Eugene Atget Appreciation

[DREW WILEY]

He didn't print large. Many book images are larger than the originals. I have the full four volume Marie Morris Hambourg MMA set. It's excellently printed as well as researched.

 

[cliveh]

 

[DREW WILEY]

A thousand photographers could have taken that scene, and they'd just be statues. Atget makes them seem almost "spooky" alive, like ghosts watching you and one another, or as if living chess pieces. The tree tunnel might be beautiful, but in this case it's also intimidating - a walk into a haunted forest, if you dare.

And once again, he compositional sense of balance is remarkable. It's an image is seen before, probably in one of my books.

 

[Arthurwg]

A thousand photographers could have taken that scene, and they'd just be statues. Atget makes them seem almost "spooky" alive, like ghosts watching you and one another, or as if living chess pieces. The tree tunnel might be beautiful, but in this case it's also intimidating - a walk into a haunted forest, if you dare.

It's called "sensibility."

 

[DREW WILEY]

Sensibility can mean all kinds of things. Atget had an uncanny ability to turn seemingly simple scenes into something surreal, almost possessed, especially later in his life. Inanimate objects become animate. He should have directed "The Shining" instead of Kubrick; it would have been even better in black and white.

 

[cliveh]

I think it is more than sensibility. I would suggest if you do something over and over again (with minimal variation of process) ad infinitum until death, there comes a point when something else takes over and you are the mere technician. Look at Messi, who can score a goal without even looking at the goal.

 

[cliveh]

 

[DREW WILEY]

Oh, oh... Brings me back to my sales days. Had a lady from a snooty rich neighborhood buy forged brass lion head door knockers at $500 apiece for drawer pulls all over her immense kitchen! She did it so she could literally wave the receipt at her conspicuous consumption rivals. I dreaded those types. We had a showroom right in the middle of that snooty town.

Back to Atget - even that lion looks alive, and not merely as an ornament. Sure, a mighty good craftsman made it;
but how it came out so well in the photo amazes me.

 

[Don_ih]

I found two photos of the same knocker (because I was curious/bored).

from here.

And one from Flickr

The colour difference is odd. But they sure seem to be the same thing. Apparently, at hotel de la Monnaie, Paris.

​

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

The film, processing, and equipment of the time added to the mystery of photos taken then.

 

[lecarp]

I found two photos of the same knocker (because I was curious/bored).

View attachment 421401
from here.

And one from Flickr

View attachment 421402

The colour difference is odd. But they sure seem to be the same thing. Apparently, at hotel de la Monnaie, Paris.

​

Same subject, pale in comparison to the life Atget gave it. He knew his tools well.

 

[snusmumriken]

I know this will go down like a lead balloon with those who venerate Atget without question, but please explain to me why you are praising Atget and not the artist who sculpted that very fine knocker?

In case anyone thinks I am down on Atget, nothing could be further from the truth. I love the previous image (post #577), for example, though I think I’d love it more if the foot of the nearest pedestal hadn’t been cut off. But by posting this lion knocker, @Don_ih has hit exactly the thing that is difficult and puzzling about Atget.

 

[warden]

I know this will go down like a lead balloon with those who venerate Atget without question, but please explain to me why you are praising Atget and not the artist who sculpted that very fine knocker?

In case anyone thinks I am down on Atget, nothing could be further from the truth. I love the previous image (post #577), for example, though I think I’d love it more if the foot of the nearest pedestal hadn’t been cut off. But by posting this lion knocker, @Don_ih has hit exactly the thing that is difficult and puzzling about Atget.

It is a fantastic knocker, no doubt about it. And while I think Atget made a fine image of it, most people on this forum could make an equally fine image of that knocker.

 

[cliveh]

I know this will go down like a lead balloon with those who venerate Atget without question, but please explain to me why you are praising Atget and not the artist who sculpted that very fine knocker?

In case anyone thinks I am down on Atget, nothing could be further from the truth. I love the previous image (post #577), for example, though I think I’d love it more if the foot of the nearest pedestal hadn’t been cut off. But by posting this lion knocker, @Don_ih has hit exactly the thing that is difficult and puzzling about Atget.

Not a lead balloon, as you have a very valid point. Looking at the image I can appreciate the artist who made it and also Atget's photographic record of it. The lighting he has chosen is perfect (no strobe lights employed here).

