Talk:Photo-Secession

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject History of photography, a project to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on the history of photography on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub	This article has been rated as stub-Class on the quality scale.

I think a lot of this article is wrong. I am sure the Photo-Secession did not initially champion "straight photography" at all, that came later, by which time I think the organisation may have fizzled out. It actually championed the manipulated pictorialist approach which by 1917 Stieglitz had come to reject. It was Paul Strand who advocated straight photography and caused Stieglitz to see the light and turn his back on the style he originally championed. Camera Work started by championing one style, that of the Photo-Secession members, and after a muddled period when Stieglitz became disillusioned with photography, it ended up 14 years later championing Paul Strand's work. I'm not sure but I don't think Strand was a member of the Photo-Secession.

The point of the Photo-Secession was, I think, to establish that Photography was an art form and not just a mechanical process. However I am presently unclear as to exactly what actual style of photography was then prevalent which they were reacting against so I'm hesitant about making many changes to the article at the moment. Samatarou (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've removed the sentences on straight photography. I'm also still figuring out quite what they were seceding from, although I think it was indeed to establish photography as a fine art, but their aim definitely wasn't straight photography. Kryptothesuperdog (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)