On Glass Orbs and Pictorialism

Words and photo by Dave Levingston

As a fan of Clarence White, Sr., and someone who has used orbs in his own photos, I thought I'd give you a little info on orbs that goes beyond what I put in my comment on TOP. White was a native of my home town, Newark, Ohio, and I have often photographed in some of the same locations, such as Blackhand Gorge, where he did some of his most well-known photographs.

White was fond of orbs. Stieglitz, not so much. There are quotes of him complaining about White using them. I've not dug those quotes up, but here is a note from page 227 of the book Clarence White and His World by Anne McCauley:

"The glass orb, which became one of White's trademark props, had been used since the Renaissance as a symbol of the Holy Spirit (because it echoes the orb of the world), of the transparency of the soul (as in Johannes Vermeer's Allegory of the Catholic Faith [ca. 1670–72], in which it hangs from the ceiling), or of the vanity of earthly things, akin to a soap bubble (in seventeenth-century vanitas still lifes). It was also traditionally associated with virginal purity, as in Cesar van Everdingen's Amor Holding a Glass Orb (ca. 1660). Later it reflects the mystical practice of scrying, in which the future appears in a crystal orb. A typical Aesthetic movement example of the use of glass orbs is Edward Burne-Jones's cycle The Days of Creation (1870–76), in which each stage of creation is envisioned in a crystal orb held by a female allegorical figure. Underlying all its symbolic uses, the glass orb presented painters and photographers like White with an interesting play of transparency and reflections that challenged normal optical perception and complicated the process of representation."

So as I've been working on a project in homage to White, I've used orbs quite a bit. Above is one of my favorite and most popular examples.

On a related note, in photo school I was taught that Pictorialism was a mistake, a dead end that didn't actually advance photography. I think that is wrong. The modernist ƒ/64 group photographers reacted against Pictorialism and put it in disrepute. But I think it was crucial in the process of photography being accepted as a legitimate medium for art and not just a representative craft. And, looking back from today, I think we can see that Pictorialism is one way to do photography, just as valid as any other technique or genre.

Dave

Mike adds: The most famous glass orb in art recently was of course the one in Christ's hand in Leonardo's Salvator Mundi, which (the painting, not the orb) sold at Christie's in New York City for approximately $450 million in 2017. That one caused quite a bit of controversy, which appears to be resolved now. P.S. here's me and Dave last time he was in town.

Book o' the Week

The Atlas of Beauty: Women of the World in 500 Portraits. "Since 2013 photographer Mihaela Noroc has traveled the world with her backpack and camera taking photos of everyday women to showcase the diversity of beauty all around us. The Atlas of Beauty is a collection of her photographs celebrating women from all corners of the world, revealing that beauty is everywhere, and that it comes in many different sizes and colors."

This is a link to Amazon from TOP. The following logo is also a link:

Original contents copyright 2020 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

Bill Tyler: "The controversy Mike alludes to is in part whether Salvator Mundi is actually by Leonardo, and in part about the fact that Jesus' robe, seen through the orb, is not shown inverted. I'm astonished at the misunderstanding about the inversion. Writing on the topic seems to reflect a mistaken belief that objects viewed through a glass sphere always appear inverted. This is not always so. A glass sphere is in effect a lens with a focal length that is quite short relative to its size. Looking through such a lens at an object more than one focal length away will indeed show the object inverted. However, if the object is closer than one focal length, it will appear erect, not inverted. That orb in the painting is very close to Jesus' robe, and thus the lack of inversion is completely optically accurate.

"Here's a photo of a solid glass sphere resting on my keyboard, illustrating the point. The letter G seen through the sphere is right-side-up, not inverted. It's how an ordinary magnifying glass works—the focal length there is a bit longer relative to the magnifier's size, and you see the subject erect. The article Mike references has a bunch of computer scientists doing simulations with hollow and solid spheres. If they'd bothered to open a first-year physics textbook, or any introduction to optics, this point would have been explained in detail. Failing that, glass spheres are easy to obtain and inexpensive. An actual experiment seems to me to be far more convincing than a numeric simulation."

Jnny: "That is a mesmerizing photo. Kudos."

Comments

[Dave Levingston]

Wow, Mike. Thanks!

[Speed]

And we shouldn't forget the iconic crystal ball from "The Wizard of Oz" ... The gazing ball is an example of one of the earliest special effects in moviemaking. Artists in 1939 painstakingly hand-painting every frame of film to depict what the Wicked Witch of the West saw in the crystal ball.
https://www.newyorkupstate.com/news/2018/04/iconic_crystal_ball_from_the_wizard_of_oz_visits_cornell_university_for_a_spell.html

[Herman Krieger]

Chasing an orb-

[Robert Roaldi]

Are those orbs a bit like skulls in paintings?

[Kenneth Tanaka]

Thanks very much for such an interesting essay, Dave. Clarence White was definitely an early photographer with balls. Use of symbolic props (ex: birds, small statues, etc.) or settings in photos was not uncommon during this short period of pictorialism. In fact, it almost became…(wait for it)… cliché! But I can’t think of anyone who used such a completely inanimate.

“Evening — Mother and Boys, Clarence White, 1905
Art Institute of Chicago

Was pictorialism a “mistake”? No. I agree with your school days disagreement, Dave. I think it’s more accurate to call it a misjudgment. The goal was to legitimize photography as an artistic medium by mimicking the aesthetic standards (i.e. the clichés) of the period...and of other media. It didn’t really work. In fact, it kinda backfired, as you noted. But it did unquestionably serve to broaden awareness of photography and to expand both consumer and producer markets for it more rapidly.

