Eugene Atget

[cliveh]

My latest screen saver is this picture by Eugene Atget - . Was he the Van Gogh of photography?

 

[BrianShaw]

I don't know if he is the Van Gough or not, but I always liked his images. Pure magic.

 

[removed account4]

I don't know if he is the Van Gough or not, but I always liked his images. Pure magic.

+1 !

thank goodness he never made it as an actor we'd be that much poorer without his imagers.

 

[snapguy]

I understand that Van Gogh owned and used a camera. I wonder if any of his photos are around. What would a Van Gogh photo print be worth?

 

[cliveh]

I understand that Van Gogh owned and used a camera. I wonder if any of his photos are around. What would a Van Gogh photo print be worth?

I was unaware of this and it is a very good question.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I don't know what kind of photographer Van Gogh would have made; but Atget was a lousy painter! That much we do know. It was Degas who
really started to crop things in a photographic manner in his paintings. But when it comes to two distinct disciplines - photography and painting - I can't think of any two individuals whose vision I admire more. I don't like using the word "genius" in relation to art very often,
much less in relation to photography; but in the case of both Atget and Van Gogh ...

 

[gone]

Beautiful shot. I brought a book home from the library once w/ lots of Atgets photos in it and they were just wonderful, especially the tones and spot-on tight compositions. Thanks for this thread. I need to go get it again and have another look at those images. When you see the gear he had and the slow film he was using, you just have to shake your head. He was a master.

 

[NedL]

I don't know, but I don't remember seeing that one before and I like it very much.

 

[philosli]

Atget is my favorite photographer. I have the 4 books (The Work of Atget) published by MOMA in the 80s. The photo you posted is one of his reflection pool series made in Saint-Cloud. Interestingly, according to Hambolt's study, Atget made all but the one you posted of the series after the war, while yours was made in 1904. After 1915 he returned to the same motif again and again. For example, this one, made roughly by moving the camera 30 degree, was made sometime between 1915-1919.

One thing interesting about Atget is he would return to the same subjects a few times, sometimes after decades. And he would improve upon his earlier, handsome photos to the next level.

 

[philosli]

+1 !

thank goodness he never made it as an actor we'd be that much poorer without his imagers.

Although he wasn't successful as an actor, he didn't forget his passion of theater. Atget's photographic activities apparently declined after 1910 and he wouldn't resume it until the end of war. One explanation is the war made it harder to photograph (e.g., restrictions due to security reasons). The other explanation is he became a lecturer of theater in various universities during this period of time.

 

[blansky]

I thought Van Gogh's analog photography was fairly mediocre, but his digital stuff is magnificent.

I think he had a real affinity for photoshop, although sometimes I don't think his monitor was color corrected properly.

In fact I read that he kept putting his mouse in his mouth and he eventually died of mouse poisoning.

I did read all this on the internet so there is a +/- 10% accuracy.

 

[DREW WILEY]

The main difference is that Van Gogh poisoned himself by eating lead pigments, while modern Photoshoppers poison themselves with MSG
and high-fructose corn syrup. Insanity is the outcome either way.

 

[blansky]

I did find one of Van Gogh's earlier digital works and it's quite spectacular as I mentioned.

You do have to take in account that beauty of it's day was slightly different and a more rounded look was preferred.

 

[cowanw]

Hairlessness in women only became a measure of beauty after WW1 .

 

[rjbuzzclick]

I've recently started looking at Atget's work and am enjoying it quite a bit. I'm currently working though the "Paris" book. One thing that's surprising me is how common it is to see the edge of the image circle (resulting from use of front rise) in his photographs as compared to other photographer's work from the same period.

 

[Richard S. (rich815)]

I'm a philistine. I have two very nice books of Atget's work. Just doesn't do it for me. I tried so hard.

 

[cliveh]

With regards to the image in my OP, I wonder how important exposure time is to enhance the original composition. His were probably 30 or 40 seconds and the impressionistic effect of wind in the trees and on the surface water surely add to this composition. Can others site examples where just the right amount of time elongation enhances composition?

 

[removed account4]

hi clive
you might be right .. or it might have been even a longer exposure.
he was using dry plates, and a lot of his photographs were taken early in the morning.
and like their paper negative cousins responsive to blue light , and there isn't a huge amount of blue light
in the morning.

I could be wrong though ..

 

[dasBlute]

I have very strong feelings about Atget.

The appeal of Atget -for me- derives from his story. He started
out with very utilitarian methods [and perhaps goals], but over
time something evolved in him that allowed his love for
[paris, humankind?] to show through - for those who
resonate with his work.

He labored for his livelyhood, and maybe posterity,
and maybe his love of the craft.

He represents -again, for me- all those who labor at
what they love - maybe without hope or expectation
of recognition, but surely with a dedication that augurs
an inner story worth examining.

It helps that he had strong advocates from Ray to Abbott
to Evans to Szarkowski, etc. Also, the scant details of his
life encourages the romantics to paint him with their
creative brush... I hereby admit my complicity in this...

-Tim

btw- titarenko's 1st image somehow reminds me of something
by hr geiger... a many handed beast... a very original series

 

[removed account4]

Hi Tim
Couldn't agree more with.what you said...
An interesting.side note.is something I remember a friend telling me
That many of his glass negatives were basically dumpstered and Bernice Abbott
Saved them...
Maybe I am Confusing him with someone else but it seems to.be a.reoccurring theme..

 

[cliveh]

I have very strong feelings about Atget.

The appeal of Atget -for me- derives from his story. He started
out with very utilitarian methods [and perhaps goals], but over
time something evolved in him that allowed his love for
[paris, humankind?] to show through - for those who
resonate with his work.

He labored for his livelyhood, and maybe posterity,
and maybe his love of the craft.

He represents -again, for me- all those who labor at
what they love - maybe without hope or expectation
of recognition, but surely with a dedication that augurs
an inner story worth examining.

It helps that he had strong advocates from Ray to Abbott
to Evans to Szarkowski, etc. Also, the scant details of his
life encourages the romantics to paint him with their
creative brush... I hereby admit my complicity in this...

-Tim

btw- titarenko's 1st image somehow reminds me of something
by hr geiger... a many handed beast... a very original series

What a beautiful post. +1.

 

[kobaltus]

The rumor about Atget is, that he had never photographed la tour Eiffel. And once he said to Berenice Abbott: "People do not know what to photograph".
It does not matter. We know everything about pixels and grain.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I have the four-volume Atget set from the Met series. Probably the best ever in terms of illustrating and explaining his compositional strategies. His actual prints are quirky little things, largely mildewed by now. So what you see in books might actually look better, or far
worse, depending. He was basically a stock photographer who seemingly dabbled in personal expression over the years. Many of his classic
images, like those at Versailles, were taken late in life. Due to his influence there have been a lot of Atget wannabees over the year, most of whom simply come across as pretentious; but a few seem to connect from time to time. Philip Trager did a good job replicating his architectural style.

 

[frotog]

He was basically a stock photographer who seemingly dabbled in personal expression over the years.

Talk about pretentious! Do you have any idea how consummately thick-headed this comment is?

Please show me an Atget-inspired Trager.

 

[DREW WILEY]

I see the troll is back. Atget made his living as an early equivalent of a stock photographer, a photographer of all kinds of Paris this n' thats, object and buildings, even door knockers if that is what someone wanted a shot of. Other than getting a few shots published in Surrealist journals late in life, stock was the name of the game. And he didn't typically do portraits per se, though some of his shots of various street
trades have now become well known - and these too functioned as stock images. He had to eat.