Eugene Atget Appreciation

[nikos79]

Yes, based on the elitist argument that Bach was a genius. I don't disagree necessarily with that assessment, but what makes it iffy is that (1) the recognition of the man's genius is apparently sanctioned only for those 'in the know', and (2) appreciation of Bach needs to be put into perspective of something else, which is implied should not be recognized as genius. I'd like to observe that at the peak of her fame, Shakira moved a vastly larger number of people with her work than Bach ever did at any given time (although you may argue that the total sum over time might be in favor of Bach, but he did have a 300 year head-start). Indeed, the words 'innate superiority' are mine. Let's call a duck, a duck.

I would argue that the number of people you move is inversely proportional to your value as an artist.

 

[nikos79]

He gets the basic biographical facts right, but there are some important mistakes that show his interpretive bias. Here, for example:

A year before his death, he visited the studio of Man Ray, a successful fashion photographer well-known in surrealist circles, who occasionally purchased photographs from him. There, he met the American photographer Berenice Abbott, who was working as Man Ray’s assistant. Abbott immediately recognized Atget’s significance, bought many of his photographs...

He makes it sound like Man Ray's relationship with the Surrealists was anecdotal — he wasn't "well-known in surrealist circles," he was part of the movement, and an important one at that. Moreover, he makes it sound like Abbott "discovered" Atget. Not the case. The Surrealists were well aware of his importance, and, as was typical with the movement, appropriated him as, if not one of them, at least a precursor. Three of his photographs appeared in 1926 (one year before his death) in the journal The Surrealist Revolution (La révolution surréaliste), and the Surrealists organized an exhibition of his works in 1928, after his death.

Interesting didn't know that! Will try to get the facts right!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Interesting didn't know that! Will try to get the facts right!

Since you live in Lausanne, you probably read French. Here's an interesting article on the subject :

Atget, figure réfléchie du surréalisme

Les tenants de l'avant-garde photographique des années 20 ont fait d'Eugène Atget, mort en 1927, le père fondateur de la photographie moderne. Cela fut d'autant plus facile que cette reconnaissa...

journals.openedition.org

 

[nikos79]

Since you live in Lausanne, you probably read French. Here's an interesting article on the subject :

Atget, figure réfléchie du surréalisme

Les tenants de l'avant-garde photographique des années 20 ont fait d'Eugène Atget, mort en 1927, le père fondateur de la photographie moderne. Cela fut d'autant plus facile que cette reconnaissa...

journals.openedition.org

Thanks for sharing Alex! My French is kind of broken though I am mostly fluent in Greek and somewhat English. But will definitely read it!

 

[snusmumriken]

Since you live in Lausanne, you probably read French. Here's an interesting article on the subject :

Atget, figure réfléchie du surréalisme

Les tenants de l'avant-garde photographique des années 20 ont fait d'Eugène Atget, mort en 1927, le père fondateur de la photographie moderne. Cela fut d'autant plus facile que cette reconnaissa...

journals.openedition.org

One problem with gleaning information from the internet is that I can never remember where I read something. Correct me if I have mis-remembered this, but I think the Surrealists - in so much as they were ever a group with one voice - appropriated some of Atget’s photos and published them with invented captions that were not Atget’s own, thereby turning them into Surreal items. I believe I also read that Atget distanced himself from this (I would have thought it was an inexcusable liberty!). The fact that some people associated with Surrealism later organised an exhibition does not mean that Surrealists as a bunch understood Atget to be a notable photographer in his own right.

As I said, please correct me if I’ve got this cock-eyed.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

One problem with gleaning information from the internet is that I can never remember where I read something. Correct me if I have mis-remembered this, but I think the Surrealists - in so much as they were ever a group with one voice - appropriated some of Atget’s photos and published them with invented captions that were not Atget’s own, thereby turning them into Surreal items. I believe I also read that Atget distanced himself from this (I would have thought it was an inexcusable liberty!). The fact that some people associated with Surrealism later organised an exhibition does not mean that Surrealists as a bunch understood Atget to be a notable photographer in his own right.

As I said, please correct me if I’ve got this cock-eyed.

You're absolutely right. The Surrealists appropriated Atget, as they did Apollinaire, Douanier Rousseau and others. They truly admired them, but on their own terms—seeing them either as one of their own or as a precursor. Understanding intent would have made no sense for them.

That said, if the Surrealists had their interpretation, the Americans developed their own. What's interesting is neither is totally wrong, in the sense that they both, separately, offer a possible and plausible interpretation of the work, or rather, of where it may lead.

 

[nikos79]

What a great discussion. I would like to offer a small tidbit. My friend the late Louie Stettner and I once had a conversation about the impossibility of working like Atget. Photography of the urban landscape and artifacts today merely become pictures of cars parked in every available spot on a street. Atget’s pictures are monuments to a lost world.

