I have one or two of his photo books. I thoroughly enjoy them.
I have one or two of his photo books. I thoroughly enjoy them.If Stieglitz didn't like Atget's work, it's likely because he didn't discover it himself, and couldn't promote himself with it.
Me? Atget worked hard for many years and was lucky that the Surrealists found his pictures late in his life. Which brought Berenice Abbott into the picture, who saw the incredible pictorial qualities of his best work- which does stand out from the large amount of pure documentary work he did. That doc work has historical interest of its own- but the magic in Atet's best photographs is unparalleled and has been a source of enjoyment to many people, and an inspiration to ninety years of photographers since.
Just a few favorites...
- The Seine (with the wagon backed into the corner of the bridge on the left and the barges in the river seen through the arch of the bridge.)
- The Organ Grinder and the Singer
- The Interior with the table set for lunch.
- The Chateau de SavignY, St. Orge
- Que D'Aniou on a misty morning.
- Detail,, Garanciere Fountain
I love studying his photographs of the ragpickers which entirely by themselves is something no one else had the time or the inclination to capture. Records? Certainly! Records of a disappearing lifestyle and city.
There are many other photographs as well, I could go on for a very long time. The detail in his photographs, the play of shadows in many of them, is something that many struggle to capture, including myself. As an example, the shadow play on the Detail of the Garaciere Fountain makes that appear to be a photoraph of a living, breathing demon. And for those development snobs among us, all of this was stand developed. I never cease to be amazed at the body of work that he captured and I suspect this is not all of it since much of it was sold as part of his business. This was literally his life's work.
I will forever be thankful that Ms Abbott thought that his work was important enough to save, especially when you consider that she was a young aspiring artist herself at the time. In fact, if you read her Biography you find that much of her time in later life was spent working to ensure this collection was saved for all of us.
Finally I feel that all beginning photographers would be well served by studying (not just paging through) Atget's work.
How is Atget the Vincent Van Gogh of photography?Amen. The Vincent van Gogh of photography.
Ditto. It's a good biography, and worthwhile.I will forever be thankful that Ms Abbott thought that his work was important enough to save, especially when you consider that she was a young aspiring artist herself at the time. In fact, if you read her Biography you find that much of her time in later life was spent working to ensure this collection was saved for all of us.
Fortunately that is not necessary Pieter. There are a lot of excellent photographers to pick from so we all gets lots of opportunities to find our favorites.I have read her biography and it is a good read. However, I am not a big fan of her work, nor that of M Atget.
How is Atget the Vincent Van Gogh of photography?
I can't understand how anyone can produce such fabulous art through a photomechanical process. It is almost that some of his images transcend human interaction through a physical an chemical process.
I can't understand how anyone can produce such fabulous art through a photomechanical process. It is almost that some of his images transcend human interaction through a physical an chemical proc
Oh, but time is very much a dimension in his images. Although parts of Paris remain similar, many others he records have changed enormously, dating the scene. I really don't get the obsession with Atget, he had a good eye, but his purpose was to use the new technology of photography to provide stock images for painters and sculptors. Berenice Abbott's incessant promotion played a great part in what has created his status as an icon today. She really loved his work, thought he was an unrecognized genius and bought his negatives from the estate. She had a great financial interest in making his work important and collectable.It's almost as though he is presenting images observed outside the dimension of time.
Oh, but time is very much a dimension in his images. Although parts of Paris remain similar, many others he records have changed enormously, dating the scene. I really don't get the obsession with Atget, he had a good eye, but his purpose was to use the new technology of photography to provide stock images for painters and sculptors. Berenice Abbott's incessant promotion played a great part in what has created his status as an icon today. She really loved his work, thought he was an unrecognized genius and bought his negatives from the estate. She had a great financial interest in making his work important and collectable.
Years ago, I read of a statement that John Szarkowski made. He said that, if MOMA were on fire and he could only save one photograph by each photographer in the museum's collection, he would agonize over which Ansel Adams photograph to save. But in the case of Atget? "That's easy--I would take whichever one was on top of the stack." The point being that he viewed them all as worthy of being spared from the inferno. I'm personally very grateful that Szarkowski held Atget in such high regard, because the various Atget publications in which Szarkowski played a part are priceless, in my view.I disagree with some of this statement. As when I look at some (not all) of Atget's images, I am not concerned with Berenice Abbott's promotion or any hype. I can only comment on what I see before me as pure genius.
Or did he view them as interchangeable, indifferent.Years ago, I read of a statement that John Szarkowski made. He said that, if MOMA were on fire and he could only save one photograph by each photographer in the museum's collection, he would agonize over which Ansel Adams photograph to save. But in the case of Atget? "That's easy--I would take whichever one was on top of the stack." The point being that he viewed them all as worthy of being spared from the inferno. I'm personally very grateful that Szarkowski held Atget in such high regard, because the various Atget publications in which Szarkowski played a part are priceless, in my view.
If you read any of Szarkowski's writings on Atget (literally any of them at all), "indifferent" is the very last word that would come to mind. The man knew his art, he knew his history of photography, and knew quite a bit about quite a lot.Or did he view them as interchangeable, indifferent.
Or did he view them as interchangeable, indifferent.
Maybe damning with faint praise...he calls him interesting. Not great, not a genius, not original.As a matter of fact, take a look at the last paragraph on the page linked here (the quote by Szarkowski):
http://www.checkerboardfilms.org/films/show/n/eugene-atget
Indifferent? Hardly.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?