One of Atget's trees

[Artur Zeidler]

These lines always bothered me. They know nothing about the guy but some "intellectual" conjured up an "inferrence" from his work and creates a biography, or at least a motivation for his work.

I've always found those a little suspect.


Michael

I don't think a knee-jerk phobic response to thinking hard and seriously about something is really a valid ground for dismissing a complete body of detailed work?

 

[donbga]

This is the last photograph in Szarkowski's book on Atget. He essentially sees it as the apogee of all Atget's work. In his "meditation" on this picture he says in part:

"One might think of Atget's work at Sceaux as a recapitulation in miniature of all his work on the culture of old France, a record of the deminishing souvenirs of a foreign country.

Or, one might think of it as a summation and the consumate acheivment of his work as a photographer - a coherent, uncompromising statement of what he had learned of his craft, and how he had amplified and elaborated the sensibility with which he had begun.

Or perhaps we might see the work at Sceaux as a portrait of Atget himself, not excluding petty flaws, but showing most clearly the boldness and certainty of his taste, his method, his vision. (He felt he had a kiship with trees) At sixty eight, at seven o'clock on a gray March morning, he may have felt a special kinship with this particualr pine - a tree scarred by life and slighted by time, eccentric but still vital and compelling - which should be photographed perfectly, in a way that would match, or echo, its own unrepeatable beauty..."

I've viewed the book (and wanted to purchase it) but, I disagreed about this one. How do we know what Atget thought when he made this photograph? Szarkowski was right about many things but not this one, IMO.

 

[rfshootist]

There is also this from the first part of the intro essay in the first of the four volume MoMA set of books on Atget - I feel it describes perfectly Atget's photography

http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Museum/7101/szark1.html

I read it, not good for my blood pressure.
Quote
Little is known about is life, and less about his intentions, except as they can be inferred from his work.
Quote end.

How true ! And this should be obligion enuff for people like Szarkowsky to leave him alone with interpretations and assumptions and insinuations. If there is anything which still can make me really wild then it is the intellectual blahblah of those who make their living with enlightening us about other peoples photos.
Atget was a simple man doing a simple thing, obviously too simple for many to leave him just beeing what he really was.
So my answer to Szarkowsky would be: "Leave me alone , Szarkowsky, I don't need your genius. I got the photos !"

BTW is Szarkowsky a photog himself ?

bertram

 

[Jerevan]

BTW is Szarkowsky a photog himself ?

bertram

Yep. Look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Szarkowski but I believe his impact on photography has been more through introduction of other photographers and his curatorship than for his own photography. Correct me if I am mistaken.

 

[Claire Senft]

I get very disturbed when reading art criticism with the reviwer going off the deep end talking about what the photographer was thinking etc. It is perfectly fine if they are quoting the photographer whose work is receiving critical inspection. It is also fine to add actual fact to such a review.

Often am I convinced that the reviewer does not have a clue as to about the work receiving criticism. I also dislike the tendency of some reviewers to use esoteric terminology instead of plain language.

I am also not a fan of photographers who use words to add substance to the photograph as if to add by verbage burning, dodging and toning.. They are some photographers who, when writing about their work, seem to be wholly qualified to be writing fiction.

Just the photo without a great deal of pretentious baloney suits me just fine.

The fact that I know nothing about Leonardo's intentions regarding Mona Lisa takes away nothing from my appreciation of it. All though it would be interesting to know for whom he made the painting, whether or not Moma Lisa was a real person and other information.

 

[mark]

I don't think a knee-jerk phobic response to thinking hard and seriously about something is really a valid ground for dismissing a complete body of detailed work?

Just what was knee-jerk about Blansky's response. I thought it got right to the heart of the matter.

 

[Lee Shively]

Atget's body of work is worthy of praise but many of his individual photographs really are sloppy. The guy was trying to make a living, photographing to sell photographs to artists. He surely had to make a lot of photographs to cover all the bases. The first photograph of the tree would be something of a curiosity and noteworthy if it were only one of a very few surviving Atget's photos. But because it is only one of a huge body of work, I have trouble liking it very much compared to others.

 

[df cardwell]

Since this 'discussion' devolved immediately to judgement,
it's pretty hard to discuss the picture.

I've often quoted SK Grimes' maxim in the workshop,
"Sometimes the test tests the tester". If we apply it here,
we learn a great deal about the contributors,
even if little is offered about the photograph.

I like the picture a great deal: I enjoy the chaos of nature,
and prefer to be in the regions where nature and the 'hand of man' coincide. Nature, and time, will soften a gentle hand, and the french countryside is a fine example of this special beauty.

The apparent obstacle of the cross in the upper left corner of the image and the bisection of the image by the tree in the center of the frame violate the tasteful rules of the salon artists who would define what was good, and acceptable. Today, a century and a half after the Salon was destroyed, our neo-aristocracy would make us conform to their 'rules'.