I’ve always been a huge fan of Louis Stettner’s work, especially his writings in Camera 35 magazine during the ’70s. I can only imagine the incredible discussions you must have shared with him! It seems that all the great photographers held Eugène Atget in the highest regard.

 

[nikos79]

It always struck me as "funny" how a scene like that is devoid of a single person.
There could have been humans all over the outside of the frame..... who knows.
Just something i always found interesting.

Atget worked with a large-format camera and glass plate negatives, which required long exposure times, especially in low-light conditions like the early mornings when he often photographed. Any moving subjects — like people or carriages — would either appear as blurred figures or not show up at all if they moved quickly enough.

 

[cliveh]

 

[nikos79]

The subtle counter-clockwise tilt, the dark mass on the left, the delicate balance of volumes, and the mysterious stairs leading to nowhere — a composition that defies all conventional rules, yet remains utterly unique. It’s a photograph that evokes a sense of tension and unease, drawing the viewer into its quiet "agony."

 

[Don_ih]

It’s a photograph that evokes a sense of tension and unease, drawing the viewer into its quiet "agony."

That's quite a claim.

There's nothing wrong with "I think this would be a neat photo." No agony required.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

That's quite a claim.

There's nothing wrong with "I think this would be a neat photo." No agony required.

The beauty of photography is that you are allowed to see what your feelings say you're seeing, on two conditions: that you are willing to confront what your feelings say you see with what your eyes know is shown, and that you not attempt to convince others that what your feelings say you see is what actually is.

 

[koraks]

a composition that defies all conventional rules, yet remains utterly unique

It's a good example that within all of Atget's interesting photographs, he had some duds that just didn't work.

 

[snusmumriken]

The beauty of photography is that you are allowed to see what your feelings say you're seeing, on two conditions: that you are willing to confront what your feelings say you see with what your eyes know is shown, and that you not attempt to convince others that what your feelings say you see is what actually is.

But you are allowed to describe what you feel you see in a photo, in the hope that others concur, or will at least understand what you are saying.

I go along with what @nikos79 wrote in #260 about this image, apart from that last clause about ‘agony’. It’s a fascinating photo. It doesn’t appeal to me superficially, but I would certainly hang it on my wall because it is so intriguing.

Anyone know of a modern photo of the same scene, for comparison?

 

[nikos79]

You're all right — the "agony" was just me trying to poetically describe my personal subjective feelings while looking at this photo What makes Atget's composition even more impressive, and justifies any minor imperfections, is the fact that he worked without a viewfinder. He had to physically move the camera while shooting to get the composition right, which adds a whole new layer of admiration for his craft.

 

[koraks]

he worked without a viewfinder

He had a ground glass image just like anyone else using a view camera, didn't he? Or did he choose for some reason not to use it?
If you've ever used a view camera, you know that it's basically the biggest viewfinder there is.

 

[snusmumriken]

Anyone know of a modern photo of the same scene, for comparison?

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.

 

[nikos79]

He had a ground glass image just like anyone else using a view camera, didn't he? Or did he choose for some reason not to use it?
If you've ever used a view camera, you know that it's basically the biggest viewfinder there is.

You are absolutely right of course he used it! But it is a bit trickier than having a modern viewfinder:
1. The ground glass shows a dim image.
2. The projected image is inverted and often left and right flipped. Composing becomes more of a mental exercise.
3. Focusing requires a magnifying glass to check sharpness. Depth of field is so shallow that even a slight move might make it out of focus
4. He often used tilt, swing, and shift making all the above even harder.

Of course I never used or even seen live such a camera so that stuff comes only from things I 've read!

 

[koraks]

Of course I never used or even seen live such a camera so that stuff comes only from things I 've read!

I see. I do frequently use a view camera, so I'm aware of the pros & cons and also what they mean in a practical context of shooting outdoors.
The pros include that it's relatively easy to level everything perfectly using reference lines or even just the frame of the viewfinder itself. A view camera furthermore allows for perspective control, making the 'subtle counter-clockwise tilt' you mentioned a very odd choice indeed which appears to be more of a technical mishap than a deliberate choice.
As to Atget's use of movements, it seems he used front rise a lot (note the 'trademark' vignetting in the upper corners in many of his images). Other than that, most of what he has shot seems to be straight-through, no-thrills and stop down for DoF, with a frequent tilting (apparently more often to the right than to the left) which seems to be more accidental than deliberate. All things that are easily explained by the cons of working with a view camera - e.g. the difficulty of seeing the image in the corners in particular.

Looking at his images, it seems to me Atget was mostly interested in what he photographed, and much less so in how he pictured it, including all manner of intricate compositional choices that are attributed to him. Indeed, his view camera work looks more like a reasonably proficient user who still frequently falls into the obvious gaps that we all stumble into from time to time, while most likely accepting some of them as a matter of practical compromise (esp. the small image circle).

I feel there's a lot of mumbojumbo being dissed up which can easily be substituted by much more mundane motives behind his image-wise choices.

