Eugene Atget Appreciation

Don_ih said:

If the "unknown" or "anonymous" artist was known to produce this or that particular body of work, then yes. Case in point: the mythologized Banksy.

I have a large collection of negatives taken by some guy - don't know his name. Do you realistically think you could look through all those images and not start to build an idea of him? Not start to give him an identity?

Click to expand...

It would depend if there is some sort of thread or continuity to the photos. If I handed you a pile of photos from an obscure, mediocre itinerant portrait photographer, what conclusion would you come to besides he or she was an itinerant portrait photographer? Or even in the case of Vivian Meier, what we know about her is anecdotal not much to be learned from her photos about the woman herself.

Alex Benjamin said:

Seems to me like the path from one extreme to the other should be strewn with unexpected and interesting possibilities.

Click to expand...

It is, and you've demonstrated it, and not just in this thread.
Besides, I don't need to offer an alternative. I point out the masturbation that worries me, especially because it's not only hedonistic, but also potentially dangerous. Those who don't engage in it, shouldn't mind my words, as I'm sure they indeed won't.

Don_ih said:

So there's nothing embarrassing about the attribution of lofty ideas to Atget or anyone else like him.

Click to expand...

Not per se, but it was in the case of the quoted teacher, to name just one instance. There are other instances in this thread that I imagine would have in the best case made Atget ROFL if he had still been alive, or perhaps even angered or exasperated him in the worst case. Walk into a bar and tell one of the guests that their presence in a bar undoubtedly means they're an alcoholic. Does that sound fair? Yet, when it comes to attributing motives and thought patterns to an artist based on viewing their work, it's suddenly A-OK.

Don_ih said:

It is completely human to want to understand who that person was.

Click to expand...

Certainly. It's also completely human to project onto a person the image of who we would like them to be (often someone resembling the way we like to see ourselves). Even that, I have no problem with. What I do find very risky is whenever people engage in this, and don't even seem to realize they're doing it and act as if what they say is a firmly established fact. That's just ridiculous, and history has shown many times that this does not necessarily remain at the innocent level of a laughing matter. Appreciation of Atget is great. Appropriation doesn't sound too hot to me - let alone appropriation of a supposed construct of 'good art'. But we've been over that one before, not too long ago.

In terms of offering an alternative, I think there's plenty of room for any critique that's specific, that in an attempt to assess explicates both the norm and the observations this norm is being applied to, and that pays heed to the subjective and culturally embedded nature of the critique as well as the critic. It's those elements that are sorely missing in some of what's been said in this discussion, whenever the critique purported to be universally true, exclusive and objective, while it was none of those three things. And again, even that is fine by me as long as people recognize what it's happening - the opposite of which there are at least two examples in plain view right here on this page.

koraks said:

I point out the masturbation that worries me, especially because it's not only hedonistic, but also potentially dangerous.

Click to expand...

I'd like to reply, but I'm stuck with Woody Allen's Annie Hall quote and I can't stop laughing:

“Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone you love.”

Pieter12 said:

It would depend if there is some sort of thread or continuity to the photos.

Click to expand...

The continuity is provided by the single individual thought to have produced them. And mediocre work doesn't tend to invite much speculation, anyway.

Don't get me wrong: when I'm saying this, I'm not implying there is any objective reality to the posited identity constructed by the critic when assessing the work. That identity is a convenient fiction.

koraks said:

it was in the case of the quoted teacher, to name just one instance

Click to expand...

Yes, and that was pretty readily identified as hot air, because the work doesn't easily support what was being said. The fact is, any talk of motive, intent, meaning, feeling, whatever of the artist has to be available as an interpretation of the work in question. The work is, in the end, all that's truly available. Having access to artwork doesn't enable one to read the mind of the artist.

Don_ih said:

The tendency of practically all art critique is to settle on the artist. An individual work of art -- you can say a certain limited number of things about it. Then the dialogue starts to slip into "what the artist did" and then "what the artist intended" and then "what the artist meant." And when you expand that discussion to numerous artworks all by the same artist, you start to extrapolate a portrait of the artist as creator of these works. That portrait gets made no matter who the artist is, living or dead.

So there's nothing embarrassing about the attribution of lofty ideas to Atget or anyone else like him. It's actually a natural product of attempting to appreciate and perhaps understand a body of work. These things were done and exist for a reason and that reason is locked up within the identity of their creator. It is completely human to want to understand who that person was.

Click to expand...

Beautifully said. Isn’t that what photography is really about? What makes the difference between your photo and my photo of the same thing is our personalities - assuming similar levels of competence.

snusmumriken said:

What makes the difference between your photo and my photo of the same thing is our personalities - assuming similar levels of competence.

Click to expand...

