Friday, February 18, 2011

"Atget is the father of a huge branch of photographers"

The record-setting gelatin silver chloride print "Joueur d'orgue," 1898-99, for which a European collector paid $686,500 at Christie's New York last April

Art & Auction Magazine
By Kris Wilton

Via ARTINFO

The small sign on the door of Eugène Atget’s modest Montparnasse studio read Documents pour Artistes. In the 1890s photography was not considered an artistic medium, nor did Atget think of himself as an artist. Rather, he established himself as a documenter of a Paris that he saw threatened by modernity, and he sold his images — of the city’s streets, buildings, parks, and characters — to "actual" artists to use as aides-mémoires for their own works, as well as to architects and historians. Today, thanks to the championing of the American photographer Berenice Abbott, Atget has risen in status to forebear of modern photography, with influence and auction results to match.


"Atget is the father of a huge branch of photographers," says Matthieu Humery, specialist and head of sale for photographs at Christie’s New York, where last April the photographer’s proto-Surreal "Joueur d’orgue," 1898-99, earned an artist record $686,500. "When you look at his work and then the work of Walker Evans, Lee Friedlander, Brassaï, William Eggleston — you can see the link."

By the time he turned to photography, Atget had lived many lives, although we have scant information about them. Born in 1857 and orphaned at an early age, he was brought up by an uncle in the port city of Bordeaux, where he became a sailor. Atget made his way to Paris, surviving for a while as an actor by taking bit parts with second-tier repertory and touring companies. "As he had rather hard features, he was given unflattering roles," his theater friend André Calmettes wrote in a letter to Abbott in 1927. Eventually even these dwindled, and Atget was forced to seek a new way to support himself and his companion, the actress Valentine Delafosse.

After a brief foray into painting, Atget turned to photography, hoping to create a font of images, Calmettes writes, "of all that both in Paris and its surroundings was artistic and picturesque." He invested in the necessary equipment and plates and diligently hit the streets each day at dawn with his 18-by-24-centimeter view camera, gradually building a client base. But it wasn’t until 1925 that Abbott discovered Atget’s photographs through Man Ray, who had published several (uncredited) in the journal "La révolution surréaliste," and recognized the work as art for the first time. "The subjects were not sensational but nevertheless shocking in their very familiarity," she wrote in her 1964 book "The World of Atget." "The real world, seen with wonderment and surprise, was mirrored in each print." Abbott began visiting Atget regularly, buying as many prints as she could afford.


In 1927, Abbott asked Atget, then a widower, whom she described as "tired, sad, remote, appealing," to sit for a portrait. When she went to show him the prints, she learned that he had died, at the age of 70. Fearing that his work would be lost, she tracked down Calmettes, his de facto executor, and arranged to purchase about half of the thousands of prints and plates that remained. Later she brought on the New York dealer Julien Levy as a partner, and together they promoted Atget in the United States — Abbott, through articles and by showing the prints to friends, including Walker Evans; Levy, through exhibitions. In 1968, Abbott sold her trove of more than 5,000 prints to the Museum of Modern Art in New York for $50,000. To this day, most of the photographer’s works in U.S. collections can be traced to Abbott.


+ Atget originally sold his prints for pennies, gradually increasing his prices over the years. Berenice Abbott wrote that they ranged during his career from 0.25 to 13 francs.



+ In the 1920s, Man Ray offered to print Atget's images on modern paper to achieve clearler tones, but Atget refused, preferring his more antiquated methods.


+ In the last decades of his life, Atget subsisted on an unusual diet, composed primarily of bread and milk, that is thought to have contributed to his death. "He had very personal ideas on everything, which he imposed with extraordinary violence," wrote his friend André Calmettes.


+Abbott modeled her careerlong photographic project to document a rapidly changing New York City on Atget's work.


It is estimated that Atget produced as many as 8,500 images during his 35-year career. Given their vast numbers, it’s not surprising that they vary considerably in quality and desirability. "He took lots of photographs of door knockers and ornamental ironwork, and not all of that rewards a second viewing," says Christopher Philips, who curated "Atget, Archivist of Paris" at the International Center for Photography, in New York, last year. "But maybe 15 percent of this enormous output does seem to have remarkable lyrical and poetic quality, and that’s really what explains the long-term interest in Atget."

