Where is Pattinson gazing: at the waterfall or the camera?

[Michal Šimůnek]

I am writing a study on tourist photography for the Czech journal Fotograf Magazine. I devote a separate part of my study to Pattinson's daguerreotypes of Niagara Falls. During my brief research into Pattinson's images, I was struck by the fact that in the daguerreotype available in the Newcastle University Library collection, Pattinson appears to be gazing at the camera (see picture below; see also https://collectionscaptured.ncl.ac.uk/digital/collection/p21051coll22/id/4/rec/4).

In the famous engraving in Lerebours' Excursions Daguerriennes, however, he is gazing at a waterfall in the kind of spirit of romanticism and the aesthetics of the picturesque (see the image below). 

In this regard, I am curious whether Pattinson is gazing at the waterfall in the original daguerreotype after which the engraving was created or whether Frédéric Salathé, the author of the engraving, reversed the direction of his gaze.

Has the original daguerreotype survived? 

Geoffrey Batchen states in his book Apparitions that "the original daguerreotype has not survived the process of being turned into an engraving". However, Emily Ackerman, for example, mentioned in her paper that there are only three plates engraved using Fizeau's process in the Excursions Daguerriennes: the Hotel de Ville de Paris, the façade of Notre-Dame Cathedral, and Maison Élevée Rue St. Georges (see https://journals.flvc.org/athanor/article/view/126677). So, I assume Niagara Falls's engraving was copied by hand instead of Fizeau's process, and it could exist.

I believe that the V&A's collection has a daguerreotype that could have been used to make the engraving in Excursions Daguerrienes. It seems pretty similar to the engraving; see https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1404059/niagara-falls-photograph-pattinson-hugh-lee/. They even note in the image description: "Possibly related to the daguerreotype used to create the engraving for Lerebours's 'Excursions Daguerriennes'." I have just asked the V&A for a higher-resolution reproduction, as the low resolution of the freely available one makes it impossible to examine the details of the daguerreotype. 

However, I wonder if my reasoning that this could be the daguerreotype after which the engraving was created might be correct.

I would be grateful for any clarifications and corrections to my assumptions.

Michal Šimůnek

[Michal Šimůnek]

Dear All,

Thanks a lot for your comments!

I will try to summarise what we know, or rather what we don't know:

• We do not know whether the daguerreotype after which the engraving for Lerebours' ED was created exists. It could have been, as Geoffrey writes, that it was destroyed. It may be in some private collection. It could have been the one that clearly shows the figure and is in the Newcastle Uni Library collection. It could be lost. However, given the freedom with which the engravers worked, we can probably never be 100% sure which dag was used by the engraver.
• We don't know who the figure in the dag is. It could be Pattinson, but it could be his Mining Captain, who we know travelled to America with Pattinson (thanks to Micheal Pritchard and Deborah Ireland for this insight). And, in fact, we probably can't rule out that it's some other person, like a waiter or a cook from the Clifton House Hotel.

Errata to my blog post: I'm not any more sure there is a figure in the image in the V&A collection – https://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O1404059/niagara-falls-photograph-pattinson-hugh-lee/. It may be a stain caused by the degradation formed by chance in the place where the figure stands on the dag in the Newcastle Library collection. However, I can't verify this, as I have access only to low-resolution reproduction.

Finally, to further explain my motive for being interested in the story of the Pattinson photograph. I am interested in tourist photography, but more from the perspective of tourist studies or mobility studies than from the history of photography (but the historical facts are crucial for me). I draw in particular on John Urry's concept of the tourist gaze. That is why I am interested in who the figure in the dag is and where he is looking. Urry distinguishes between the romantic, picturesque gaze of the tourist/traveller (closely connected to imaginary "armchair" tourism) and the "Kodak culture" gaze of tourists who get out of their armchairs and start visiting tourist sites (say-cheese snaps and the variety of tourists' photo performances). And then he writes a lot about post-tourism, where natural and cultural landmarks are turned into attractions (tourist sites) that make, for example, Niagara Falls actually invisible. The critical issue here is the problem of authenticity, which post-tourists don't even look for anymore; in fact, rather than visit the actual Falls, they prefer to watch the movie in the IMAX Niagara Falls Theatre or have their photo taken in front of the green screen. And here's where I find it interesting that Pattinson's photograph has returned to Niagara Falls and thus become part of Niagara Falls as an attraction. 

The criticism that a "green screen" covers Niagara Falls due to the tourism boom has been around since the late 19th century. Here's an excellent illustration from 1901 that I came across at the Library of Congress – see https://www.loc.gov/resource/ppmsca.26052/.

Simply put, the story of Pattinson's photography serves me mainly as a playful illustration of John Urry's thinking about the relationship between photography and tourism.

I apologise for bringing these sociological perspectives to the BHP blog, and many thanks again for your comments.

Best wishes,

Michal

[RA!]

Hi Michael,

Frankly, having viewed all the daguerreotypes extant, I wouldn't waste my time wondering whether Pattinson is looking at the Falls, the camera, or his watch (wondering how much longer he's going to have to stand there in the April chill of the Niagara Escarpment).

These are the Horseshoe Falls and Pattinson is there ... it's a Kodak Moment.

The Lerebours' engravings are diminished by tendancy toward the fanciful and consequently lack authenticity. 

It may be of interest that more recently at the Falls, ironically more or less where Pattinson is standing in the daguerreotypes, there was the opportunity to have one's photograph taken.

This was carried out with participants standing in front of a green screen.

The end result would be a photograph showing the Falls apparently behind them; when in fact they were actually looking at the Falls in front of them when photographed.

Yes, people pay money for this.

 

[Geoff Batchen]

Hi MIchal,

Lerebours commissioned about 1200 daguerreotypes and only used about 112 for Excursions. So he often sold unused daguerreotypes to others (which is how Claudet happened to have some for sale in his glass shop in London), We don't know exactly how the daguerreotypes were turned into steel engravings but it seems likely they were traced over and therefore ruined during the process. As I mention in Apparitions, Pattinson made a number of views of Niagara Falls but only one was sent to Paris to be turned into an engraving. That one was presumably traced over and then discarded and/or destroyed (possibly having its silver recycled and the plate reused).

geoff

[Alex Novak]

There were a number of daguerreotypes sold privately from the Lerebour's group that certainly were not directly used for the "Excursions Daguerriennes" publication, and so the engravings in those instances must of simply been copied from those daguerreotypes. It sure does look to me that your Pattinson example was another that was not etched directly from the daguerreotype plate itself. Artists were well known to take liberties with such engravings.