Keep also in mind that if you look long enough at a particular style of work, especially if you have positive associations with it (e.g. people you admire tell you that it's good stuff), you'll come to appreciate it over time. It has more to do with the plasticity of the brain and psychology than with the work as such.

 

[Don_ih]

The beauty of photography is that you are allowed to see what your feelings say you're seeing, on two conditions: that you are willing to confront what your feelings say you see with what your eyes know is shown, and that you not attempt to convince others that what your feelings say you see is what actually is.

I think it's fine to try to convince others that you're understanding of a photo is accurate. You just need to be willing to be disregarded when others don't "see" it. And overly dramatized claims about what the photo means or what the photographer felt or wanted run the risk of so grossly misrepresenting what anyone could possibly "see" that it crosses the border into the absurd.

I never used or even seen live such a camera

The beauty of a view camera is that you, once accustomed to using it, there is nothing that works better for composing an image. It takes more time than using an SLR but it also gives you total control of the image.

Atget often moved the image circle too far and vignetted the top of his images. He did that so often, you start to have to assume it was intentional.

 

[koraks]

He did that so often, you start to have to assume it was intentional.

There's a difference between aiming for a result, vs. accepting a compromise. It seems quite clear to me that the intentional bit was in accepting the compromise. He wanted to avoid slanted verticals as much as possible and chose to sacrifice the corners to achieve this.

 

[nikos79]

Thanks a lot guys @koraks and @Don_ih such interesting information! You seem to be very knowledgeable in these fields.
As for the last part made by @koraks I would like to elaborate more in a next message

 

[Don_ih]

There's a difference between aiming for a result, vs. accepting a compromise. It seems quite clear to me that the intentional bit was in accepting the compromise. He wanted to avoid slanted verticals as much as possible and chose to sacrifice the corners to achieve this.

Well, he seemed to be somewhat focused on getting perfect verticals.

But this image is overcompensated. The verticals a too corrected and the wall is now leaning toward the camera. The camera appears to be pointed too low. And he also wasn't square to it - but was close enough to look like he should have been.

Also, a lot of his photos look like his tripod was 3 feet tall. Or he was three feet tall.

Anyone know what camera he was using?

 

[koraks]

Well, he seemed to be somewhat focused on getting perfect verticals.

Yes, indeed, somewhat focused. I suspect that ultimately he was interested in recording that doorway, not so much in recording it perfectly. There's a lot of examples in his work of street scenes where he evidently made an effort to keep the buildings from toppling over by a combination of parallel film & lens planes and front rise. In many of those examples, there are slight imperfections to the geometry for which in my view no reasonable compositional arguments exist. The imperfections seem to be accidental.

For amusement's sake, here's he doorway photo crudely corrected for geometrical 'correctness':

I'm not convinced the original, tilted version is somehow more effective from a photographic/artistic viewpoint. I think neither composition is very original, not even for that era, while both are perfectly effective in recording the object as such.

 

[nikos79]

Keep also in mind that if you look long enough at a particular style of work, especially if you have positive associations with it (e.g. people you admire tell you that it's good stuff), you'll come to appreciate it over time. It has more to do with the plasticity of the brain and psychology than with the work as such.

I kind of agree and disagree with that.

On one hand, there’s the Mere Exposure Effect — the idea that the more you’re exposed to something, the more likely you are to develop a preference for it, even if you didn’t like it initially. I completely understand that. Then there’s Social Influence: admiration for certain artists or critics — Rivellis, Walker Evans, Gary Winogrand in our Atget case — can shape how we perceive art. If someone you respect praises a particular work, you might start viewing it through a more appreciative lens.

But there’s another side to consider:

• Skill and Craftsmanship: Some art forms require a certain level of technical skill or emotional resonance. A poorly executed piece won’t gain admiration just through repetition — if the craftsmanship isn’t there, it’ll stay unconvincing.
  
  
• Innate Preferences: Personal experience, culture, or temperament shape our reactions to art. No matter how much exposure someone has to a particular style, they might never feel a genuine connection. For example, this happens to me with Walker Evans or Gary Winogrand — I have the highest admiration for their work, yet I’ve never fully connected with it.
  
  
• Negative Reinforcement: Repeated exposure can sometimes cement dislike. If someone finds an artist’s style pretentious or off-putting, more exposure might intensify that negative reaction rather than soften it. The more I see Salgado’s work, for instance, the more I feel this.
  
  
• Weak vs. Strong Images: Weak images tend to lose their magic the more you look at them. Maybe the composition feels off, the subject lacks depth, or the emotional weight doesn’t hold up. Over time, they cause visual fatigue — your eyes naturally start to avoid them, or they become part of the background. Strong images, on the other hand, keep pulling you in. They hold a kind of tension or mystery that doesn’t get resolved, no matter how often you look. I’d say this happens with the majority of modern photographers and Instagrammers who aim to impress. Their photos might catch your eye initially, but they rarely stand the test of time.