 

[cliveh]

As Don_ih has been kind enough to identify the location of this Knocker at hotel de la Monnaie, Paris, I would certainly pay it a visit if I ever visit Paris again. As warden has stated that
'most people on this forum could make an equally fine image of that knocker' I would suggest that any member of Photrio visiting Paris should have a go and put this to the test. As I use 35mm, I'm pretty sure I couldn't replicate anything like this. Any challenges?

 

[lecarp]

I know this will go down like a lead balloon with those who venerate Atget without question, but please explain to me why you are praising Atget and not the artist who sculpted that very fine knocker?

In case anyone thinks I am down on Atget, nothing could be further from the truth. I love the previous image (post #577), for example, though I think I’d love it more if the foot of the nearest pedestal hadn’t been cut off. But by posting this lion knocker, @Don_ih has hit exactly the thing that is difficult and puzzling about Atget.

Agreed, the knocker is exquisite, Atget must of had an appreciation for it as well.
And, the praise being center on Atget was due to this being a discussion of appreciation for the photographer, not a lack thereof for the exceptional skill of the artisan creating knocker.

Not to insult anyone but I doubt "most" of the people on this forum could make an image equal to the Atget image.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

please explain to me why you are praising Atget and not the artist who sculpted that very fine knocker?

My immediate answer would be "Because Atget did."

I'm not saying this in jest. There is always a double intent in most of Atget's photographs: document and tribute. Whether he is photographing a gardrail, an ornement, a marble floor, sculptures in a parc, he is constantly paying tribute to past craftsmanship — that of the sculpter, the woodsman, the blacksmith, the garden designer, etc. There is not nostalgia per se in Atget's photographs, but often a sense of "They don't make them like this any more". This is where lies one of the main difference between him and Walker Evans. Both are interested in, and fascinated by, object of the past, but where Atget points to the making of the object — an admiration of both the object and how it was done —, Evans points to its (past) usage. They are both documenting, but there is a social aspect in the way Evans looks at objects that is absent in Atget.

 

[runswithsizzers]

please explain to me why you are praising Atget and not the artist who sculpted that very fine knocker?

A fascinating point, which I think too often goes without mention in photography. That is, if a photo is successful, how much of that success is due to qualities inherent to the subject ? And at what point (if any) should the subject be given attribution or credit for contributing significantly to a photo?

I think there is a spectrum of subject matter with nature and landscapes defining one end, and "art" at the other end. Falling in the middle are architecture and portraiture. For example, I think all subject matter in nature and landscape photography is considered to be public domain, and few photographers feel they need to give credit to the creator/Creator for using their/His intellectual property (tho perhaps we should ;-)

On the other hand, if I were to ever take a photograph of a photograph, or a painting, or any other fine art, I think it is only fair -- or at the very least, good manners -- to give credit to the artist (if known). Often these kinds of works are signed, and attribution is relatively easy.

To my way of thinking, models often make significant, active, creative contributions to the success of studio portraits, and I think they should be credited as co-creators of the work.

Architecture is less often signed, and I think of public buildings as being more towards the landscape-no-attribution-needed end of the spectrum. The same with a lot of craft, such as furniture.

Here, I think the subject of Atget's lion head door knocker falls into the craft/architecture category, and personally, I would probably not go to a lot of trouble researching its provenance. However, I do appreciate brief captions such as the title of the work and date, where known.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

A fascinating point, which I think too often goes without mention in photography. That is, if a photo is successful, how much of that success is due to qualities inherent to the subject ? And at what point (if any) should the subject be given attribution or credit for contributing significantly to a photo?

I think there is a spectrum of subject matter with nature and landscapes defining one end, and "art" at the other end. Falling in the middle are architecture and portraiture. For example, I think all subject matter in nature and landscape photography is considered to be public domain, and few photographers feel they need to give credit to the creator/Creator for using their/His intellectual property (tho perhaps we should ;-)

On the other hand, if I were to ever take a photograph of a photograph, or a painting, or any other fine art, I think it is only fair -- or at the very least, good manners -- to give credit to the artist (if known). Often these kinds of works are signed, and attribution is relatively easy.

To my way of thinking, models often make significant, active, creative contributions to the success of studio portraits, and I think they should be credited as co-creators of the work.

