“A Truer Test of Woodcraft”: Bell &amp; Howell Camera Advertising, <i>Nature Magazine</i>, and the Creation of the Modern “Camera Hunter”

in 1892, the popular magazine Forest and Stream (1873–1930) hosted its inaugural amateur photography competition—one of the first contests of its kind. Since its founding, Forest and Stream had worked to establish itself as an early proponent of the nascent conservationist movement in the United States. This work was highlighted in a 1930 article published by Time that was written to eulogize the end of the publication as it merged with Field and Stream (1895–present). The article suggested that Forest and Stream had been “dedicated to the conservation of wild life, induced the birth of the National Association of Audubon Societies, sponsored the National Park Movement, the U.S.–Canada treaty on migratory birds, [and] lately the Migratory Bird Sanctuary Bill in Congress” (“Forest, Field and Stream”). The 1892 Forest and Stream photography competition fostered this humane, conservationist ethos, urging amateurs to venture forth into nature and hunt game not with a rifle, but with a more sophisticated form of woodcraft technology: a camera. This competition came with the promise of prizes and a judging panel that included famed landscape photographer Edward Bierstadt and future United States president Theodore Roosevelt (Brower 49).Sparked by this initial photography contest, camera companies worked to capitalize on the emergent market of “camera hunters.” With a new century came massive technological advancements in the field, especially in the development of motion picture technology. Coupled with the growth of the printed mass media—specifically niche outdoor-themed magazines such as Forest and Stream and Nature Magazine (1923–59)—camera companies crafted a new vocabulary and mythology in advertising and outreach that would connect camera hunters to both their brands and a greater imagined or manufactured community. The overarching narrative in these materials embraced the idea that hunting with a camera was not only a more humane but also a more skillful pursuit than traditional hunting. James Beebee Carrington (1860–1929), literary figure and editor of Scribner's Magazine, described camera hunting as both a test of outdoorsmanship and a means to bag game, thus “a truer test of woodcraft” (Brower 25).This sentiment is echoed in a February 1928 Nature Magazine article by Walter D. Kerst, who wrote, “[I]n the domain of the sportsman, the amateur movie camera is gaining great headway, and in the years to come one will probably see an increasing army of enthusiastic hunters stalking their quarry, camera in hand, hunting for a trophy that will bring far greater pleasure than killing for the sake of the kill” (115). By the mid-1920s, the hobby was bolstered by the general popularity of the new 16mm amateur market; by 1927, it was estimated that there were 30,000 amateur filmmakers in the United States. Ten years later, the number was speculated to have more than tripled (Wasson 48).Bell & Howell, a major producer of camera technology in the early twentieth century, was especially invested in the amateur camera-hunting hobby from its infancy. Throughout the 1920s and 1930s, the company ran hundreds of advertisements in Nature Magazine tailored toward the amateur camera hunter. These advertisements were instrumental in creating the vocabulary not only for amateur camera hunting but also for wildlife filmmaking more holistically. While some of the conservationist vocabulary could be considered noble, especially in touting nonlethal forms of wildlife enjoyment, some aspects of the advertisements are problematic, particularly in a modern context. Mass advertising directed to camera hunters involved the use of cartoonish anthropomorphism, fostered the creation of a wildlife media community constituted by white, financially comfortable men, and contributed to mediated encounters with nature that may seem exploitative and objectifying of the wildlife subjects. Additionally, the films created by these men—men steeped in the political, economic, and industrial structures of early-twentieth-century white America—aimed to present nature and wildlife as devoid of these factors of economics, race, and power. The films were meant to be simulated representations of a time and place that predated the men who made them and the societal factors that enabled them.To explore three Bell & Howell advertisements from a sample of Nature Magazine issues from 1928 and 1929, this article applies an ecocritical lens in its analysis, one that engages the material from the perspective of the environmental in an effort to discuss the anthropogenic traits applied (Buell 17–20). Ecocriticism—as demonstrated by Leo Marx and Raymond Williams in their individual critiques of pastoralism in literature and culture in the mid–twentieth century—has since expanded to include the analysis of film and other visual media (Rust et al.). This study's analysis of the representation of wildlife—understood in this article to be nondomesticated fauna both wild and captive—draws from Steve Baker's