After a brief foray into painting, Atget turned to photography, hoping to create a font of images, Calmettes writes, "of all that both in Paris and its surroundings was artistic and picturesque." He invested in the necessary equipment and plates and diligently hit the streets each day at dawn with his 18-by-24-centimeter view camera, gradually building a client base. But it wasn’t until 1925 that Abbott discovered Atget’s photographs through Man Ray, who had published several (uncredited) in the journal "La révolution surréaliste," and recognized the work as art for the first time. "The subjects were not sensational but nevertheless shocking in their very familiarity," she wrote in her 1964 book "The World of Atget." "The real world, seen with wonderment and surprise, was mirrored in each print." Abbott began visiting Atget regularly, buying as many prints as she could afford.


In 1927, Abbott asked Atget, then a widower, whom she described as "tired, sad, remote, appealing," to sit for a portrait. When she went to show him the prints, she learned that he had died, at the age of 70. Fearing that his work would be lost, she tracked down Calmettes, his de facto executor, and arranged to purchase about half of the thousands of prints and plates that remained. Later she brought on the New York dealer Julien Levy as a partner, and together they promoted Atget in the United States — Abbott, through articles and by showing the prints to friends, including Walker Evans; Levy, through exhibitions. In 1968, Abbott sold her trove of more than 5,000 prints to the Museum of Modern Art in New York for $50,000. To this day, most of the photographer’s works in U.S. collections can be traced to Abbott.

It is estimated that Atget produced as many as 8,500 images during his 35-year career. Given their vast numbers, it’s not surprising that they vary considerably in quality and desirability. "He took lots of photographs of door knockers and ornamental ironwork, and not all of that rewards a second viewing," says Christopher Philips, who curated "Atget, Archivist of Paris" at the International Center for Photography, in New York, last year. "But maybe 15 percent of this enormous output does seem to have remarkable lyrical and poetic quality, and that’s really what explains the long-term interest in Atget."

According to the New York dealer Edwynn Houk, who mounted his first Atget show in 1981, the typical collector is "someone who’s pretty sophisticated and certainly has an informed eye." Connoisseurship is key because Atget used three print techniques with mixed results. Generally, says Boston dealer Robert Klein, "the arrowroot prints are more valuable than the silver-chloride prints, and the silver-chloride prints are maybe more valuable than the albumen prints, depending on the condition."


Although Atgets regularly appear on the auction block, prices like those fetched by "Joueur d’orgue" last April and by the previous record holder — "Femme," a 1925 arrowroot print that earned €444,750 ($663,000), more than 10 times its high estimate at Sotheby’s Paris in November 2009 — are not the norm, resulting from the convergence of top print quality and desirable subject matter. "Femme," points out Simone Klein, head of photographs for Sotheby’s Europe, is from one of the artist’s smallest and most sought-after series, of prostitutes; is one of only two known prints; and had spent the past 80 years safely tucked in a book. "Joueur d’orgue’s" depiction of a dour blind organ grinder alongside a radiant singer captures a fleeting incongruity that appealed to Surrealists like Tristan Tzara, who commissioned the well-preserved print.

Those auction high-water marks also owe much to MoMA, whose former photography department head, John Szarkowski, brought Atget to the public’s attention in four exhibitions, accompanied by catalogues, mounted between 1981 and 1985. The museum also played a role in the last major spike in his market, in the early 2000s, when, to benefit its acquisitions fund, it deaccessioned duplicates in its Atget collection, beginning with 225 prints at Sotheby’s New York in 2001, which made a total of $4 million, and then by offering 1,000 more through an impartial middleman, the Upper East Side dealer David Tunick, well known for his trade in Old Master prints. Tunick examined the works and, with the museum’s approval, assigned each to a price category ranging from $3,000 to $150,000, based on subject, condition, and rarity.

"It was a feeding frenzy," says Tunick. "Scores, if not hundreds [of buyers] wanted a piece of the history of photography, wanted something by this great photography artist and documentarian." And, notes the New York dealer Charles Isaacs, "once MoMA opened its vault and people realized how few of the really great things there were, the top of the market was reinforced."

