• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Eugene Atget Appreciation: a sideshow about 'knockers' and the ethics of forum posting

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alan Edward Klein

Member
Allowing Ads
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
10,425
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
{Moderator note: this thread was split off of the original one to shunt off a diversion about the ethics of female-friendly posting.}

Frankly, I've seen better knockers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well, the banter can get kinda sophomoric peep-showish at times on some of these forums, perhaps better suited for a dedicated section on nude photog. But I wouldn't want to press for moderator action if it's low key. It's no secret that Atget photographed prostitutes; but it was a pretty small part of his overall inventory. But sometimes a line gets crossed; I'm not insinuating it has in this particular instance, but it certainly could. Sure, I have plenty of examples of famous nude photography on my own photo book shelves - Stieglitz, Wynn Bullock etc. I just don't like feeling like I'm back in a high school lunch room conversation 60 yrs ago, or hearing more of the disrespectful blue collar descriptions of women, and jokes about them, I heard to at work for 40 yrs. I don't care about Robert's Rules of Order; but what would women themselves on this forum think about it?
 
Last edited:

It's a legitimate question whether his nude photos were art or voyeurism or something else. French Post-Impressionist Paul Gauguin painted nude underage indigenous girls in the South Seas where he retired and married a 13 year-old and became very controversial for his paintings, especially today. It would be interesting to hear from women here what they think about Atget's photos.
 
Alan Edward Klein said:
It would be interesting to hear from women here what they think about Atget's photos.
Click to expand...

Wild guess: you'll get a huge variety of opinions, because, fun fact: not all women think alike.
 
Alex Benjamin said:
Wild guess: you'll get a huge variety of opinions, because, fun fact: not all women think alike.
Click to expand...

We may get opinions we haven't heard here yet, as they would have a different perspective. Wouldn't it be interesting to know what they think? Frankly, I believe many women are better photographers than men because men get caught up with technical aspects like sharpness, how many stops, DOF, etc. while women are more concerned with personal relationships and feelings, especially in portraiture.
 
Don_ih said:
Classical poses aren't lascivious?
Click to expand...

That’s certainly a debate one can have, but perhaps it’s not relevant here. Atget clearly accepted the classically styled statues of undraped women as part of the Ancient Regime whose traces he was documenting. It’s not a huge presumption to suppose that he admired them and sought to emulate the style with live models and photography. We don’t need to get involved with the rightness or wrongness of his point of view (pun unintended).

And anyway, he may have been supplying those nudes to artists who preferred not to deal with living models. AFAIK, there’s no reason to suppose he took the photos as a personal project.
 
Last edited:
snusmumriken said:
he may have been supplying those nudes to artists
Click to expand...

He likely was.

And I don't think a debate about this is needed here. But it's a good idea to acknowledge that humans act on their desires probably more than on their elevated concepts. If one were to carry the complaint back to the artists that such art (photographic, painted, or sculpted nudes) objectifies women, the farther back in time you go, the more you'd get the response, "Well, yeah! That's the point." Art and the concept of beauty were not always so abstracted from genuine physical nature and desire. So while maybe people don't like the idea of Atget rushing home to develop his plates to get a better "appreciation" of the female form he just photographed - if he did, he likely saw nothing unusual about it.

Fun stuff.
 
DREW WILEY said:
Why do threads have to drift this direction?
Click to expand...
cliveh said:
I would agree with this. Many threads seem to be debased in this way.
Click to expand...
Factually speaking this doesn't happen a lot at all here on Photrio.
Factually speaking what happened in this thread was a fairly innocuous pun that resulted in a brief and polite exchange of the possible motivations of this small part of Atget's work. This happened on pp24-25 of a long thread where pretty much everything we know about the man has been said, by now. The fact that this dimension of his work is also touched upon is fair & square especially in the manner it was done.

The only thing that's slightly disruptive to the thread is the framing of a nonexistent problem. It's disrespectful to those who intended and succeeded in conducting an inherently respectful exchange of views.

Live & let live, and if there's a problem, use the 'report' function instead of trying to 'solve' it by pouring a mixture of acid and gasoline on it.
 

I saw nothin'. I heard nothin'. I know nothin'.
 
cliveh said:
I would agree with this. Many threads seem to be debased in this way.
Click to expand...

Yes and often enough that such flippery like making a pun about women's breasts is one of the reasons we do not get many women here expressing their views. They get enough toxic mascalinity in real life. (deleted comment)

Also I meant flippant -- not flippery as in having flippers.
 
Last edited:
DREW WILEY said:
Well, the banter can get kinda sophomoric peep-showish at times on some of these forums
Click to expand...
Vaughn said:
Yes and often enough that such flippery like making a pun about women's breasts is one of the reasons we do not get many women here expressing their views. They get enough toxic mascalinity in real life.
Click to expand...

I would like to second my agreement with what @DREW WILEY and @Vaughn have said. I think it is too common for oafish comments to get lightly dismissed as, "boys will be boys," which may be true enough, but none the less, likely to sound offensive to some forum members.

One litmus test participants might use before posting a comment about female anatomy would be to ask themselves, "Would I say this at the dinner table if my mother, wife, and daughter were present?"

To my ear, the comment, "I've seen better knockers," does not sound like part of an inherently respectful exchange of views on a public forum, and probably should have been self-censored.
 
snusmumriken said:
But not in a lascivious way. It seems like he was seeking classical poses.
Click to expand...

This got me thinking, besides selling nude studies to painters, what would work best for cityscape painters. I was going through images of Atget online looking for ferns in the foreground, instead I found a common feature in many of his works -- an open and visually quick to move through foreground. An alley or road, steps, open space, etc. moving through the lower 1/3 of the frame or so. This would be expected, it is natural to construct a path for the eye to travel up into one's image. But also I think it would be a good composition style for images to be sold to painters...they would be free to create their own foreground and make it their own painting while taking advantage of the camera perspective..
 
Alan Edward Klein said:
French Post-Impressionist Paul Gauguin painted nude underage indigenous girls in the South Seas where he retired and married a 13 year-old and became very controversial for his paintings, especially today.
Click to expand...

I believe that Gauguin has become almost cancelled over this. Too bad as he was a truly great painter,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register