One of Atget's trees

[tim atherton]

this is one of my all time favorite photographs by Atget (if I could own one photo by him to hang on my wall - or one by almost anyone else for that matter - it would be this one)





I titled it "one of Atget's trees", but I'm not really sure you could even call the tree the subject...

[blansky]

Since we are all just expressing opinion, mine is:

This is a mess.


Michael

[Jerevan]

I have always loved some of Atget's work. Looked and looked at them in photobooks of different kind. Wondered at the light and tones. So, it came to pass that an exhibition of Atget prints, together with another of my favourites, Berenice Abbot, came to my hometown.

So, wow! This is it! Rushed off excitedly and found the exhibition. I have to say I have never been so horribly disappointed in my whole life. Fuzzy, out of focus stuff. And he just had to use the damn lens out to the limits and beyond, getting out of the illumination circle! And Berenice Abbot, while marginally better wasn't a hoot either.

But I still love Atget. In the books. And I love the ones I love, but I can't say I can get my head around all of his work. It seems to slide precariously between pure documentation (which I like) and some kind of strange "artistry" (which I can't figure). This photograph is more "artistry" to me. Too much going on. I have to hunt for a focal point or a story in this. I am also a bit disturbed by the flarey light in the upper part, compared to the relatively darker lower parts. My eyes are constantly drawn to the flarey patch on the left side of the tree. But this is where I start to think "maybe that's the whole point, this messy, obnoxious tree standing there at the pond"?

That's the wonderful thing about photography - what I love someone else can't figure at all. Same photo, different opinions.

[roteague]

Since we are all just expressing opinion, mine is:

This is a mess.


Michael

Ditto....

[tim atherton]

Ditto....

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

[matt miller]

I think he forgot to crop the top 1/3rd out.

[Struan Gray]

Art is the bastard grandchild of necessity. If I remember rightly, Steichen had already set up at the pictorially correct location and by the time Atget got there he had to make do with a spot in the corner behind the fence. He couldn't afford Pt over gum either and the rest, as they say, is history.

What I really want to know is why does Berenice Abbot always get so much flak for having illustrated a Physics textbook?

[tim atherton]

And he just had to use the damn lens out to the limits and beyond, getting out of the illumination circle! And Berenice Abbot, while marginally better wasn't a hoot either.

I know - that used to bug me at one time (especially as a LF photographer), but over time I came to realize it just didn't matter. The straight edges of the imposed frame are just as artificial an imposition. If you get the curved image circle, so what (additionally, it's actually rather closer to our own vision). If you want to fit something in an lose the corners - hey, go ahead and do it.

Nothing about Atget's photographs is precious (in both the English colloquial sense of the word as well as the broader sense)

[mark]

Never got Atget's work. It always seemed he had an idea in mind but just can't communicate it to me. I like it if it had the top half cut. That way the verticle line would break the circle.

[tim atherton]

Art is the bastard grandchild of necessity. If I remember rightly, Steichen had already set up at the pictorially correct location and by the time Atget got there he had to make do with a spot in the corner behind the fence. He couldn't afford Pt over gum either and the rest, as they say, is history.

Better Matt?