Indeed, the years since have seen six auction records for the artist. Only three of these, however, topped $200,000, and the bulk of sales have been for less than $100,000. Moreover, cautions Houk, "it’s strictly in the auction market that Atgets have gone that high. The gallery prices have remained the same." Here the spread is even wider, from $1,500 to $250,000. Within Atget’s much-published Saint-Cloud series, for example, Hans P. Kraus, of New York, says he has "some very nice studies" priced between $25,000 and $60,000, while Isaacs is offering the 1924 arrowroot print "Saint-Cloud, fin août," 6 1/2h. for $175,000.

The heftier prices, says dealer Klein, tend to go to "pictures that approach Surrealism or nudity or the forbidden," such as the uncanny images of shop windows or statues in Versailles and Saint-Cloud, the frank nudes of prostitutes, and the sweeping views of Paris. On the lower end are the architectural studies. "You can find very beautiful Atget images for $10,000," says Simone Klein, of Sotheby’s, who believes that abstract details of trees and blossoms are particularly undervalued, at between $10,000 and $25,000. The German gallery Kicken Berlin is seeing interest in these images from collectors of modernist and New Vision photography.

Klein, who expects to have some Atgets in the May sale at Sotheby’s London, sees room for growth in his market, particularly as owners of his works see how his images perform at auction. "There are some very high prices, and then there’s nothing, and then there are very low prices," she says. "I think this middle range will be filled in the next couple of years. I think there are a few surprises left."

February In History: Malcolm X Assassinated

Malcolm X Addressing Black Muslim Rally in Chicago, 1963
Gordon Parks: Malcolm X Addressing Black Muslim Rally in Chicago, 1963


After repeated attempts on his life, Malcolm rarely traveled anywhere without bodyguards. On February 14, 1965 the home where Malcolm, Betty and their four daughters lived in East Elmhurst, New York was firebombed. Luckily, the family escaped physical injury.


One week later, however, Malcolm's enemies were successful in their ruthless attempt. At a speaking engagement in the Manhattan's Audubon Ballroom on February 21, 1965 three gunmen rushed Malcolm onstage. They shot him 15 times at close range. The 39-year-old was pronounced dead on arrival at New York's Columbia Presbyterian Hospital.


Cassius Clay and Malcolm X, Miami, 1964
Bob Gomel: Cassius Clay and Malcolm X, Miami, 1964

The Official Malcolm X Website

FEBRUARY IN HISTORY: NIXON IN CHINA, 1972

Chinese Premiere Chou En Lai and US President Richard Nixon toast each other, Peking, 1972
John Dominis: Chinese Premiere Chou En Lai and US President Richard Nixon toast each other, Peking, 1972  (Vintage print 10 x 8 inches)

From February 17-28, 1972, President Nixon visited the PRC and traveled to Peking, Hangchow, and Shanghai. He was the first U.S. president to visit the People's Republic of China since it was established in 1949.

On February 21, 1972, President Nixon met with Chairman Mao Tse-tung.  After a modest reception at Peking airport, the president was formally welcomed at a lavish banquet held in the Great Hall of the People and hosted by Prime Minister Chou En-lai. Using one of Mao's own quotations, Mr Nixon said it was time to seize the day and seize the hour "for our two peoples to rise to the heights of greatness which can build a new and better world". There followed an elaborate round of toasts, in which the 800 guests at the banquet wandered from table to table clinking thimble-sized glasses containing Chinese firewater.

Now, it is common to see the familiar tag: Made In China, but it wasn't always this way. After President Nixon’s trip, relations between the two countries continued to develop, eventually leading to a free-trade policy.


Related:
Listen to Nixon discuss his rationale for the trip, and his reasoning for the importance of restoring communications with the People's Republic of China.

"Nixon In China": The Opera

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE WITH OUT NEW YORK?


Carl Mydans: A "Chain Gang" of New York Stock Exchange Officers Carries Traded Securities Each Day to Banks and Brokerage Houses, New York, 1937 


Feb. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Deutsche Boerse AG’s $9.53 billion all-stock purchase of New York Stock Exchange parent NYSE Euronext creates the world’s largest owner of equities and derivatives markets, and may spur additional mergers.

