Biography

Discussion

Richard Tepe’s family ties are complex. Both of his parents died in the year he was born. The young Richard therefore grew up in the home of his grandfather, Fredericus Antonius Tepe, a textile merchant in Amsterdam who had married his first wife’s sister from the same family Sterneberg. Richard lived in their house on the Keizersgracht in Amsterdam, together with the children from this second marriage. The family was of German origin. The Sternebergs were bankers and owners of textile companies who maintained trade contacts with Amsterdam. Great-grandfather Franz Joseph Sterneberg was a hunter and an ornithologist.

The interests of Richard’s family members extended as well to other areas. Richard’s uncle, Alfred Tepe, was a renowned architect that had done work on Cologne Cathedral. He was also active in church construction in the Netherlands, designing buildings such as the Amsterdam church called the ‘Krijtberg’. While the family had lived in the Netherlands already for quite some time, they still maintained contact with family and friends in Germany. Richard was therefore raised bilingual. The family was Roman Catholic by origin. Richard studied at the Jesuit school ‘Katwijk de Breul’. The Ornithologisch biografisch woordenboek (‘Ornithological Biographical Dictionary’) by Karel H. Voous describes Richard Tepe as a ‘descendant of an old merchant family (the ‘store of Sinkel!)’, who was financially independent throughout his life resulting from the early death of his parents. Tepe is also thought to have been the owner of a large tenant farm in Maarssen.

In 1904, Tepe moved to Bloemendaal. How and when he developed an interest in photography is not entirely clear. But in the period around 1900, about which time he became active in this area, amateur photography became very popular. With hand-held cameras that were easy to operate, day-to-day life could be captured in snapshots, especially by the middle and upper classes. The camera was present at family events on a more frequent basis. This is certain to have also been the case with the Tepe family: combining the one hobby (photography) with the other (ornithology and poultry) is then simply a matter of time. Tepe was a farmer and a member of the poultry association. In 1892 and 1896, he was awarded prizes on various occasions for his roosters and chickens at the national poultry and so-called ‘small animal’ exhibitions that were held on an annual basis at the ‘Jaarbeurs’ (‘Annual Trade Fair’) in Utrecht. It is likely that a number of proud owners at this fair had already started taking photographs of their prize-winning animals. Without doubt, photography was likewise of service to ornithologists. True-to-life images of various bird sorts—with all of the ornate detail that they offered—are certain to have been a much sought-after object, as they helped to classify and determine the specimens that one observed. Shortly after 1900, Tepe and Paul Steenhuizen were the first to evolve themselves as specialists in the area of bird photography. Tepe went from being an amateur to a professional photographer, possessing all of the professional equipment and technical knowledge in this field. For Tepe, photography was perhaps the most important of his two passions, as suggested by the telling title of his first book De jacht met de camera (‘The Hunt with the Camera’). His primary goal in hunting birds was to acquire a good shot. The numerous articles that he wrote for both domestic and foreign magazines show precisely how he proceeded in his work.

It is strange that Tepe’s name is nowhere mentioned in the biography on Jac. P. Thijsse published several years ago: in fact, Tepe was Thijsse’s companion and counterpart. Just as Thijsse popularised and publicised people’s interest in nature in the Netherlands, Tepe did the same through photography. As early as 1898, Tepe started taking photos in the area of the Naardermeer Lake during his hikes with Thijsse. It was the goal of both men to raise the Dutch public’s awareness regarding the necessity of conserving such areas. Through their efforts, they were at the forefront of the Vereniging tot behoud van Natuurmonumenten (‘Association for the Conservation of Natural Monuments’) in the Netherlands and played an active role therein.

Tepe’s earliest surviving print, a photograph of a nest, dates from 1902. By this time, he is certain to have been active as a photographer for at least four years. For the period 1898 to 1902, however, no prints or negatives have been recovered. A review written by Thijsse in Lux (1902) informs us that Tepe submitted thirty-three photos of birds, eggs and a nest to a competition/exhibition hosted by the newspaper Algemeen Handelsblad: ‘Except for the enlargements, Mr. Tepe expanded his entry even more by presenting prints on various kinds of paper and then specifically on Celloidin Hallohmat and Van Bosch paper. It is extremely interesting, how different colours are best suited to different subjects.’ After Steenhuizen (fifty works), Tepe was the most important participant. The photographs he exhibited all date from about May 1902. They were made on the island of Texel, around the Naardermeer, and in Sint Maartensdijk. Between 1902 and 1910, Tepe therefore had a productive starting period. He worked from his home in Bloemendaal, named the ‘Villa Mayflower’, located directly behind the dunes in surroundings heavily populated with birds.

