Daguerreotype: the Spirit of the Age

Photography is one of those inventions that has had an immense impact on a great number of spheres and is deeply rooted in our society. It was introduced to the public in 1839 by a French artist Louis Daguerre in the form of a photographic process that came to be known as the daguerreotype. This essay explores the history of the daguerreotype from its invention to the 1850s, when the technology was superseded by other photographic purposes. In this essay I shall use some of the ways of interpreting technology discussed by scholars, primarily focusing on the concept of social shaping of technology. I shall illustrate that the history of the daguerreotype provides a good example of how social and economic demands and cultural values triggered the invention of the technology, affected the way it was produced and used, and determined the future of photography.

First of all, I will provide a brief outline of the photographic process and describe the features of the daguerreotype. To begin with, a daguerreotype was a direct positive image produced on a standard-sized silvered metallic plate. The process consisted of the following stages: the plate was polished, sensitized by treating it with iodine, was put into a camera and exposed to light. Afterwards, the image was made visible by placing the plate over mercury vapour; finally, the plate was treated with a solution of table salt to stop the material from continuing to react and then carefully rinsed with water. The exposure time evolved from half an hour in 1839 to a matter of seconds by the 1850s (Barger, White, 1991).

Credit © National Media Museum / Science & Society Picture Library -- All rights reserved.

Photographs produced using this technology had a number of distinguishing characteristics. To begin with, the plates had a mirror-like surface, which was problematic, since the image could only be seen from a particular angle. In addition to this, the first images were laterally reversed, which was later corrected with lenses. Among the advantages of the daguerreotype was the remarkable detail of the image: ‘indeed, one of the astonishments of the daguerreotype is the degree to which one can magnify a portion and still see more, and get more, as if there were no end to the elaborations of reality…’ (Maddow, 1989, p. 35) According to Dinius, ‘to achieve such resolution using modern digital imaging technology would require a camera capable of a staggering 140,000 megapixel resolution’ (Dinius, 2002, p. 1) This capability to capture incredibly detailed images determined how the daguerreotype was primarily used: it became popular as a means of creating portraits and, thus, established a new portrait industry, which was one of the most important impacts of the daguerreotype on society (Ibid).

The invention of the technology led to the creation of a system within which the process was organized: the portrait studio. The daguerreotype had to overcome a number of challenges that had mostly to do with the exposure time. Wells describes the process of taking photographs as follows:

Most of the early portraits were carefully posed and touched up as to produce as flattering an image as possible under difficult circumstances. A headrest kept that most important feature, the face, static for lengthy exposures needed, or else the posing individual was asked to lean on a table or a mock-classical pillar, which also served decorative and symbolic functions (Wells, 1997, p. 127).

Richard Beard's daguerreotype studio at Parliament Street, Westminster, 1843. © Science Museum / Science & Society Picture Library

In the following section I shall explore the history of the invention of the daguerreotype, providing a number of different perspectives. According to the standard account photography was a radical invention: the result of application of scientific knowledge from optics and chemistry in the nineteenth century. However, the optical phenomenon behind photography, the so-called “camera obscura” (Latin: “dark chamber”), had been known since Antiquity. It had been observed that light passing through a tiny hole in a wall of a dark chamber would project an upside-down image of the external scene on the opposite wall. Subsequently, the camera obscura became a portable device used for a number of purposes (Marien, 2002). The eighteenth century saw extensive research on photosensitive materials that led to a series of important discoveries, forming the chemical basis for photography. Nevertheless, it was not until the early nineteenth century when scientists began widely experimenting with light-sensitive substances with the aim of fixing the image inside the camera. As a result of a collaboration between two French men, an amateur inventor Nicéphore Niépce and an artist Louis Daguerre, the daguerreotype process was developed and came to be known as the first publicly announced photographic technology (Lemagny, 1987).