But one thing's missing: a new name for the $25 Billion exchange, and will New York still be in the name?

AN ATTEMPT TO HELP JOURNALISM FIGURE OUT ITS FUTURE IN AN INTERNET AGE

We just recently discovered a great website about "new" journalism: The Nieman Journalism Lab.
About the Lab: "The Neiman Journalism Lab  is an attempt to help journalism figure out its future in an Internet age."

To that end: Eight trends for journalism in 2011: A Nieman Lab talk in Toronto
© Joshua BentonFeb. 14  /  11 a.m.



"Whereas I think a lot of news organizations this year are going to start seeing that if they want to be the one source of news for their customers, or the primary source of news for their customers, they’re going to need to present more of the world and more of the online world, and that aggregation of pulling things together will be something they will buy into more."

"... So when all is said and done, the new world is not going to look anything like the old world. And there will still be things that we used to get from the journalism industry that we’re not going to get anymore. But in the end, I think it’s going to be counterbalanced by all the enormous wealth of new information, including a lot of really great journalism, that’s going to be produced by this new ecosystem. And in the end, I think it’s going to end up doing a better job of serving the information needs of readers and viewers and listeners."


Full article here.

Monday, February 14, 2011

NEW YORK: A PHOTOGRAPHER'S CITY





Washington Square, 2009
Stephen Wilkes: Washington Square Park, Day Into Night, 2009


The New York Times
Bookshelf
By Sam Roberts

Sunday, February 13, 2011

New York: A Photographer’s City,” edited by Marla Hamburg Kennedy (Rizzoli, $45). This lush collection, which includes works by Berenice Abbott and Stephen Wilkes, offers fresh perspective on the “physical uniqueness” of the city’s familiar venues, mostly captured in color. Though identifying less familiar haunts would have been a welcome addition, the images here do succeed in going beyond the concrete to capture what Elisabeth Sussman describes in her foreword as the image of the city, both permanent and transitory, that “haunts past and present photography of New York.”

More: NYC like you have never seen her before. This stunning book showcases an unparalleled compilation of mostly unpublished photographs of New York City and its boroughs taken by established and emerging artists. "New York: A Photographer’s City is a world-class collection, featuring artists from all over the
globe, offering views, cityscapes, and vignettes that are fresh and beautifully illustrate the city’s 5 ever-changing boroughs.

The 350 images capture the avant-garde spirit of New York and the city’s appearance in the twentyfirst century. While we immediately associate black and white imagery with NYC, this new look brings out the color in the big apple and reveals the magic that continues to inspire New Yorkers and visitors



Related: The City of New York

Saturday, February 12, 2011

HAPPY VALENTINE'S DAY 2011




Kirk Douglas and Jane Simmons, Spartacus 1959
Richard C. Miller: Kirk Douglas and Jane Simmons' Double, Spartacus 1959



The Kiss, Grand Central Station, NYC
Ernst Haas: The Kiss, Grand Central Station, NY, 1958


Berlin Kiss, Berlin, 1996
Harry Benson: Berlin Kiss, 1996




Mick Rock: Lou Reed and David Bowie, Cafe Royal, London, 1973




Jean Harlow kissing Robert Taylor,
Ted Allen: Jean Harlow kissing Robert Taylor, 1937



Every February 14, across the United States and in other places around the world, candy, flowers and gifts are exchanged between loved ones, all in the name of St. Valentine. But who is this mysterious saint, and where did these traditions come from? Find out about the history of this centuries-old holiday, from ancient Roman rituals to the customs of Victorian England. (History.com)




Friday, February 11, 2011

RICHARD C. MILLER EXHIBITION OPENS

Laurence Olivier, Tony Curtis, Peter Ustinov,  Spartacus 1959
Richard C. Miller:  Laurence Olivier, Tony Curtis, Peter Ustinov, Spartacus 1959


Pasatiempo
The Santa Fe New Mexican's Weekly Magazine of Arts, Entertainment, & Culture
February 11 - 17, 2011

In his long and varied photographic career, Richard C. Miller covered the entertainment industry and did publicity work for 72 films - including portraits of James Dean, Marilyn Monroe, and Steve McQueen. He documented work on the building of the Los Angeles freeway and took many photos of Edward Weston and his son Brett Weston. A retrospective of Miller's work opens at Monroe Gallery of Photography (112 Don Gaspar Ave., 505-992-0800) with a reception at 5 p.m. today, Friday, Feb.