ecocritical assertation that a culture not only constructs the animal though symbolic practices but does so “to make a statement about human identity” (ix). Jonathan Burt extends this assertation further, stating that “animal imagery does not merely reflect human–animal relations and the position of animals in human culture, but is also used to change them” (15). When anchored in these approaches, the representations of natural imagery in the Bell & Howell advertisements convey insight not only into the hegemonic attitudes of this era toward wildlife exploitation, but also into the cultural shaping of the anthropogenic relationship between humans and wildlife that continued through the twentieth century and into the modern context.The study's textual analysis of specific Bell & Howell advertisements looks at the vocabulary and imagery the company used to promote its cameras and build the identity of the amateur camera-hunting community during the interwar period in the United States (1918–39). This manufactured community, as evidenced in the intent of the advertisements, was white, middle- to upper-class, and male. While not surprising, especially considering the societal conditions of the early twentieth century in the United States, this commercially created camera-hunting community—a community steeped in socioeconomic privilege and masculinity under a vague veil of conservationism—continues to be forwarded in the modern advertising context, where this trope does not necessarily reflect the contemporary camera-hunting community. For example, National Geographic (1888–present) has long published Canon's “Wildlife as Canon Sees It” campaign in each issue. An advertisement from December 2020—with its purple anthropomorphic copy, wonkish tableaux of expensive, sophisticated equipment, and conservationist tone—is a resounding echo of the past, as well as a glimpse at the industry's approach toward the next generation of amateur wildlife filmmakers, which is envisioned as white, male, and in possession of disposable income. The focus of this study's analysis is thus twofold: first, the advertisements’ cultural creation of wildlife as the target of the masculine yet humane pursuit of camera hunting and, second, their attempt to manufacture a new commodity audience—the camera hunters themselves—that could be exploited through the discourse of traditional masculinity and mythology of twentieth-century “outdoorsmanship.”Animal-centric film production is as old as film production itself, with some of the first motion picture experiments relying on the use of both domesticated and captive wild subjects. The early productions of photographer-scientists such as Eadweard Muybridge and Étienne-Jules Marey straddled the line between scientific study and technological curiosity (Barnouw 3–4). Both Muybridge and Marey used captive domesticated and wild animals as test subjects for their moving-image experiments in the late 1800s. The use of captive animals was necessary in these early experiments because the size and complexity of the equipment used—Muybridge with a complex trip wire–activated system and Marey with his “photographic gun”—dictated the need for a controlled set (Barnouw 4). Even as motion picture technology progressed, wildlife filmmakers continued to use captive animals in the creation of their films; this included the influential work of Raymond L. Ditmars at the New York Zoological Park and Jean Painlevé’s surrealist revolutions in underwater cinema. These films proved successful. For example, Painlevé’s L'Hippocampe (The Seahorse, 1934)—a film that features captive seahorses—“garnered popular success and wide theatrical distribution” (Cahill 4).Thomas Edison is credited with creating the first true proto-wildlife film in 1897, one in which the camera depicts wild animals in their natural habitat (Bousé 44). The Sea Lions’ Home (1897) features distant shots of wild sea lions from the stern of a boat, all captured on twenty-five feet of motion picture film. While aesthetically crude by modern standards—with its wide, unfocused shot devoid of nuance and narrative—the film demonstrated the potential of wildlife filmmaking from a technological standpoint by showing the possibility of capturing moving images of truly wild animals.Taking noncaptive wildlife images, still or moving, proved an arduous and cumbersome task for the earliest camera hunters. They struggled with both the complicated process of capturing images and the staggering weight of the equipment. Early photographers were forced to carry not only heavy cameras but also large and fragile glass plates for the cumbersome collodion wet-plate process. To further complicate the process, these photographers were forced to use dangerous chemicals—such as ether—to develop their work in makeshift field tents used as darkrooms (Brower 28). Early wildlife photographer and filmmaker Oliver G. Pike wrote of his challenges with the collodion process. He explains, “I reckon such an outfit was at least fifty times slower than the average equipment to-day [in the 1940s]. That is what I had to work with when I commenced to take nature