Atget's obstacles DO make me fight a bit to get at the image, but it is no more of a struggle than nature provides on a walk through the woods, or any urban scene where galvanized steel posts and wires, and acres of cement are the moss earth, and branches of the city landscape. It is probably a good thing Atget chose to make us 'discover the subject' as he did. The composition, the excitement of his discovery of the scene, certainly depended upon peeking around the tree, moving from side to side. It may be a well drawn landscape from an Urban eye, used to the distractions of the city. If so, Atget becomes the proto-type of Winogrand, Friedlander, and all those who found beauty within urban clutter and who chose to shoot what was before them, and not go far away to find something 'pretty'.

It's interesting that Atget employed the classical composition device of the 'golden spiral' ( or, it might be a Fibonacci spiral... who knows) to make a mess. Then it is an awfully carefully crafted mess, I have to say.

The effect, for me, is to see the picure as many smaller images within the general frame of the original - suggesting even the 'draughtsman's net' used in the old days to assist the rendition of accurate perspective ( shown below in a woodcut by Durer ).

Anyhow, it's a beautiful picture, which gets better the more time I spend with it. Unlike a 'pictorially perfect picture', I'm drawn into the picture. The multiple images-within-an-image create a visual harmony that rewards time spent with the image.

Beautiful, thanks TIM.

.

 

[tim atherton]

I was hoping someone would pick up on that - as you say DF - anything but messy, but rather very precise

Here's a diagram from a text on the subject - match the two...

 

[rfshootist]

This is a bit confusing: Though you obviously do not see much worth in any rules, no matter if those of the old salon are meant or those of the neo aristocracy, you believe to see Atget using a classical composing device here, the Golden Spiral ? As for me, neither approximately nor correctly I can see the Golden Spiral here, the squares are simply not set right for it.

As for the "rules" , IMHO there are rules and laws. Rules may change with the times, they always relate to a historical esthetics (salon). Laws do not change, they refer to our human perception as the Golden Cut does for example.

Leaving the "rules" aside, related to the "laws" I too find this photo a mess, as it was said. From other reasons too, but those don't play a role here. It's like a needle in my eye.

That is surprising, because Atget was an educated painter who really knew that all and who made photos for painters who made painting from such photos.. Terrible to see that some burrow through his work now and publish whatever they find interesting, and he cannot stop them. As so very often, also in this case I have serious doubts that he would want to see this neg published. Maybe we should burn all doubtful negs before we die ?

Regards
bertram

 

[Artur Zeidler]

Just what was knee-jerk about Blansky's response. I thought it got right to the heart of the matter.

No doubt

the keen-jerk sarcastic (nay, snide) anti-intelectualism. That is, the apparently simplistic belief that someone who has studied several hundred probably a couple of thousand or more photographs from a photographers work in close detail, who has read the photogrpahers notes and what correspondences of his remain, who has spoken at length with any of those left who knew the photographer has nothing of value to say about that photographers work.

 

[arigram]

I really like the composition and its pretty straightforward to me.

 

[reellis67]

I can't get the spiral out of this that others have pointed out. I can however see a grid, with the tree, water line, and branches forming the divisions. Still, when I view this my eye moves to the X and stays there. It doesn't move to the rest of the image and when I look elsewhere, my eye is pulled back to the X or the tree. If I try to look at the tree, my eye flows off the top or bottom rather than around the rest of the photo. This photo evokes no special feelings, is not overly aesthetically pleasing to me, and it doesn't make me wonder.

- Randy

 

[Artur Zeidler]

That is surprising, because Atget was an educated painter who really knew that all and who made photos for painters who made painting from such photos.. Terrible to see that some burrow through his work now and publish whatever they find interesting, and he cannot stop them. As so very often, also in this case I have serious doubts that he would want to see this neg published. Maybe we should burn all doubtful negs before we die ?

Regards
bertram

If I am remembering properly, I do not think that is so.

First, there are a number of his pictures that we know Atget took for himself. This was especially so in his later years after the Great War. It is also obvious that he played with (and also deliberately broke) many of the painterly rules of composition in his photographs (which was apparently one of the reasons he was "adopted" in his old age by the Surrealists).

In addition, from his albums, I recall this is certainly not one that he chose to discard, but rather the opposite. It was also one of a series that he sold to the Bibliothèque Nationale

 

[roteague]

WOW - I'm bowled over... what a suprise

Sorry that it bothers you so much to have someone disagree with you. At least I am open about it, and not sending anonymous postings to your website, trashing your work.

 

[Artur Zeidler]

Sorry that it bothers you so much to have someone disagree with you. At least I am open about it, and not sending anonymous postings to your website, trashing your work.

sorry - are you trying to say something there? Or just rambling - what has this got to do with discussing these photographs? You sound paranoid?