I think context may have a role as well.
Which includes the effects of time.
I thought it particularly interesting how, earlier in this thread, @nikos79 seemed to consider the lack of a viewfinder to be an impediment that had to be dealt with by Atget.
Whereas some might consider using a ground glass equipped view camera to be advantageous. Of course, during Atget's time, he would have been amazed at the possibility of a camera like a modern SLR or RF 35mm camera.
But most importantly though, our view of any work is what we consider to be the "norm". And no matter how hard we try, we are unlikely to be fully successful at putting ourselves into the position of Atget or his contemporaries when he was creating his photographs.
I'd suggest that it isn't particularly useful to spend much time considering Atget's intentions. There may or may not be extraneous evidence of what they were, and that evidence might tell us some interesting, if not particularly important things. What is important though is to see if we can glean what the modern effect is of observing Atget's work, and how seeing it might affect us as viewers and photographers. It can also be important to understand how his work may have affected others in the past.

Alex Benjamin said:

“Don't knock masturbation. It's sex with someone you love.”

Click to expand...

LOL!

Don_ih said:

Having access to artwork doesn't enable one to read the mind of the artist.

Click to expand...

Indeed, and that's ultimately the thing I'm riling against - and the implications of this happening. Of course, that says something about me as well - subjectivity (and indeed, intersubjectivity) applies to me just the same. At least I'm aware of it when I'm being a contentious pr*ck (most of the time at least)!

koraks said:

LOL!



Indeed, and that's ultimately the thing I'm riling against - and the implications of this happening. Of course, that says something about me as well - subjectivity (and indeed, intersubjectivity) applies to me just the same. At least I'm aware of it when I'm being a contentious pr*ck (most of the time at least)!

Click to expand...

You're as direct and honest as a true Dutch!

MattKing said:

I'd suggest that it isn't particularly useful to spend much time considering Atget's intentions.

Click to expand...

I agree but any discussion of art or art-like things invariably drags artist intent into the conversation. It's how the language works. It's also part of our understanding of the artist as a persistent identity that created the work - however variable the work may be.

If you want an example, go look at the recent Cartier-Bresson discussion about that photo of a chain link fence. That entire discussion was premised on the idea that the photo didn't seem like something he'd do. What does that mean? It implies an understanding of who Cartier-Bresson was that absolutely none of us has access to.

nikos79 said:

You're as direct and honest as a true Dutch!

Click to expand...

Nothing more, nothing less.

koraks said:

Of help, how? The lofty words you quoted are a private opinion that is stated in a quasi-factual way. The assertive formulation does little to hide the only obvious fact - that it's just your teacher's opinion that's being expressed. Nothing more, nothing less.

Click to expand...

You don't seem to like opinions, do you?

Arthurwg said:

You don't seem to like opinions, do you?

Click to expand...

I think I've been very clear about what I didn't like about the way that particular opinion was expressed - which wasn't like an opinion. That was the problem.

koraks said:

Okay, we do disagree then. I don't think appreciation necessarily depends on some kind of innate superiority. In fact, I think that's a pretty dangerous and frightening idea.

Click to expand...

The "superiority" might not be "innate," but I do think it depends on a degree of inculturation and education. If you ask an uncontacted tribesman from the Amazon forest what he thinks of Atget, his opinion might not be very valuable.

Arthurwg said:

The "superiority" might not be "innate," but I do think it depends on a degree of inculturation and education. If you ask an uncontacted tribesman from the Amazon forest what he thinks of Atget, his opinion might not be very valuable.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, it may be quite valuable as it would not be tainted by cultural preconceptions.

Pieter12 said:

On the contrary, it may be quite valuable as it would not be tainted by cultural preconceptions.

Click to expand...

It would be tainted by preconceptions, but they would be those of a different culture. Could be interesting.

snusmumriken said:

I can answer my own question after a reverse image search. I’ve never been to Versailles, so forgive my ignorance. This is ‘L’escalier de Cent Marches’, and a web search on that name gives you lots of images, quite a few of which adopt viewpoints in which the Palace itself is hidden, like Atget did.

Click to expand...

If you get the chance I would suggest you go. Really quite something to see. But that's just my opinion.

Pieter12 said:

On the contrary, it may be quite valuable as it would not be tainted by cultural preconceptions.

Click to expand...

That may be true. He or she might even prefer it upside down.

Alex Benjamin said:

Atget's photographs may look old to us, but that's mainly because he was mainly photographing things that were already old to him. His photography itself is very "modern", i.e., in line with his modern times, especially if you compare it to what the pictorialists were doing at the same time. That's partly why the passage from Atget to Walker Evans was so smooth.

Click to expand...

Yes, for sure. I definitely consider Atget a modernist.

I am not advocating this, but I wonder what Atget's pictures would look like if they were converted to colour and applied as dye transfer prints? Yes, I know, I should never have asked the question.

cliveh said:

I am not advocating this, but I wonder what Atget's pictures would look like if they were converted to colour and applied as dye transfer prints? Yes, I know, I should never have asked the question.

Click to expand...

This makes me think of the camera club judges who suggest adding the proverbial "red canoe" to your photo.

MattKing said:

This makes me think of the camera club judges who suggest adding the proverbial "red canoe" to your photo.

Click to expand...

Yes, you quite right Matt and I should wash my mouth out with soap and water and retire from photography for even suggesting it. Atget would turn in his grave.