For Tepe, photography is certain to have served as a kind of classification: he collected his images of birds just as a traditional ornithologist records his observations. In the same discussion of 1902 in Lux, Thijsse worded this as follows: ‘(…) of how much use can photography be in this case (…) the creation of a collection of photographs of birds, their nests, eggs and young is much more practical and less costly than the gathering of nests, egg shells, and stuffed birds, some better than others, without having to sacrifice the life of a single bird in the process.’ It was in fact ‘birding’ with pictures. Tepe furnished each photo with precise annotations on the reverse side, both in German and in Dutch: the ‘Red-Backed Shrike D’, the ‘Robin D’, etc. As early as 1906, fifty photographs were published in Jac. P. Thijsse’s Het intieme leven der vogels (‘The Intimate Life of Birds’). This book was a popular-scientific work that included numerous anecdotes. It was reprinted into the 1960s. Just prior to this, in 1906, Thijsse had also turned in his text for the first ‘Verkade album’. Het Vogeljaar (‘The Year of the Bird’) of 1904 was another of his works that was reprinted for years, featuring coloured drawings. Tepe’s photographs made a difference, as Eli Heimans observed in De Amsterdammer, because they elicited interesting observations on Thijsse’s part, ‘especially when he himself has been out to look, he himself has pointed out the nest or the bird (…) without this bird photographer, the bird literator would not have written this book.’ In the book’s introduction, Thijsse emphasised the importance of bird conservation: it could be solved only by total insight into the lives of birds. Shortly hereafter, in 1909, Thijsse called on Tepe once again, this time for the book Omgang met planten (‘Tending to Plants’). The report of the AFV’s meeting on 6 April 1910—in the same space that Tepe was holding a one-man exhibition—provides an adequate description of how these photos were viewed at the time, specifically, as an ‘instructive collection’. During this meeting, Tepe provided explanatory information, ‘and taking us along dune and forest, field and lake (…) Numerous new shots have enriched the collection, affirming that Mr. Tepe never sits still (…) In a pleasant and engaging manner, the speaker tells about the lives of birds and how he photographs them. Following a short break, the speaker continues with stunning photographs of flowers and plants, whereby the way of life is conveyed again in a clear manner.’ For the first time, the artistic quality of Tepe’s work is also discussed explicitly, i.e. that ‘besides the nature shot, Mr. Tepe does not forget the good photo as well and is not just satisfied with the image of the bird itself, but at the same time, attempts to take a shot that meets the artistic requirements.’

Because of the large public he managed to reach, Tepe may perhaps be considered as a founding father of bird photography in the Netherlands. Abroad, however, he was best known for his plant photography and nature shots. In 1910, Lux affirmatively quoted a statement made in a German magazine: ‘Tepe may be called the best natural history photographer of the Continent.’ At the Internationale Tentoonstelling van Foto-Kunst (‘International Exhibition of Photographic Art’), held at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam in 1908, Tepe showed only plant studies and landscapes. In 1909, he exhibited fifty-eight plant studies in the form of lantern slide plates in Dresden. In 1910, photos of flowers and plants were exhibited at the Exposition universelle et internationale de Bruxelles (‘Universal and International Exhibition of Brussels’), in addition to other photos of birds. His entries to exhibitions therefore indicate that photography encompassed more than just ‘birding’ for him. In 1910, Tepe received his own exhibition at the AFV in Amsterdam. It was here that he showed his winterscapes for the first time. In these photos, however, there is hardly any of the pretention or affectation that one commonly encounters during this period in the work of the Pictorialists. Tepe’s photos—whether landscapes, plants or nests—had an almost objectivist leaning: the image was clear and precise, and nowhere calculating or suggestive.

Various conclusions can be drawn from Tepe’s articles and books with respect to his working procedure. As mentioned before, he occasionally worked from his own home and photographed birds, for instance, from the railing of his balcony. Beside this, most of his photos were taken at locations frequented by birders, ranging from the De Muy on Texel to the dune-rich surroundings of his home in Bloemendaal. Bird photography is certain to have been quite intensive and cumbersome. Patience and endurance were most important, as Tepe wrote in Focus in 1919. In addition, the bird photographer had to be prepared to withstand numerous inconveniences and disappointments. The costs involved were also high. Without a thorough (fore-) knowledge of nature, one might just as well forget even trying. In return, however, there was much to be gained. As Jac. P. Thijsse stated in the introduction of Het intieme leven, it was a ‘refined’ hunt: the binoculars and camera were the weapon, the photos and negatives the prey.