 

[tim atherton]

Originally Posted by tim atherton
WOW - I'm bowled over... what a suprise

Sorry that it bothers you so much to have someone disagree with you. At least I am open about it, and not sending anonymous postings to your website, trashing your work.

I am left wondering what the point of your post is? It appears rather veiled. However, if it is some kind of insinuation (and it can certainly be read that way), for the record I have never even bothered to look at your website. You may also want to be very, very careful in considering what you say.

 

[naturephoto1]

What the hell. Blansky and I are in agreement? Well, I guess its true. I do not like the photo either. Whether it is good enought to be called as mess I leave to you. Perhaps Blansky was being overly kind.

Claire,

So am I. I much much prefer the second to the first image.

Rich

 

[tim atherton]

I read it, not good for my blood pressure.
Quote
Little is known about is life, and less about his intentions, except as they can be inferred from his work.
Quote end.

How true ! And this should be obligion enuff for people like Szarkowsky to leave him alone with interpretations and assumptions and insinuations. If there is anything which still can make me really wild then it is the intellectual blahblah of those who make their living with enlightening us about other peoples photos.
Atget was a simple man doing a simple thing, obviously too simple for many to leave him just beeing what he really was.
So my answer to Szarkowsky would be: "Leave me alone , Szarkowsky, I don't need your genius. I got the photos !"

BTW is Szarkowsky a photog himself ?

bertram

"When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun"

 

[rfshootist]

"When I hear the word 'culture' I reach for my gun"

Sorry, not sure if I get it, what does that quote mean, related to what I wrote ?

bertram

 

[rfshootist]

It is also obvious that he played with (and also deliberately broke) many of the painterly rules of composition in his photographs (which was apparently one of the reasons he was "adopted" in his old age by the Surrealists).

That he was "adopted" by the surrealists is new for me, what I know is that some of them bought his photos to support him, mainly Man Ray, who lived door to door with him in the Rue Campagne Premier. No clue what could be the bridge from his work to surrealism, there is not any bigger contradiction imaginable for me in form and intention.

That he made experiments in the 20s, well I personally never heard of it but is more likely than not. If so , Berenice Abbott could be the only reliable source for that, did she report such experiments ?

Anyway, whatever the intentions were which let him take this photo,
at least esthetically for me it is completely off rail. The longer I watch it the more it looks a bit surrealistic, maybe you are right.

bertram

 

[c6h6o3]

Like the work of so many photographers, the work of Atget needs to be seen in the flesh to be appreciated. The last photographs of his that I saw, at a show of recent acquisitions at the National Gallery, were exquisite beyond words. Some of the most beautiful prints I'd ever seen. Like Stieglitz, when he was good he was very, very good but there's definitely some crap in the corpus of his work.

 

[tim atherton]

That he was "adopted" by the surrealists is new for me, what I know is that some of them bought his photos to support him, mainly Man Ray, who lived door to door with him in the Rue Campagne Premier. No clue what could be the bridge from his work to surrealism, there is not any bigger contradiction imaginable for me in form and intention.

That he made experiments in the 20s, well I personally never heard of it but is more likely than not. If so , Berenice Abbott could be the only reliable source for that, did she report such experiments ?

Anyway, whatever the intentions were which let him take this photo,
at least esthetically for me it is completely off rail. The longer I watch it the more it looks a bit surrealistic, maybe you are right.

bertram

bertram, I think you would be hard pressed to get more surrealist than this (it could quite easily have come from the hand of Many Ray surely):

along with this

Ray arranged for these and several other pictures to be published in the surrealist journal La Révolution Surréalist

They also used this for the cover of the journal on one occasion:

In interviews later in his life Many Ray spoke of discovering Atget as a "naive" surrealist and the work of the old man Atget being an influence on Ray and his group at that time (and on Minor White's comments on Atget's technique - or rather lack thereof - Ray's response was that Atget was an artist not a perfectionist...)

 

[rfshootist]

In interviews later in his life Many Ray spoke of discovering Atget as a "naive" surrealist and the work of the old man Atget being an influence on Ray and his group at that time (and on Minor White's comments on Atget's technique - or rather lack thereof - Ray's response was that Atget was an artist not a perfectionist...)

I think I see what you mean with "adopted", and indeed these photos allow a surrealistic interpretation.
Nonetheless, Rays adoption is a bit eery, without any doubt these photos had originally a documentary approach and I wish I'd know what Atgets opinion was about the surrealisitic adoption.

BTW I too kept him always as an artist, not because (different from his predecessor Marville) he did not care at all about technical proper execution, but because he had, at least for me, the magic ability to make urban places speak, like others make a landscape speak.
This sorta "artistic documentation" makes him so unique and fascinating for many people.
That Man Ray probably tried to help the old artist into the flourishing business of Surrealism, well that is another story, quite interesting thought, hard to imagine tho that Atget liked this idea ?

Regards,
Bertram