Read any of the numerous books that Szarkowski took the time to write on Atget. He sure spent a lot of time and energy publishing books and curating shows on Atget for someone you suggest was damning a photographer that he was so effusive over. Are Szarkowski’s writings on this topic new to you? That’s an honest question: have you ever actually read any of his writings on Atget?Maybe damning with faint praise...he calls him interesting. Not great, not a genius, not original.
Read any of the numerous books that Szarkowski took the time to write on Atget. He sure spent a lot of time and energy publishing books and curating shows on Atget for someone you suggest was damning a photographer that he was so effusive over.
"Certain men of the past century have been renoticed who stood away from this confusion. Eugène Atget worked right through a period of utter decadence in photography. He was simply isolated, and his story is a little difficult to understand. Apparently he was oblivious to every-thing but the necessity of photographing Paris and its environs: but just what vision he carried in him of the monument he was leaving behind is not clear. It is possible to read into his photographs so many things he may never have formulated to himself. In some of his work he even places himself in a position to be pounced upon by the most orthodox of surrealists. His general note is lyrical understanding of the street, trained observation of it, special feeling for patina, eye for revealing detail, over all of which is thrown a poetry which is not “the poetry of the street” or “the poetry of Paris” but the projection of Atget’s person."
Walker Evans on Atget, in 'The Reappearance of Photography' in Hound and Horn no. 5 (October-December 1931)
A few things stated in this thread need to be corrected. Berenice Abbott did not "discover" Atget, as seems to be implied in some comments. He was a well known figure, and revered by the surrealists throughout the 20s. First time Abbott saw a print of Atget was in fact in Man Ray's studio in 1925, and many of his photographs were included in the Premier Salon Indépendant de la Photography in Paris in 1928, one year after his death.
Even though he spent time in France in the 1920s, Evans discovered Atget later, in New York, thanks to the photographs Abbott brought back with her and the book she published. No other photographer, safe August Sander, had a greater influence on Evans' development than Atget - you can literally see him "quoting" Atget in many of his photographs of the 30s. Without Atget, there's no American Photographs.
Szarkowski indeed understood Atget's major importance in the history of modern photography - as can clearly be read in the press release for the Atget retrospective he curated at MoMA in 1969.
Euro romantics.
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 have that set as well. A steal at $200 for all 4 books.I have the four-volume set from MOMA. One of the favorites in my library.
I have read two books, one by Ms Abbott, the other by Mr Szarkowski. I do appreciate M Abbott's place in history. I do like some of his photos, especially of people. I just don't think he is the photographic god that some do. A matter of taste. Just like I get bored with Ansel Adams' work and many others deemed to be untouchable masters.Read any of the numerous books that Szarkowski took the time to write on Atget. He sure spent a lot of time and energy publishing books and curating shows on Atget for someone you suggest was damning a photographer that he was so effusive over. Are Szarkowski’s writings on this topic new to you? That’s an honest question: have you ever actually read any of his writings on Atget?
I have read two books, one by Ms Abbott, the other by Mr Szarkowski. I do appreciate M Abbott's place in history. I do like some of his photos, especially of people. I just don't think he is the photographic god that some do. A matter of taste. Just like I get bored with Ansel Adams' work and many others deemed to be untouchable masters.
Ditto.I have the four-volume set from MOMA. One of the favorites in my library.
Ditto.
I own a lot of photography books of various artists, old and new, and most of my own education has been advanced using their examples. But of all of them the books I would grab instantly to save from a fire is that 4 volume set from the Museum of Modern Art. I go to those books for inspiration over and over again.
Of course it is not necessary for everyone to be inspired by Atget's work or even to like his work. Everyone finds their own muse and is inspired by different things. That is how it is supposed to work. I would never buy a book of photographs from Diane Arbus, Bruce Gilden or Robert Frank. Their style does not fit my own in any way. I may not understand it but I do know who they are and I do recognize their impact on photography.
Well...maybe not Robert Frank.
An interesting perspective.I spent almost 4 weeks on the road this summer, driving through 35 states. Robert Frank was on my mind quite a bit. A trip like that gives one a whole new appreciation for The Americans.
I don't agree with the first part of this, but in any case the second part is surely remarkable enough?I just don't see any aesthetic sense in his images, only a nostalgic sense of place.
You can say that againAtget is visual poetry.
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?