Jerusalem in 1859. As an added bonus, the visitor was able to briefly linger in the middle of the exhibition hall around a wooden scale model of the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt’s planned new exhibition space: the Paleis voor Volksvlijt (‘Palace of Industry’).

It was at this exhibition that photographs on cartes-de-visite were shown to the Dutch public for the first time, albeit by only one exhibitor, the photographer Louis Ghémar from Brussels, Belgium. Dr. Johannes Theodorus Munnich exhibited thirteen cityscapes, with no distinction made regarding whether this concerned his Haarlem or Amsterdam series, which are today both well known. [^[58]] The Amsterdam publisher Andries Jager was specialised in reproductions of art prints, showing twenty-seven pieces. Among these were various images taken by Pieter Oosterhuis produced for the publication Photographisch Kunst-Album (‘Photographic Art Album’, 1860), such as a reproduction of the Dutch painter Ary Scheffer’s Christus Consolator. Jager’s assortment, however, also included photographs of popular art prints such as Did you ring Sir? and Oh!!. Of the forty-eight exhibitors, twenty-two submitted one or more reproductions, chiefly of engravings. Besides Jager, the other Dutch exhibitors furnishing work in this category were the publishers G.Th. Bom and J.J. Weeveringh, and the photographer Van Eijk. After the exhibition closed, Van Eijk once again addressed a letter to La Lumière. The tone of this letter was much more pleasant that that of 1858. [^[59]] The director of the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt was able to inform the magazine that almost all of the 500 photographs submitted had been sold. The association had also played its part in this success: through the sale of lottery tickets, it had created a fund to facilitate the purchase of exhibited works. This intriguing collection also presumably went up in flames during the fire at the Paleis voor Volksvlijt in 1929.

The first photography exhibitions in the Netherlands were tests of craftsmanship, artisticity, technique, and trade all in one. To reconstruct the spread of photography and photographs in the Netherlands, a knowledge of these early exhibitions is of great importance. The exhibition catalogue serves as an interesting source that provides insight into photographers’ oeuvres, publishers’ funds, as well as the dissemination and technical development of photography. In the three exhibitions discussed, we see the emergence of the wet collodion negative process at the expense of the paper negative method. We can also observe the decline of the daguerreotype: diminishing from seventy exhibited in 1855 down to just one in 1860. [^[60]] The photographic medium was continually renewing and improving itself. It was likewise during these five years that the wide-scale application of photography began to emerge in the Netherlands: initially with stereoscopic photography, followed by the carte-de-visite photo, which made its debut at the exhibition of 1860. The catalogues also convey the phenomenon of booksellers and print dealers acting as representatives on photographers’ behalf. At the exhibition of 1858, the Amsterdam bookseller W.H. Kirberger submitted photographs by Benjamin Brecknell Turner, with the firm Buffa & Zonen showing prints by Alinari from Florence. In 1860, Andries Jager represented the photographer Pieter Oosterhuis, while J.J. Weeveringh submitted works by Robert Bingham of Paris. Lastly, the catalogues are intriguing because they expose numerous lacunae in what we know: besides those familiar to us, there are many photographers’ names and photo series that are today unknown. [^[61]]

The initiatives undertaken by the Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt proved to be exceedingly important for the acceptance and development of photography in the Netherlands. Its overseers successfully elevated the level of this new branch of industry in the Netherlands and raised its professionalism. During the second half of the 1850s, photography was seen more frequently at industrial art exhibitions, such as the Tentoonstelling van Provinciale Nijverheid en Kunst (‘Exhibition of Provincial Industry and Art’), held in Amsterdam in 1859. [^[62]] At the Algemeene Nationale tentoonstelling van Nijverheid (‘General National Exhibition of Industry’), held in Haarlem in 1861, various photographers and photography firms again submitted their wares. [^[63]] The Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt organised not only the first photography exhibition that followed—held in Amsterdam in 1862 [^[64]]—but also the next exhibition where photography figured prominently. This Internationale Tentoonstelling van Schoone Kunsten toegepast op Industrie (‘International Exhibition of Fine Arts Applied to Industry’) was held in 1865 at the newly constructed ‘Paleis voor Volksvlijt’ in Amsterdam, i.e. the Dutch ‘Crystal Palace’. [^[65]] At the onset of the 1860s, the photographic trade in the Netherlands was becoming increasingly professional, with both the profession and sales experiencing a boom, in part resulting from this exhibition.

