Church of St Gervais, Paris, photograph by Eugène Atget, 1897-1903. Museum no. PH.224-1903. © Victoria and Albert Museum (image source)
Burdened down by large, heavy camera equipment, Eugene Atget would wander the streets of Paris in the quiet early morning hours in search of his subject. Curiously, instead of people he would choose the ghostly back alleys and deserted cobblestone streets as his subjects. He was not highly regarded during his lifetime, but like Van Gogh, his brilliance would reveal itself to future generations.
In the article, Atget and the City , author John Fraser writes about why Eugene Atget was such an important figure in photography. Fraser believes that Atget was a genius not only because he chose a paradoxical subject, but also because he was masterful at the execution. The places he photographed hold our interest because they bear the marks of humanity even though none are present. It seems that Atget was a most competent artist with a vision. His obsession with documenting every part of the city from the oldest churches to the most scabrous bordellos would become invaluable to those wanting to experience a Paris that existed before the World Wars took their toll. Even the surrealists of the early twentieth century understood the value these unpopulated photos held. (1)
Atget, however, was not limited to this style of photography. Fraser writes about Atget’s many examples of architectural detail and candid portraits that were pretty unremarkable. Atget was a creative person who understood what made a brilliant picture, but he just wasn’t that interested in things outside of Paris.(1) These mundane photos are not what we know him for, but how he made a living. He was a documentarian who sold his work to artists and historians. The purpose of his photography was to make a record, but when he was taking pictures of Paris he couldn’t help but be an artist.
During Atget’s time, photography was rapidly moving forward. Atget, however, never upgraded from his large-format wooden bellows camera. There was much to be explored and Atget was masterful with his equipment. Why fix what isn’t broken? While most photographers were exploring portraiture or famous landmarks and landscapes he was quietly documenting reality with old but trusted technology.
When I look at this photo I can almost see the ghost-like impressions of the people who once occupied this space. The composition is compelling, and I want to know more about this place. I want to know about the people who live there even though I see no one. These attributes contradict the idea of aura that were discussed in the article Little History of Photography by Benjamin Walters. Walters declares Atget to be a masterful craftsman who, “cleanses the atmosphere...He initiates the emancipation of object from aura, which is the most signal achievement of the latest school of photography.” Walters goes on to explain that aura is “a strange weave of space and time: the unique appearance or semblance of distance, no matter how close it may be.” He’s not describing it as something that belongs to anything specific, but without people (or important landmarks) these photographs are merely documenting the world. The lack of aura actually adds to the allure.(2)
Not to take value from the quality of Atgets' life, but I always find it depressing to learn about artists who spend their lives struggling, but are celebrated in death. It’s tragic, but maybe that struggle is what allows for the genius. It is a depressing paradox. It doesn’t seem to stop the artist from pursuing that vision. Artists like Atget are reminders that what we do can be valuable to others. He has not been forgotten, but will be remembered as one of the great pioneers of his time.
Sources
Fraser, John, "Atget and the City," <i>The Cambridge Quarterly</i> 3, no. 3 (1968): 199-233. Accessed September 1, 2021, http://www.jstor.org/stable/42971620
Walters, Benjamin, “Little History of Photography,” trans. Rodney Livingstone and Others, Cambridge and London: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, accessed September 2, 2021, https://monoskop.org/images/0/0e/Benjamin_Walter_1931_1999_Little_History_of_Photography.pdf.
Hello!
ReplyDeleteThis blog post was great, especially your introduction! The way your words flowed together immediately grabbed my attention and made me want to continue reading. Atget's work is really mesmerizing to look at, the shadows and choice of subject is really nicely displayed in their photograph's. I love the detail about Atget though maybe more connection to the reading that further brings together the article and your choice of photo?
Hello Ashley,
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the approach you took towards writing your blog. I personally would have been nervous to talk about an artist from the reading since I am not well rehearsed with these artists. So, I thank you for educating me on Eugene Atget. In your blog you discussed a “ghost like impression of the people who once occupied this space,” I agree but I want to know why do you feel this way? For me, I feel we can sense the people how where once there because of how old technology used to photograph the scene was.
Hey,
ReplyDeleteWhat can I say about your work, besides the fluidity and how well written it is. Reading it I gained a better understanding of who Eugene Atget is and how he decided to stay with technology that worked for him. Even with time constantly changing technology he decided to remain faithful to his wooden bellows camera. Looking at subject, I love how perspective leads us to a black box. The bricks are also textured giving us a sense of value. I would like to hear more about why you decided to choose this image? What makes you feel that this place has a ghost-like impression? What kind of life does this photograph give? was it a market place? was it transportation route? I want to know what you believe to be the kind of people who lived/traveled through here.
Hi Ashley!
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the way that you composed your blog post for this week, it was interesting to learn about a new artist and sort of how others viewed him later. And I completely agree that it a depressing notion that an artist or creator can spend their lives chasing a vision and never getting an recognition for it because it is not mainstream or what someone else deems as important. Perhaps next time you could further expand upon the picture itself, such as how it was made or how it connects into the reading this week?