Looking at Atget

One could make a case for splitting the history of photography into two broad swaths divided by the early 20th century work of the French photographer Atget. This past summer I read through "Classic Essays on Photography" and from the writings of early and mid- 20th C. photographers like Abbott (who was Atget's biggest promoter) it's clear that the impact of Atget's eye on all that followed was tremendous. Before Atget, photography was imitative of Art - its stylings and subjects. Following Atget, photography's artistic values and sensibilities came from the mechanics of medium itself - as is the case with painting, sculpture, etc.

I say "Atget's eye" because it wasn't necessarily his thinking that made the difference, aside from what thinking was expressed on his glass plate negatives. Though he did have relationships with art-oriented photographers like Abbott, he considered himself a commercial photographer, constantly rearranging his work into new portfolios depending on the whims and interests of previous or prospective clients. There was no grandiose artistic philosophy to hang his work upon, though his spiritual progeny developed many of his themes and working styles into their own explicit working philosophies.

The Philadelphia Museum of Art current show of Atget's work is a comprehensive catalog and displays some outstanding individual images. What it fails to do is drive home why Atget matters, suffering from a lack of visual comparison to what came before and what came after. Looking at much of Atget's work hanging on a museum wall today leaves many scratching their heads. The inclusion of some framing pictures from the ers preseding and succeeding Atget's work would have drawn a starker view of his visual innovation. Yes, there is a single Abbott photo shown for comparison, as well as an interesting comparison of Atget and Abbot prints from Atget's negatives, but these are there mostly to highlight the show's view that Atget's use of obsolete processes and tools (he used an old-fashioned box camera and made albumin contact positives) resulted in superior prints to what Abbott was able to achieve - a subjective position that I disagree with.

Through Nov. 27 at Philadelphia Museum of Art
(As well as Mavericks of Color, noted previously.)