Circus is a beautifully crafted book, as is always the case with any offering by The Eakins Press. The question remains as to whether all the effort and expense of beautiful reproduction and classically understated, intelligent book design (by Catherine Waters) was worth it.

For this viewer, the answer is the tepid, "I guess so." It is always useful and worthwhile to preserve, but not always necessary to publish, photographs of historic value. (But then again, I'm talking as part of a photography audience, not a circus audience.) When the historically useful photographs are as carefully executed and occasionally beautiful as Mr. Glasier's, the case becomes stronger for publication, if not strong enough.



Glasier was an excellent craftsman, a better than average representative of his era's style of "the thing itself" presentation and a first-rate portraitist. Mrs. Clarke (p.85) or Clown, 1902 (p. 93), among others, show this. On occasion, but not often enough, the sheer surrealistic zaniness of circus acts-Zenaldes, Circa 1905, (p. 61) or Miss May Lillie, 1908 (p. 127) -show this. Too often his photographs almost make it: unlike Atget, he didn't know where to stand.




Both Luc Sante and Peter Kayafas claim that Glasier, working at the same time as Atget and Bellocq, overlapping with Sander, or a bit later, Disfarmer, should be seen as their equal or something near. Perhaps, but not for this viewer. Glaiser's images do not have the radical estrangement of Disfarmer, the profound empathy of Bellocq, the Tolstoyan sympathy of Sander, or the still unsolved mystery of Atget. There may be as yet undiscovered photographers equal to Bellocq or even Atget, but Mr. Glasier is not one. We can appreciate his work for its high craft and representative qualities without inflated claims. —Richard Gordon