However, the view of photography as a radical invention that has transformed, provides a one-sided and narrow view and neglects the very essence of technology by isolating it from its wider context. Therefore, the concept of social shaping of technology offers a much broader perspective on the history of the daguerreotype. As Weaver points out, ‘instead of being looked as a new beginning with only the most shadowy antecedents in the visual arts, it has to be seen as fitting into a well-established thought process…’ (Weaver, 1989, p. 25). According to historians, photography can be viewed as a continuation of the tradition established by the Realist movement in art, characterized by its quest for resemblance. Since the Renaissance, artists had become concerned with a realistic representation of the physical world, which is evident from a number of significant artistic developments, such as the widespread use of perspective, as well as the use of mechanical devices as drawing aids, including the camera obscura (Marien, 2002). From this perspective, the invention of the daguerreotype, can be interpreted using Heidegger’s terminology, as an act of ‘bringing forth’ a technology that had already been emerging, but had been ‘concealed’ (Heidegger, 2003).

But why was photography invented in the nineteenth century despite the fact that its basic components had existed long before 1839? Among one of the catalysts were the developments in science and the ‘surge for objectivity’, its demand for new reliable ways of recording reality (Lemagny, 1987). Other factors include the increasing industrialization in the nineteenth century, which encouraged exploration of commercially promising technologies, including new methods of iconography that which would assist in the production of machinery. This was the main incentive that drew Nicéphore Niépce to photography, who was concerned with improving lithography, one of the existing means of reproducing images (Barger, White, 1991). However, one the most important factors that triggered the invention was rooted in the society of the period: the demand for portraiture by the expanding middle class. The daguerreotype in particular in many ways fulfilled that demand: since paintings remained the preserve of aristocracy, the daguerreotype, while being expensive, was still relatively affordable for the middle class (Wood, 1989).

So, how was the daguerreotype received by the society of the period and what ways of thinking about technology can assist us in understanding the way the perceived the invention? Despite the diversity of the opinions regarding the technology, the appearance of photographs, its exact replication of reality, caused shock and amazement to the point of mysticism. According to John Herschel, ‘it is hardly saying too much to call them miraculous’ (Marien, 1997, p. 9). It was also the precision of images characteristic of the daguerreotype that was responsible for creating the ‘illusion of reality’ (Ibid). However, the invention was also subjected to criticism. A contemporary photographer lamented that ‘no science or art that has been revealed to mankind had to encounter a great amount of opposition and prejudice than the science of photography’ (Henry Vines cited in Weaver, 1989, p. 1-2). One of the main reasons for criticism was the mechanical nature of the process and the ‘spontaneous reproduction of the images’: as a machine it was seen to be devoid of creativity and therefore alien to art. (Daguerre cited in Hannavy, 2008) Alan Turing discusses this view in his Computing Machinery and Intelligence to which he refers to as ‘Lady Lovelace’s objection’ to whether machines can think. According to Lady Lovelace, a representative of the period under review, technology ‘has no pretensions to originate anything’. This view reflects the primary reasons for criticizing photography in its early stages (Lovelace cited in Turing, 1950). What is more, photography was also seen as a threat to art; one contemporary exclaimed: ‘what will become of the greatest achievements of draftsmanship – especially in a period such as ours where industry seeks, by every mechanical means, to do away with taste and talent?’ (Heilbrun, 2009, p. 16). Other commentators, such as John Ruskin, being opposed to industrialization and mechanization, saw photography as a threat to humanity in the long run (Marien, 1997). Thus, some of the contemporaries perceived the daguerreotype as an evolving technology that would inevitably replace human activity and, which coincides with Samuel Butler’s view of the machines. (Butler, 1863)

It is essential to note that the reception of the daguerreotype depended on the geographical context. For instance, the success of the daguerreotype in Britain was relatively limited due to license fees, whereas there were no such restrictions in other countries (Lemagny, 1987). The daguerreotype enjoyed particularly vast popularity in the United States and survived there till the 1960s, which is was due in part due to practical reasons: ‘the metal plates could be transported more securely than glass ones on the road to the Far West’ (Heilbrun, 2009, p. 20).