For photography, art exhibitions were just as inaccessible as ever. This was certainly the case with the miniature painter C. Hamburger, whose photographs were barred from Arti et Amicitiae’s exhibition hall in 1858. [^[66]] When it came to the artistic development of photography, the exhibitions initiated by the photographers’ associations in France and Great Britain were naturally far greater in importance than those held in Amsterdam. For photographers active in the Netherlands, however, these exhibitions are most certain to have been tremendously influential, as well contributing to the new medium’s overall acceptance.

Documentation

Bibliography

Catalogus der Tentoonstelling van Photographie en Heliographie, gehouden door de Vereeniging van Volksvlijt, exhibition catalogue, Amsterdam 1855.

[announcement exhibition 1855], in Bulletin de la Société Française 16 March 1855.

[announcement exhibition exhibition 1855], in La Lumière 5 (17 March 1855) 11, cover.

Author unknown, Kunstberigten, in Algemeene Konst- en Letterbode 67 (7 April 1855) 14, p. 110.

[announcement exhibition 1855], in Amsterdamsche Courant 10 April 1855.

Author unknown, Kunstberigten, in Algemeene Konst- en Letterbode 67 (12 May 1855) 19, p. 150.

Author unknown, Een blik op de Tentoonstelling van Photographie en Heliographie gegeven in de zalen der Maatschappij Arti et Amicitiae I, in Amsterdamsche Courant 31 May 1855.

Author unknown, Een blik op de Tentoonstelling van Photographie en Heliographie gegeven in de zalen der Maatschappij Arti et Amicitiae II, in Amsterdamsche Courant 5 June 1855.

Author unknown, Fine-art gossip, in The Athenaeum 7 July 1855, p. 794.

Author unknown, Exposition Photographique à Amsterdam, in La Lumière 5 (23 June 1855) 25, omslag.

Catalogus der Tentoonstelling van Photographie en Heliographie, gehouden door de Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt, exhibition catalogue, Amsterdam 1858.

C. Kramm, De levens en werken der Hollandsche en Vlaamsche kunstschilders enz. dl II, Amsterdam (Gebroeders Diederichs) 1858, p. 374.

Author unknown, Tentoonstellingen in Nederland. Tentoonstelling van Photographie en Heliographie, in De Volksvlijt 5 (1858), p. 402-403.

Author unknown, Tentoonstelling van Photographie in het lokaal der Vereeniging van Volksvlijt, in Amsterdamsche Courant 27 July 1858.

E.L. [= Ernest Lacan], Exposition de la Société Internationale d’Industrie d’Amsterdam, in La Lumière 8 (14 August 1858) 33, cover.

[announcement exhibition 1860], in Algemeen Handelsblad 7 October 1859.

[announcement exhibition 1860], in Algemeen Handelsblad 14 November 1859.

Catalogus der Tentoonstelling van Photographie, Heliographie, enz. gehouden door de Vereeniging voor Volksvlijt, in het Lokaal aan de Hooge Sluis, W.644, exhibition catalogue, Amsterdam 1860.

[announcement exhibition 1860], in Algemeen Handelsblad 18 January 1860.

J.A. van Eijk, Exposition Photographique d’Amsterdam, in La Lumière 10 (31 March 1860) 13, p. 49-50.

G.A. Evers, Hoe de fotografie in Nederland kwam. VI. De eerste tentoonstellingen (1855 en 1858), in “Lux”. Foto-tijdschrift 26 (1 September 1915) 17, p. 331-339.

Aug. Grégoire, Honderd jaar fotografie, Bloemendaal (Focus) 1948, p. 17-18.

Jan Coppens, Mr. Jan Adriaan van Eijk (1808-1887), Amateurfotograaf, in Jaarboek Amstelodamum 70 (1978), p. 344-359.

Ingeborg Th. Leijerzapf, Fotografie in Nederland 1839-1920, The Hague (Staatsuitgeverij) 1978, p. 35, 68.

Mattie Boom, “Een waarlijk volkomen begoocheling”. Stereofotografie in Nederland, in Jong Holland 2 (1986) 3, p. 2-13.

Mattie Boom, Een geschiedenis van het gebruik en verzamelen van foto’s in de negentiende eeuw, in Leids Kunsthistorisch Jaarboek 10 (1995), p. 273-294.