All of these pictures have a quiet reverence, a simplicity of form, and such clarity about them. One feels as if s/he could just step right into the scene. They’re just fascinating.
Take a look at the following websites for more information on Atget:
http://www.geh.org/fm/atget/htmlsrc/index.html
Don’t get me wrong. I love Alfred Steiglitz and Ansel Adams, whom you can also find at http://www.masters-of-photography.com, but there’s a power and a simplicity to Atget’s works that wins out over other modern photographers. I think what impresses me the most about Atget is the fact that when he was taking his photos–between 1900-1926 he shot 16K+ (I think I did the math right on that.)–he didn’t have much in the way of camera technology. In fact, folks surmise that he’s a self-taught photographer. For him being an amateur and not having half the equipment that I’m sure other modern photographers had and for him to have taken the kind of pictures that he did just blows my mind, especially since I’m a camera idiot. His pictures have a depth of emotion and character that just strike me everytime I look at them, and he’s left us with rare footage of the first half of 20th Century Paris. Wow.
I wish I had something to contribute, but although I’ve heard of Atget, I’ve never seen any of his stuff before today. That Masters of Photography website is great. Thanks for posting the link.
I’m an Ansel Adams and Edward Weston fan myself, but let’s not hijack your thread to talk about them.
I think I like “Coin de la Rue Valette et Pantheon” the best. That great cobbled street leads your eye to the mist-shrouded Pantheon dome. Very clean, simple lines. Strong subject. Tone and textures are great, but I’d like a little more exposure in the building face on the left side of the picture. That part’s a little muddy, but it’s probably the fault of the scan.
“Quai d’Anjou” kind of confuses me. Great light, great modelling of the tree, but what’s the subject? Is it the tree? The stairs? The lane and buildings? That little kiosk next to the tree? Without a strong, clear subject, it doesn’t hold my attention.
“Ragpicker” is a competent slice-of-life street scene, but not nearly as strong a photo as either of the other two.
I’ll definitely look into more of his photography.
I think his style is so striking because it is so simple. Some of his pictures have no effect of “the picturesque” but rather take a scene that to the conscious eye in life would be simply banal and unnoteworthy and hold it up and say “see what you’re seeing?” This creates that effect of the experiential real and of immediacy, I think-- the insistence on that moment in time and place as once truly and undeniably existing, because no one would bother to fake it. This is one of the inherent virtues of the camera, the “unconscious eye” which records the visual material that which we normally filter out and ignore-- I think a lot of photographers have forgotten this aspect of photography and use the camera in a more carefully constructing and selecting mode-- not a bad thing in itself but sometimes I like seeing the bluntness of Atget’s type of work for the shock of recognition of once-reality.
Deceptively simple. Atget didn’t just randomly snap away as he was walking down the street. I know you didn’t say that, but I wanted to point out that although Atget made realistic photos of ordinary scenes, they are very carefully constructed.
In the example you posted, see how the sidewalks flow from the bottom corners of the image into the scene. The position and proportion of buildings and road serve to lead your eye to the subject. The horizon is at the lower one-third line (an example of Golden Section, there) and the walls are vertical, meaning that he was careful to keep his lens board vertical while tilting the lens up. The curve of the road adds just enough asymmetry to make the photo dynamic. And I’m willing to bet that the photo is tack sharp from foreground to background.
Ansel Adams said that a photographer has to know their craft (that is, know how their camera, lenses and film work and know basic principles of composition, lighting, form, texture, etc.) in order to be able to express themselves creatively. Otherwise the exercise is governed by luck, not skill.
Are you kidding? It ain’t fer nuthin’ that he’s considered one of the greats of all time. Anyway, I may have read the OP incorrectly, but I don’t think there’s any kind of a footrace between Ansel Adams and Eugene Atget. Each has a different vision, and there’s no conflict in liking both. Along the lines of Atget, however, a contemporary photographer you may enjoy would be Michael Kenna - in fact, one of his images (I can’t find a repro of it on the web, unfortunately) is titled Homage to Atget.
One of the joys of the arts is seeing how artists inspire and connect with each other, and in Kenna there is obvious influence from not only Atget but also Bill Brandt and likely Ruth Bernhard (he was her assistant, but I confess to not seeing the influence, so someone please enlighten me). It is also interesting to contrast Kenna’s (sorry if I sound like his flack) Rouge studies against those of Charles Sheeler, where each approached the same subject with different interpretations.
Specifically regarding photography, one of the nifty things about it, as celestina pointed out, is seeing what people can do with the equipment available to them at the time. I also think it’s great that some of these folks, such as Henri Cartier-Bresson, are still with us. Long may they live, these masters of “the one true 20th Century art” (paraphrased from Elton John).
[sub]Hey, how many names am I allowed to drop in one post?[/sub]
kamandi, I’m glad you like the website. I think the subject of “Quai de Anjou” is the street itself. In that picture, it’s as if the viewer is standing on the street itself and surveying the tree, the buildings, and all the other stuff in the camera’s lens. There’s also just a peaceful rightness, a calmness, and unity to the scene, but also an anticipation of the people to come who will wake up and walk along the street and go about their business in a little bit. I don’t think I can explain it any better than that just yet. Let me think on it a bit more. I agree that the “Pantheon” is a wonderful picture for exactly the reasons you stated. I can’t quite explain why I like “Ragpicker.” Perhaps it just strikes me because there is no pretension in this photo, just a respect for the subject, a commoner that no one would pay any mind to or think would be the subject of great art.
capybara and philistine, great pictures y’all chose!
Philistine, I never knew about Michael Kenna. I’ll have to check him out.
capybara & kamandi, I agree. I think the thing that I just LOVE about Atget is his simplicity. The scenes he shoots, although the majority are devoid of people, strike me still because they are so alive. I expect at any moment for folks to just kind of walk by about their business. I’m impressed by Atget’s simplicity because it is so difficult to set up a shot the way he did. So many things could have gone wrong with the equipment he was using. With a simple shot and focusing on a minimum of subjects, Atget really strikes a response from the viewer because the viewer really feels compelled to focus on his subject and explore the seemingly mundane, everyday existence for the depth it had. Yes, there is craft, but there is no pretension that I can see in Atget’s pictures, just an integrity and a respect for the subjects he was shooting. For me, the more loaded down a picture is with subjects, the greater the distraction to the viewer whose attention is divided among several things in the picture. It takes real skill and craft and artistic vision to make a simple subject so captivating. I don’t know if that makes sense or not. Still I’m enjoying what y’all have to say and LEARNING A LOT.
Oh, Philistine, I wasn’t implying in the OP that there was a footrace between Ansel Adams and Atget. They’re both great photographers, and I love their works, but I like Atget better for the reasons I’ve stated in this thread. Sorry for the confusion.