photographs. It was not easy, and I had many failures. But plates were cheap, and after making a large number of exposures there were at the end always a few successful shots to reward my efforts” (12).As moving-image technology progressed in the early twentieth century, Pike—seeing the potential of the new medium—embraced it as early as 1900. However, as an early adopter, he struggled with the limitations of the new technology. Pike wrote that his “first ‘cine’ camera was a strange and noisy instrument” (14). Noise, in any form, is an enemy of a wildlife filmmaker trying to capture images of skittish animals. Additionally, it was not unusual for early moving-image cameras to weigh one hundred pounds or more, making them difficult to transport even in normal conditions, let alone difficult terrain (Petterson 47).In 1910, French film company Pathé Frères introduced its own multipurpose camera. The Pathé camera (as it was known) was based on the designs of the cinematograph that Charles Pathé bought from the Lumiéres in 1902, and it included the ability to both capture and project images. Yet the true revolution was the Pathé camera's portability and ease of use (Malkames Collection). Its eyepiece, buttons, handle, and film reel were positioned in a way that the camera could be operated from behind (Petterson 63). Additionally, the camera included a four-hundred-foot magazine and footage counter. The camera was housed in a lightweight, yet durable, wooden exterior and possessed a single-frame crank capability that gave operators the ability to control the frame rate (Malkames Collection). Pike was an early and enthusiastic adopter, writing that the “Pathé camera was far in advance to anything produced in this country [the United Kingdom]. I had two in constant use. It was an easy camera to work and gave a rock-steady picture” (18–19).Beyond innovations to the technology of the motion picture camera itself, another impactful development in the early twentieth century was the improvement of the telephoto lens. These advancements led to crisper image quality and shortened exposure times (Brower 67–69). Early camera lenses had poor light sensitivity and short focal lengths, making it difficult to capture wildlife, especially at dawn and dusk when they were most active (Petterson 47).In the 1920s, these rapid improvements in motion picture camera technology coalesced in a camera that would have a profound impact on the camera hunting hobby and profession: the Bell & Howell FILMO camera series. Bell & Howell had been formed in Chicago in 1907 by Donald J. Bell and Albert S. Howell to provide repair and maintenance service for existing camera equipment. However, soon after its founding, the company leveraged this expertise to manufacture its own proprietary cameras. Bell & Howell was so successful as a manufacturer, in fact, that by 1919 nearly 100 percent of the professional camera equipment used by Hollywood film studios was created by the company (American Society of Cinematographers).In 1923, Bell & Howell introduced the FILMO 70, which was the first handheld spring-driven 16mm camera on the market. Its portability was unprecedented; it quickly became the standard in documentary film and was used to capture events, wars, and wildlife. Though not inexpensive at US$175, the FILMO 70 was in such great demand that it was on backorder for seven years. In 1928, Bell & Howell followed with the FILMO 75, an ornate and much more compact 16mm camera than the FILMO 70. These cameras were the first to have a battery-driven motor and a fully aluminum body. With a camera weighing only four pounds, nature filmmakers had a machine that would allow them to capture moving images of wildlife never before seen (Petterson 98–99).However, with an understanding of the immense developments in motion picture camera technology in the early twentieth century, it is worthwhile to look at how these developments influenced the filmic representation of nature and wildlife, both captive and truly wild. This new technology—the modern camera—embodied the core tension in the representation of wildlife in this era: the use of an industrially produced machine, by a distinct socioeconomic to the visual of a that and writing about the development of the telephoto that the between photographer and the of between the two in their images. This of one where the natural is through the lens of a camera of created between the of and and in the representation of in on the impact of these of both and to reflect the about the of in In some these are in this context, as these their mass production and culture such as magazines and a and thus objectifying vocabulary about the representations of wildlife and the natural 1923, with the of his Charles the Nature with the Nature The in and one of the in the United States to I the great he had from natural Charles was also an early he gave to conservation during his Nature Magazine editor writing in described the of the magazine as a to the of environmental the general In he with the of the of captive wildlife for film that suggested a truly wild He wrote that in the early 1920s, was