This was certain to have been a more static form of photography than a comparison with hunting suggests, as Tepe’s camera was not readily manoeuvred: it was always set up on a tripod, placed in the vicinity of the animal or nest, covered by a kind of tent or camouflaged. He left the camera standing for a night, so that the animals could get used to its presence. Sometimes he even planted a fake camera for a couple of days. He would then stand at a distance, using his binoculars to see what would happen. He then simply proceeded to wait. When taking a shot, he then used a remote control in the form of a cable or a rope. In order to approach birds in a tree, he made an extended tripod. Tepe also worked with assistants, leaving one man behind in the tent, while the other walked away: birds are unable to count and consequently assume there are no others around. When photographing, Tepe always used a fast, wide-aperture lens, and preferably, a camera with a silent shutter-release. Coincidence always played a role. It was photography based on feeling and experience, often with little opportunity to use the viewfinder. With this approach, Tepe took approximately three photos each day. Upon returning home, he could assess whether the photos had been successful.

In a recent article on bird and nest photographers of the past, the ornithologist Ruud Vlek examines the background factors of this hobby extensively, as well as the more controversial aspects of hunting with a camera. Also mentioned in the article is Richard Tepe, who, as it turns out, did not shy away from employing ‘hard-handed’ tactics—on occasion asking one of his assistants to remove a nest from a tree so it could be photographed. Photographic production was always linked to bird season, i.e. spring through fall. In other seasons, Tepe devoted his time to the aforementioned plant studies, landscapes and winterscapes.

Technically speaking, Tepe was well grounded as a photographer. He worked with plate cameras on a tripod, on glass negatives of 9×12, 13×8, and 18×24 cm. He worked without a telephoto lens until 1907, at which time one came into his possession. We do not know the brands of the cameras and lenses with which he worked. His prints are of a fine quality, with different versions of the same photo on matte, glossy, and semi-glossy paper. For any given series, we do not encounter different negative formats, which might have indicated that he worked with two cameras for just that one series, e.g. as was indeed the case with the photo of the bird on the balcony railing of the Villa Mayflower, which he photographed on 9×12, but also 13×18 cm. The dimensions of the prints are often irregular, indicating that Tepe trimmed and cropped his photos as he saw fit. His decision regarding what the print was supposed to look like was deliberate. Tepe is certain to have spent long periods of time in the darkroom. Various kinds of paper can be distinguished, such as the matte albumen paper advertised by the German company Trapp & Münchs in the 1910s and ’20s. All of Tepe’s photos are contact prints. Among the hundreds of prints found in his legacy, there remains only one enlargement.

At the onset of the twentieth century, there were also other nature photographers active in the Netherlands. Paul Louis Steenhuizen and Adolphe Burdet worked in this same period and were from the same generation as Tepe. They all possessed the same hobby and were members of the same associations. Tepe was also highly knowledgeable when it came to bird photography outside the Netherlands. He published in the Deutscher Camera Almanach (‘German Camera Almanac’). The introduction to his small book De jacht met de camera confirms that he was familiar with foreign books featuring bird photos taken by the brothers Cherry and Richard Kearton, and the photography of H. Meerwarth. Tepe’s own book was a take-off of Georg E.F. Schulz’s Natur-Urkunden (‘Nature Documents’), published in Berlin in 1908. Photographers such as these—whose interest was focussed on birds and nature and whose orientation was an objective registration—had very little in common with the artistic photography circuit. Tepe’s systematic and objectivist photography is also reminiscent of the album by the British photographer/horticulturist Charles Jones. In the decade 1910 to 1920, Jones photographed his newly cultivated fruits and vegetables in a manner that was just as systematic and objective as Tepe: pears, apples, leeks, turnips, etc. While one can safely rule out any possibility that Tepe ever saw Jones’ album, the two men’s objectivist approach is the same. At the 2005 exhibition devoted to animal photography held at the Folkwang Museum in Essen, Germany, entitled Nützlich, süß und museal (‘Useful, Sweet and Museological’), Tepe’s work was shown again for the first time, alongside other examples of photography dating from the last 170 years, both German and international.