Architecture is less often signed, and I think of public buildings as being more towards the landscape-no-attribution-needed end of the spectrum. The same with a lot of craft like furniture.

Here, I think the subject of Atget's lion head door knocker falls into the craft/architecture category, and personally, I would probably not go to a lot of trouble researching its provenance. However, I do appreciate brief captions such as the title of the work and date, where known.

My photo club, when doing contests, does not allow photos of art objects per se unless the photographer presents them in some way that adds to the aesthetic. The rationale being the artistic design belongs to the artist who made the piece.

 

[Don_ih]

Atget's photo is a view of the knocker and not the knocker itself. So, while it does allow for an appreciation of the knocker (since that is the actual subject), the photo has its own characteristics which set it apart as something in-itself to be appreciated. And, frankly, Atget's photo brings a more vibrant life to the knocker than the other two. His angle of view and the light when he took the photo bring out a certain expression that isn't visible on either of the other images. He didn't have to choose that angle. But he did.

give credit to the creator/Creator for using their/His intellectual property

If you look at work surviving from antiquity, you find that sentiment is actually pretty common. It was normal to thank the "muse" - or whatever analogue was in place (some deity or other) - for the inspiration of the work, for bringing about the soul of the work.

As warden has stated that
'most people on this forum could make an equally fine image of that knocker' I would suggest that any member of Photrio visiting Paris should have a go and put this to the test. As I use 35mm, I'm pretty sure I couldn't replicate anything like this.

I think that's a stellar idea (although I'll never be in Paris or anywhere else, for that matter). You could approximate the photo with 35mm on a tripod - you may need a close-up screw-on lens for your Leica (or the close-up adapter that the lens attaches to) (maybe it could be done with a Visoflex).

I don't think it would be easy to get the same photo as Atget. I do think it would be possible to get a good photo, the photo you want, and be satisfied with the result.

 

[runswithsizzers]

When I have looked at books containing the photos of Eugene Atget, and when I look at online collections like this one:

Amazing Photos by Eugène Atget Capture the Vanished Streets of Old Paris, 1900s - Rare Historical Photos

These photos, taken by Eugène Atget, document all of the architecture and street scenes of Paris before their disappearance to modernization.

rarehistoricalphotos.com

...each photo has a title and a date. Some of the titles shown are English translations, but most are in French, often describing a location, or if people, their occupation.

The site above, mentions a little about Atget's record keeping:
"After taking a photograph, Atget would develop, wash, and fix his negative, then assign the negative to one of his filing categories with the next consecutive number that he would write the negative number in graphite on the verso of the negative and also scratch it into the emulsion."
So, I assume the titles that appear with Atget's photos were assigned by Atget, himself?

 

[snusmumriken]

There is always a double intent in most of Atget's photographs: document and tribute.

Certainly. But the discussion here is always whether there was a third intent, an artistic pretension. Or whether he was ‘only’ a craftsman doing his self-appointed task tastefully. And in the latter case, is art then an emergent quality?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Certainly. But the discussion here is always whether there was a third intent, an artistic pretension. Or whether he was ‘only’ a craftsman doing his self-appointed task tastefully. And in the latter case, is art then an emergent quality?

Quite often great artistry is a by-product of great craftsmanship. You'll never be able to tell when artistry was intentional and when it was accidental, so to speak.

This doesn't only apply to Atget. Nor just to photography.

 

[cliveh]

Certainly. But the discussion here is always whether there was a third intent, an artistic pretension. Or whether he was ‘only’ a craftsman doing his self-appointed task tastefully. And in the latter case, is art then an emergent quality?

I would suggest that any craft that requires continual repetition produces art as an emergent quality.

 

[Besk]

Don_ih's comment "Atget's photo is a view of the knocker and not the knocker itself. So, while it does allow for an appreciation of the knocker (since that is the actual subject), the photo has its own characteristics which set it apart as something in-itself to be appreciated. And, frankly, Atget's photo brings a more vibrant life to the knocker than the other two. His angle of view and the light when he took the photo bring out a certain expression that isn't visible on either of the other images. He didn't have to choose that angle. But he did."

Is exactly what I think. My inclination would be to shoot the knocker head-on. At least I can admire Atget's work even if I am unable to duplicate it.