The popularity of the daguerreotype in the US can also be explained by the emphasis on the idea of democratization in the American culture, which was also encouraged by the daguerreotype. Apart from opening up the portrait industry to other classes, it was democratizing in a different sense: its objective depiction of reality, contrary to paintings’ tendency to idealize people’s feature, ‘helped humanize our way of seeing’ and ‘caused us to find even in deforming’ (Wood, 1989, p. 2) Apart from that, the daguerreotype symbolized other values of the period: the remarkable detail of the images and their characteristic illusion of reality can be seen as the summit of Realism, the ultimate goal of which was exact imitation of the physical world. Thus, Samuel Morse famously referred to the daguerreotype as ‘Rembrandt perfected’ (Wood, 1989). In fact, the fate of the daguerreotype has been compared to that of Realism: ‘the acceptance of soft-focus photography, of manipulated photography, of rough-surfaced paper was coupled with a total collapse of mid-nineteenth century empirical Realism’ (Buerger, 1989, p. 58).

So, why was the daguerreotype superseded by other photographic processes? According to technological determinism, it is the most efficient technology that wins the race. Indeed, the daguerreotype proved to be inefficient for many reasons, the most important of which was its non-reproducible nature, since the process created a direct positive image. However, the daguerreotype was superior to the other types of photography in its detail of the image. Therefore it is essential to note that the daguerreotype was rendered obsolete due to its inability to meet the industrial needs in particular. The age of industrialization, with its emphasis on quantity and efficiency, came to value other photographic technologies that were capable of producing multiple copies from negatives, such as the collodion process. The daguerreotype, therefore, was closer in its nature to handicraft rather than industry, with its task orientation and emphasis on detail.

To sum up, I have outlined the history of the daguerreotype, showing how it was influenced by a number of historical factors. The daguerreotype revolutionized the field of iconography and had a fundamental influence on the society of the period by creating the illusion of reality and democratizing the portrait industry. However, the daguerreotype itself reflected the spirit of the age and embedded the values of the period. Nevertheless, the growing industrialization led to adoption of other photographic processes that proved to be more economically efficient.

Word Count: 1998

Bibliography:

1. Barger, M. Susan, and William B. White. The Daguerreotype: Nineteenth-century Technology and Modern Science. Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1991.

2. Buerger, E. Janet ‘The Genius of Photography’ in Wood, John. The Daguerreotype: A Sesquicentennial Celebration. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1989.

1. Butler, Samuel. ‘Darwin among the machines’, [to the editor of the press, Christchurch, New Zealand, 13 June, 1863.]
2. Dinius, Marcy J. The Camera and the Press: American Visual and Print Culture in the Age of the Daguerreotype. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2012.
3. Hannavy, John. Encyclopedia of Nineteenth-century Photography. New York: Routledge, 2008.
4. Heilbrun, Franc. A History of Photography: The Musée D'Orsay Collection 1839-1925. English Language ed. Paris: Flammarion, 2009.
5. Lemagny, Jean. A History of Photography: Social and Cultural Perspectives. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire: Cambridge University Press, 1987.
6. MacKenzie, Donald A. The Social Shaping of Technology: How the Refrigerator Got Its Hum. Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1985.

9. Maddow, Ben. ‘Rembrandt Perfected’ in Wood, John. The Daguerreotype: A Sesquicentennial Celebration. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1989.

1. Marien, Mary Warner. Photography and Its Critics: A Cultural History, 1839-1900. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
2. Marien, Mary Warner. Photography: A Cultural History. Upper River Saddle, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 2002.
3. Turing, Alan ‘Computing machinery and intelligence’, Mind (1950) 59, pp.433-460
4. Weaver, Mike. British Photography in the Nineteenth Century: The Fine Art Tradition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
5. Wells, Liz. Photography: A Critical Introduction. London: Routledge, 1997.
6. Wood, John. The Daguerreotype: A Sesquicentennial Celebration. Iowa City: University of Iowa Press, 1989.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-28