The photos of birds and nests form a majority of Tepe’s legacy, but as was already mentioned, this type of photography was season-related. The localisation and photographing of nests was a separate category and required a specific expertise. Tepe devoted his time as well to studies of flowers and plants. This was sometimes outdoors, but also indoors in the form of plant and flower still lifes. In 1915, Tepe published an extensive essay in the magazine Camera on how to photograph flowers. In his legacy, there are also several exceptional still lifes featuring rows of apples and pears. He took photos in the greenhouses at Het Loo Palace, but also landscape shots in the surrounding forests. In the town of Bunschoten, he photographed on people’s private estates, as well capturing splendid scenes of children with animals and a genre image of a local woman standing next to a cradle. On the island of Texel, he portrayed the gamekeeper; in Apeldoorn, the forest ranger with his family. Landscape is a recurring theme, ranging from the Naardermeer Lake to the winterscape on the Voorst estate in Gelderland, where he also made studies of trees. Here, too, Tepe approaches a classification inherent to the biologist’s field. One that as well provided an intimate glimpse into nature: from very close up, highly specific, and down to the very last detail. There is a clear distinction between bird photography, the ‘living’ material, and the other categories. There is also a distinction between the photos he constructed and those that were directly from nature. The rabbits, guinea pigs, and other animals that Tepe portrayed resting on a table are curious: almost exact drawings, where one can almost feel the fur. Evidently, it was Tepe’s aim to capture their textural feel.

Richard Tepe made submissions to publications throughout his life, both texts and images. A random edition of the magazine Buiten comprises extensive articles by Tepe, written on topics as varied as lilacs, apricots, wasps, tits, and wild rabbits. The photos featured in this beautifully illustrated magazine are virtually always accompanied by author citation, as was the case with all that he published. Tepe wrote and photographed for very first issue of Buiten in 1907, and continued to do so until he turned seventy. He was not alone: similar contributions made by e.g. Eli Heimans, Burdet, and Steenhuizen are also found in the magazine. Other magazines that include numerous photos by Tepe are De Levende Natuur (‘Living Nature’), De Prins (‘The Prince’), and Opgang. His photos were also used in works published by other bird experts and nature-lovers, including those by Rinke Tolman, and Jan Vriends’ book, Met kijker, camera en loupe (‘With Binoculars, Camera, and Magnifying Glass’). Most frequently published are Tepe’s photos of birds. These photos lived a long life and were occasionally reprinted elsewhere some ten, twenty, or thirty years after they had been taken. A life that comprised approximately forty years of taking photographs has turned up a colossal inventory of images. Yet the question of whether Tepe as well made his living with this work is a matter that remains unclear. Although Tepe is thought to have been financially independent based on his inheritance—as is observed by his biographer in In de ban van vogels­—he was by no means rich. Membership fees for the various photography associations, apportioned according to ability, attest to Tepe’s relative poverty. As a photographer for magazines such as Buiten and De Levende Natuur, he was probably paid nothing, instead receiving a small compensation for material costs. Tepe is likely to have led a modest existence; he presumably continued to earn a living by working as a farmer. Photography was not simply an expensive hobby, it also brought fulfilment to his life.

In the history of photography, the work of nature photographers such as Tepe forms a forgotten, but intriguing niche. It is an area of photography that parallels the concern for the conservation of natural monuments and birds in the Netherlands, which is certain to have emerged with people’s interest in ornithology and so-called ‘birding’. In Tepe’s case, however, photography gradually became most important. On the one hand, this involved the activity of taking photographs in itself. In articles published on the topic, it was frequently compared to hunting—with the photo seen as the hunting trophy. Such photos were analogous to the title of Schulz’s book Natur-Urkunden—’evidence’ derived directly from nature. On the other hand, Tepe was a master in the darkroom. His prints have a clarity and precision that are thought to have been discovered in photography only later on. Tepe lived the life of a hermit, as Brouwer wrote in his overview of the earliest ornithologists in the Netherlands. He produced more than forty years of photography that possesses a timeless quality, as Kuhlmann wrote in her recent photo-historical discussion of Tepe the photographer. The timeless nature of his subject perhaps also explains how Tepe managed to find his own style at such an early stage and why he saw little need to adapt. It is this which has led to a surprising and objective photographic approach in the work of a minor master—a man averse to all movements or art—that falls somewhere between tradition and modernity. Tepe’s sparrow on the wall is reminiscent of Carel Fabritius’ Goldfinch, and no photographer prior to this time had ever perceived a row of pears in such a manner. His photographic series appear to stand on their own, not fitting into any one category. Tepe’s photos are realistic to the extreme and comparable to the approach of Charles Jones, a contemporary and a horticulturist. The focused devotion of these two men to their material can also be found in the work of present-day photographers such as Roni Horn, who is currently making detailed studies of bird nests. In the case of Tepe, a curiosity for nature evolved almost inadvertently into a form of ‘new photography’.

Documentation