[xf mj]

I googled Clarence White’s photographs and (I confess) immediately snickered and giggled a bit at the numerous search hits of his subjects’ staring somewhat doe-eyed, and kind of expressionless, at those silly glass orbs. As if they’d been removed (it seemed, to me) of any critical thoughts.

And then I recalled all the photos I’ve taken lately of the general public (e.g in a national park, etc) staring blankly, maybe mouth-gaped, at their cellular phones. Crap. How will those snaps be received a century from now?

Is an orb a representation of the sublimeness of All There Is? of endless possibility? of an infinitude of facets that cannot truly be comprehended to their fullest array? How about the center of the soul? the God that commands us? when wiped clean, a fingerprint-free door of perception?

[tapped out on my phone]

[Moose]

". . . in photo school I was taught that Pictorialism was a mistake, a dead end that didn't actually advance photography. I think that is wrong."

I agree, although for overlapping, not identical, reasons. Any form of art that's not dead will be used and abused by artists in attempts to realize their personal visions.

To the extent that any movement attempts to restrict use of the medium to a limited range, it is antithetical to creativity.

It seems to me that both Pictorialism and the f/64 movement were more or less restrictive, at least in their words.

There was a small, but excellent, exhibit at the Portland, ME art museum inlate 2010 focused on the transition from Pictorialism to Group f/64; Debating Modern Photography: The Triumph of Group f/64.

It showed that, in practice, the line was not as hard and fast as reading about it would suggest. Weston made the transition gracefully, St. Ansel less subtly.

Very unfortunately, photography of the photographs was not allowed — and there was no catalog. Argument and pleadings proved futile.

Although not in the high-ish photographic culture, much of the spirit/vision of Pictorialism seems to me to live on.

Check out the blogs on the LensBaby site. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that many of those photographers have never heard of Pictorialism; they are just creating what appeals to them.

[Benjamin Marks]

The interesting thing about Steiglitz's discomfort is that he was feeling it at a moment when photography (or: Photography) was still feeling its way. From today's perspective, it's like: "Giant balls. That's pretty funny. What's next? Tableaux vivants?" But the Pictoralists, or as I will call them now, "The Ball Guys" still thought they were competing with painting as a way of representing Reality. Steiglitz was promoting photography being its own thing, not a replacement for painting. I think he won the argument. Wonder what he'd make of the iPhone?

[Arg]

Hmm. I think they are being used because they look pretty.

[John Camp]

What Dave said.

[Bear.]

There’s plenty of art I don’t like, or perhaps don’t appreciate, but who is to judge? Without Pictoriialism there probably would have been no f/64 group.

[Kirk Decker]

History is written by the victors... er... Beaumont Newhall who was tight with the f/64 crowd. I could be wrong, it's been forever since I looked at The History of Photography, but didn't he just sorta skip over most of pictorialism?

[Richard Man]

Pictorialism gets a bad-rep probably because of St. Adam :-) And of course Ansel Adam himself did quite a bit of pictorialist stuff before he switched to f/64.

There are plenty of non-f/64 stuff nowadays though. Michael Kenna - minimalist? But aren't they also pictorialist? I don't see people lining up with pitchforks in hands.

How about Don Hong-Oai? If you have not seen his stuff, it's beautiful and pictorialist.

Many other examples abound.

[David Aiken]

"Without Pictoriialism there probably would have been no f/64 group."

Dare I suggest that a difference between the pictorialists and the modernists was their level of tolerance for bokeh, though neither group would have recognised the term. Without the large format cameras of the day with the inherently longer focal length lenses required to capture the same field of view we now capture with shorter focal length lenses on smaller format cameras there would have been no f/64 group.

If both groups hadn't been using those large format cameras and longer lenses we may have had to wait for Weegee to make his famous response to a question for an aperture to become a rallying cry around which a group could gather. Think of the history of photography without an f/64 group but rather an f/8 group. Who wouldn't want to be there. :-)

[Patrick Dodds]

Moose: Isn't your statement

"To the extent that any movement attempts to restrict use of the medium to a limited range, it is antithetical to creativity."

both true and untrue? I mean, all movements are about restrictions, ultimately, and through these restrictions comes the New. Though yes, at the same time one would think that Creativity would result from the opposite of this.

I think I need to lie down now.

[Len Metcalf]

Fascinating. Thanks

I have to agree about the bad rap the pictorialists got. It really was an unjustified swipe. Putting down the work of others to bolster your own is always unjustified in my opinion. Personally I love the work and wish I could get my hands on more books about it. The Russian and European pictorialists are fascinating. As is the Sydney Camera Circle. Just a few obscure pictorials I have enjoyed exploring.

It all reminds me of their hatred of Mortensen too.

Today I was thinking that there is such a huge difference between defining photography as what it is versus thinking about what it could be.

All movements in art have their place. They all influence each other.

Now. Should I look into getting an orb? ;-)

[William Cowan]

The Mystique of the Glass Globe in Pictorialist Photography was presented as a lecture by the American Historical Association in 2011 by
Verna Posever Curtis of the The Library of Congress. Alas when I asked there was no record or available notes.
Perhaps a reader was there and remembers.

[darlene]

The only photography I do not like involved what the artist decided to photograph and I defined it as morbid (use your imagination). Other than that, it's all good in my book. Although I do find when photographers reveal too much in nude photography, it crosses the line into porn. Do not like porn, but I do like fine art nudes.