In the end, photography is all about enjoyment — immersing yourself in the images, seeing the world through the photographer's eyes, and feeling uplifted by the experience. I can’t resist sharing another text from my teacher that speaks to that very sense of enjoyment. Apologies once again, @koraks, for the length — and please feel free to let me know if these posts aren’t relevant to you.

What I hope is that Eugene Atget might enhance that enjoyment if you give his work a chance and dive into his world. If not, that’s perfectly fine — he may not resonate with you, or perhaps the timing isn’t right. My intention has never been to sound 'innately superior,' as was suggested, but simply to share the joy of looking at his photographs and connect through that experience.

Here is the text:

"
Platon Rivellis

My relationship with art, and in particular with photography and cinema, began with my desire to increase the joy and pleasure I could derive from discovering the work of creators. My subsequent involvement in teaching these arts started from my intention to expand the circle of people with whom I could exchange ideas and, above all, share my joy.

As a teacher, my aim was to attempt to teach a method of approaching artists' works — primarily photographers and filmmakers in this context — with the goal of drawing greater intellectual enjoyment. However, I never tried to "explain" or "decipher" works of art, as I believe the charm of art lies in the fact that everything is both apparent and simultaneously mysterious. The viewer does not need to discover or interpret something. The approach is the challenge, not the interpretation. This is achieved through familiarity with the artistic language, both generally regarding each art form and specifically regarding each creator. Consequently, my teaching was not based on history (in general) or the history of each art form (in particular), especially given that the histories of photography and cinema span only a very brief period. My objective was, and remains, to become acquainted with the works of significant creators and to recognize and appreciate their personal artistic language.

Of course, I do not disregard the value that a historical approach to the evolution of each art form can offer. However, what interests me most is the inexplicable presence of artistic genius in the world of art. It is true that a historian can trace, analyze, and perhaps even justify the paths of art over the centuries, but they will not succeed, armed with history, facts, economics, or politics, in explaining the emergence of the greatest creators. I acknowledge and respect historians' need to segment periods and, for the sake of thorough study, to seek connections and attempt to discern common characteristics that, over time and across regions, mark artistic evolution. However, I believe that in the case of photography (and cinema, which emerged from it), there are some more specialized characteristics that do not favor the search for specific directions. Even if certain categories are hastily identified, invented, and articulated, I do not think they contribute to the enjoyment of art.

The unique aspects of photography compared to earlier art forms are numerous and distinctive. First and foremost, it is the only art form that does not owe its origin to religion. Although it has inherited the metaphysical religious influence of other arts, it has never had nor has any direct connection with the religious roots of civilizations or the practice of worship. Additionally, although it produces images, these images have neither materiality nor uniqueness. Every photograph is merely a trace. Its content is essentially an intangible transformation of images that the artist (through a technique common to all) draws from the real world surrounding them. Consequently, what matters is the artist's gaze and the personal world it expresses. One could even argue that photography, the most "objective" art form — using an extremely precise mechanical recording and reproduction of already living images — ultimately becomes the most personal, as the only intervention by the artist is the selection driven by their gaze.

The only version of photographic art that might lend itself to classification into schools and trends reminiscent of those known from the world of painting is photography that seeks to identify with a visual approach, thus shifting the focus from the gaze and transformation to its material surface and the external management of its messages. It is no wonder, then, that the art historian and the exhibition curator sometimes carry greater weight than the creator.

However, most groupings that art history has established for studying the visual arts are related to technique. Such luxury does not exist in the case of photography. Its technique is given and follows technological advancements that affect everyone. Yet this is also part of its strength. A photograph taken a century ago and printed with today's means appears completely contemporary. What is depicted could result from careful staging, as the photograph itself is always true and always (through the gaze) staged. On the other hand, categorizing photographs based on their subject matter constitutes an easy classification, but a completely useless one, as what matters is never the "what" but the "how."

Moreover, any adjectives one might use to group photographers and photographs would, by definition, negate the artistic quality and value of the medium. Labeling a photographic work as activist, political, travel-related, sports-focused, erotic, advertising, commercial (or anything else one might imagine) obliterates the artistic value of the photograph under the heavy weight of motives or objectives.

I believe that the only distinction that could aid the understanding of photography is the one that seeks its intentions: whether the aim is information or poetry, documentation or transformation. The boundaries may not always be clear, but the effort to discern them aids in approaching the medium with the goal of enjoyment.
"

Going back to snusmumriken's comment on a lion, I don't know exactly which picture with its sculptural lion was is in question. I recall a seemingly simple one which can actually be rather compelling. But quite often, sculptural men and creatures in Atget's prints almost look alive - not necessarily real - but vivified as sculptures per se in an uncanny manner. So did his pictures of manakins and merry-go-round horses. That characteristic is probably one of the things which drew Surrealists to his pictures. You've got not only animisms and anthropomorphisms in them, but almost haunted renditions of that. The lion isn't just there atop its stone support with a clawed paw slightly reaching out, but reaching out at YOU.

I’ve read that “Atget photographed Paris as though it were a crime scene.”