still much the of the in and many and conservation of wildlife was a only to let a It the of the Nature Association to in all of nature and the to further nature study in the and and to promote an understanding of the natural of and wildlife. To these as first president of the that a the of nature and the yet be the of the of Nature Magazine about both wild and domesticated natural nature and and much from the 1920s from a natural of white to an and from a of the of to a that in the assertation that Nature Magazine was truly is by the advertising in the which a of to their from and to and to and to the the most a mass production and a became so the development of that could be to the These from the such as to the such as to for or for a or tents or each advertisement the a of or a to the of of the natural was also in the advertisements Bell & Howell published in the magazine during the the of Bell & approach to advertising in Nature Magazine is a from the 1928 issue. The of the advertisement is with an an and for the in of The as and a FILMO 70 to his to capture footage of the this the for Bell & Howell FILMO the is to that the is the as the to in the film. In the that the by the to as a making of who a this to a In this short the nature more on the visual image of the the animal is further to as of discourse that applies anthropomorphic to the In the late and early twentieth this of was popular in work from literature to the and wildlife films of animals as individual in the advertising for Bell & FILMO cameras to the of wildlife in such as the at and to attitudes toward and of game Additionally, the of the advertisement is exploited through the to “a humane This camera hunting is a more than traditional by to the of the The advertisement a narrative of where both men and animals are through the camera hunting advertisement in the of Nature Magazine to be an of a Bell & Howell advertisement printed the in This advertisement features the of the with the FILMO the of his is not an but a still image of a in the The is on by large of both the FILMO and the FILMO 70. The use of a of a (as to the of the is as the is the only representation of in the Even the cameras of the in the as the of the its image is exploited in the service of the The image is in its the is yet present in its form but and by its the masculine of the the of the than a is also the example, this advertisement on the In this in large the images, are the and, is It is that is in which between and hunters. To as the is to be a still focus on is in a Bell & Howell advertisement from Nature issue. This advertisement features the FILMO a movie camera that more in the way footage is particularly in the of The the to with this of all movie the is as the of the The features a of a with an image of the FILMO image the The of the advertisement to to the from a his 100 have But with the new FILMO 70 With this camera a distant of at the of his a telephoto lens into place for a and change for a movie of his a the in the of the trying to his By the animal in the its from the yet which were written by a white for a white from the perspective of a and The is thus exploited in a to the While not a the the for the FILMO a more for an camera advertisements, as textual and the in which they were produced to a time in white when the as for a its the camera hunting other forms of early-twentieth-century for with disposable to the and of the This is in the creation and of in the United of and in the early twentieth century and in the interwar period The of modern men for an imagined time when and in what they as was and by the industrial from which the hobby hobby of camera especially when bolstered by a that to a commodity is complicated by the factors in which it even that when by yet another form of wrote that this of is with the of and the which a and and which as its have much in with the of use of the is of of making use and from has a to the Bell & Howell advertisements These advertisements camera hunters to of wildlife and wild through filmmaking and thus from the through the of material film that as in the way of trophy or in the study of a of be the of a be by the attempt to or In this as the Bell & Howell advertisements in this the is of potential filmmakers by with the masculine for though the of the hunt were was with a and sophisticated advertising media with game hunting to in a modern market. this the vocabulary of these that hunting anthropomorphic and traditional both the human and the natural yet through these advertisements this was in the of the modern camera-hunting hobby and, the wildlife film these forms of are as for and yet to the hegemonic of the manufactured identity of a camera one that is white, male, and to the hobby as an of The of the advertisements’ and objectifying is evidenced in a of contemporary from the anthropomorphic nature of the to modern “camera and media such as filmmaker While the hobby of camera hunting is by more than white men in the century, the its forms of cultural in a and exploitative vocabulary and mythology created a century

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.