Eugene Atget Appreciation

[Alan Edward Klein]

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'.

 

[Vaughn]

I would agree with this. Many threads seem to be debased in this way.

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.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Well, the banter can get kinda sophomoric peep-showish at times on some of these forums

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.

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.

 

[Vaughn]

But not in a lascivious way. It seems like he was seeking classical poses.

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..

 

[DREW WILEY]

As I understand it from Hambourg's biographical glimpses of Atget's life, he was very disturbed by the way Napoleon III had modernized much of Paris at the expense of the traditional narrow cobblestone street corners, etc, so went out his way to document those specifically, along with the rundown parks. Just like many of us, he was trying to visually preserve what was left of the former architectural culture before it outright disappeared. Winding narrow street were part of that. And his compositions didn't just use geometric disappearing horizons, but atmospheric effects too. Apparently Paris either had thick air, or he timed his shots to look that way, much like the older blue sensitive plate photographers. I never tire of viewing his work.

 

[Vaughn]

That was what I appreciated about Tokyo -- narrow streets (rarely two vehicles wide) and distinct neighborhoods.

Paris -- at Atget's time there was most likely a lot of classic smog (fog mixed with coal smoke). Being acidic the smog would make the buildings dirty and etch all the limestone. He would have seen the beginning of electricity used for cooking and heating, but natural gas was much later.

Back in 1975 while at uni outside Christchurch, NZ, I helped with a lichen survey in the city (a high-sulfur type of local coal was commonly used for heating and cooking). Some species of lichen are more sensitive to Sulfur dioxide created by the formation of smog. So which species were in relative abundance was an indicator of the amount of smog in that area of the city.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I think the intersections were called "coins" (corner, nook, angle) in French. He liked to take his vantage point there both for sake of diminishing point perspective in the distance, and with respect to the coverage of his standard wide angle lens (which often exhibited corner falloff at the top in that setting).

He was also obsessed with the old hand-wrought architecture in those neighborhoods - railings, and especially door knockers. I have one entire Atget book mainly filled with such details. Again, a preservationist mentality. But the book editors have obviously selected what they considered his most interesting examples, often with a surrealistic tinge to them.

Another repetitive feature was a sort of social commentary. Brothels were outlawed from advertising their services, and could only identify themselves with the street number of the location, so they resorted to painting those number especially large, and that is often seen in his street corner views. What percent of that represented of his actual photo inventory is hard to say, versus what the editors themselves selectively homed in on.

 

[Arthurwg]

It's no secret that Atget photographed prostitutes; but it was a pretty small part of his overall inventory.

I believe the nudes were shot on commission.

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

I believe that Gauguin has become almost cancelled over this. Too bad as he was a truly great painter,

 

[david schaller]

The Atget exhibition at ICP is well worth seeing, which I did a couple of weeks ago. It runs until May 4th. All the prints are by him, from the ICP’s collection, and there are some really great ones. Sadly there is no catalogue for the show; when I asked, they pointed to the Taschen book.

 

[runswithsizzers]

there is no catalogue for the show; when I asked, they pointed to the Taschen book

Apparently, the book is small, only 5.6 x 7.9 inches, but 500 photographs on 624 pages and hardbound, all for only $25(USD) seems reasonable.

 

[runswithsizzers]

The Atget exhibition at ICP is well worth seeing, which I did a couple of weeks ago.

I would love to see it, but from my location in SW Missouri, it would require a significant investment in time to get there and back.

About how many of Atget's photos were on display? Could you get close enough to the prints to get a good long look? Was the exhibition crowded when you were there?

 

[david schaller]

About how many of Atget's photos were on display? Could you get close enough to the prints to get a good long look? Was the exhibition crowded when you were there?

I’m not sure about the total number, maybe 50-60…. Yes, you could really get close up views. As has been discussed, he printed small, contact prints I would assume. I was really focused on the prints and didn’t read the wall texts, which had a theme about Atget’s reception.
Excuse my poor cell phone snaps.

 

[runswithsizzers]

Atget's association with Paris is so strong, it's hard to imagine Atget without Paris.

Ignoring for the moment that Atget's business model was marketing to a community of artists that was probably larger in Paris than many other cities, I am trying to imagine what Atget's photos would look like if he had worked in London, New York, or Vienna?

