PDA

View Full Version : One of Atget's trees



Pages : 1 2 [3]

Artur Zeidler
08-14-2006, 01:43 PM
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
08-14-2006, 02:19 PM
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
08-14-2006, 04:44 PM
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
08-14-2006, 06:21 PM
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
08-14-2006, 06:51 PM
"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
08-14-2006, 07:12 PM
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
08-14-2006, 11:55 PM
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
08-15-2006, 01:10 AM
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):

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/atget/atget_fete_du_trone_de_geant.jpg

along with this



http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/atget/atget_shop.jpg

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:


http://www.geh.org/fm/atget/m197601180025.jpg

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
08-15-2006, 07:13 AM
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