In other words, how much of Atget's photography is Atget, and how much of it is Paris? Would we still be talking about him today if he had worked anywhere else?
EDIT: Re reading that, it sounds like I am trying to take something away from Atget, but that is not my intent, at all. I really admire Atget's work. Rather, I was trying to explore the relative balance between the weight of the subject and what the photographer does with the subject -- such as, framing, composition, lighting, exposure, selective focus, etc.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

I apologize if my pun offended anyone. I'm curious how many women are offended by posts of photos of nude women under the guise it's art? It seems people can be more concerned about my play of words than the pictures themselves.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I’m not sure about the total number, maybe 50-60…. Yes, you could really get close up views. As has been discussed, he printed small, contact prints I would assume. I was really focused on the prints and didn’t read the wall texts, which had a theme about Atget’s reception.
Excuse my poor cell phone snaps.

This picture I took a few years ago in NYC was made to look like an old-time shot by adding the toning and vignetting, much like your first one. Of course, the building itself is probably one hundred years old, so you do have to start with an antique environment. The second one I think I added selenium toning. Both done in Lightroom.

 

[Vaughn]

I apologize if my pun offended anyone. I'm curious how many women are offended by posts of photos of nude women under the guise it's art? It seems people can be more concerned about my play of words than the pictures themselves.

Not offended, but it is like someone making a very dirty joke in the wrong setting. It is rude, a bit surprising, and makes one sound morally questionable to some.

Research the "Male Gaze" if you are truly interested in many women's response to photos of nude women under the guise it's art. Here is an Ai definition:

The male gaze is
a concept in media criticism describing the depiction of women in visual arts, film, and advertising from a heterosexual, masculine perspective, presenting them as passive sexual objects for pleasure.

 

[runswithsizzers]

I apologize if my pun offended anyone.

I was not offended. But I am not a woman, so it is impossible for me to hear your comment about "knockers" from the female perspective. You might ask a female whose opinions you respect if they think yours was an appropriate comment to make on a public discussion about photography?

I'm curious how many women are offended by posts of photos of nude women under the guise it's art? It seems people can be more concerned about my play of words than the pictures themselves.

To me, it sounds like your assumption seems to be, nude photos are inherently "dirty," and crude comments about dirty photos should be of less concern than the actual photos?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Greater context : Atget had to have an income. He was basically a stock photographer who had perhaps thousands of images of wrought iron ornamentation and door hardware on hand to sell as inspiration or technique models to blacksmiths, iron worker, and related craftsmen. A few of these have been selected out for modern publication. What his financial objective was with models of women was, one can speculate (probably painters).

But he also clearly had a cultural objective, trying to preserve what he thought of as authentic Parisian architecture culture prior to its massive mid-19th C renovations. He did a lot of "street photography" of quaint people and occupations in this respect too.

Then there was the third element we photographers so appreciate - those remarkable photos he essentially took for himself.

 

[runswithsizzers]

What his financial objective was with models of women was, one can speculate.

Possibly painters and illustrators would buy Atget's nude photos for reference when creating their own work, rather than paying for live models?

 

[DREW WILEY]

Yeah, I just added that, right before you posted. It would be interesting if any copy exists of how he advertised or marketing his many images, or if he was just coasting on reputation at a certain point.

 

[Vaughn]

Possibly painters and illustrators would buy Atget's nude photos for reference when creating their own work, rather than paying for live models?

And many painters might not wish to paint en plein air out in the smog and amongst the footpads wandering those alleys. It appears that the history of painting from photographs started hand-in-hand with photography...or perhaps the camera obscura, actually, as a drawing aid.

I do not suppose Atget would have had a lot of competition for sales from other photgraphers once estaiblished. Some research into photographers in similar roles in London, NY, and other major cities would be interesting for comparison.

 

[snusmumriken]

Greater context : Atget had to have an income. He was basically a stock photographer who had perhaps thousands of images of wrought iron ornamentation and door hardware on hand to sell as inspiration or technique models to blacksmiths, iron worker, and related craftsmen. A few of these have been selected out for modern publication. What his financial objective was with models of women was, one can speculate (probably painters).

But he also clearly had a cultural objective, trying to preserve what he thought of as authentic Parisian architecture culture prior to its massive mid-19th C renovations. He did a lot of "street photography" of quaint people and occupations in this respect too.

Then there was the third element we photographers so appreciate - those remarkable photos he essentially took for himself.

I accept all you say in that post, except I have to question the last bit. Do we actually know that he took any photos for himself, or is it an assumption about certain photos that seem to us less saleable as artists’ copy? Or do we assume this about all the late photos, made after he had off-loaded the bulk of his record of Old Paris, and was therefore comfortably off, relatively speaking?