Related: Richard C. Miller: A Retrospective

Thursday, February 10, 2011

RICHARD C. MILLER EXHIBITION PREVIEW ON GALLERY NEWS

Watching TV Fights, Nicholson's, Sunset Boulevard, 1949
Richard C. Miller: Watching TV Fights, Nicholson's, Sunset Boulevard, 1949



Gallery News is heard every Thursday and Friday at 8:55am on KHFM-Classical 95.9 FM and 102.9 FM. It is also available as a podcast at the iTunes Store.

Mid-February is fast approaching and that means Valentineʼs Day for galleries in  Santa Fe and Albuquerque. This is Gallery News for Thursday, February 10.

Monroe Gallery of Photography presents a retrospective exhibition of photographs by Richard C. Miller, who recently passed away at age 98. For decades, Millerʼs photos graced the covers of Americaʼs leading magazines. The opening reception takes place tomorrow Friday, from 5 - 7 PM. Monroe of Photography is located at 112 Don Gaspar in downtown Santa Fe.

Thanks for listening. Iʼll be back tomorrow with more Gallery News. For the Collectorʼs Guide, Iʼm Kevin Paul.
 
Related: Richard C. Miller: A Retrospective

Wednesday, February 9, 2011

FILM vs DIGITAL: A Conversation Continues



zodiac_1.jpg
Zodiac - © John Neel



Via Pixiq

Before I get too many people adding prejudiced comments about the pros and cons of digital imaging verses film, I want to emphasize that I am not putting digital down. Nor am I trying to make a point for film. I am a digital photographer as well as a film photographer. This is not a pro or con discussion about film vs. digital.


Rather, I am asking if there is a difference between the kinds of images that used to be taken with film in comparison to what we are seeing with digital from a spiritual point of view. I am not alone in asking the question.

In looking at the offerings of new technology photography, I am finding very few images that have a specific quality that dominates the works of the great film photographers of film technology. Most of what I see today seems sterile, vapid and trite, by comparison. There seems to be something significant that is missing.

Somehow there is a difference that many of my contemporaries as well as myself feel is missing from the current process. I want to find out what that something is.

When we look at the works of great photographers such as Robert Frank, Mary Ellen Mark, André Kertész, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Lee Friedlander, Gary Winogrand, Ansel Adams, Atget or any of hundreds of photographers who have given us amazing images produced with film, there seems to be a magical or mystical presence that is missing from most of what I would call rather trite and unimaginative images being produced by digital means today.

When a photographer really connects with his subject, there is a transformation beyond the obvious, beyond the likeness of the subject. There is a sense of something else, which is somehow conveyed in a surprising or magical manner. A metamorphosis takes place that we as a viewer can see, feel and understand because the subject has been transformed into something bigger and more profound. The subject becomes a metaphor or symbol for deeper consideration. For me this is a necessary step in the creation or capture of a powerful image. It is photography at its finest. There is much more to the image than appearance. A deeper message is formed. Communication and learning takes place. We become bigger and smarter because the image speaks to us in a deeply articulate way.

Yet, I find this quality scarce in the digital images that I have seen of late.

Is this because there is an - difference between the two technologies, which allows the magic to be captured more easily with one medium over the other? Here again, I am not discussing the differences in technique as much as I am in the ability of the photographer to capture the essence of the subject through either process.

Surely, digital allows a more economical workflow in terms of time and effort. But is there a difference in how a moment is captured. Does film allow the capture to be more transcendent? Is there a higher possible spiritual attainment with a film camera than with a digital camera? Does one technology provide a better capability to transport us to a higher level of understanding beyond the mere representation of a subject?

Personally, I believe that there is a major difference and worth an investigation. For many photographers, film seems more genuine as a medium because to them, it has the ability in the right hands to capture something we could refer to as soul. To me, soul is an essential part of a higher form of image making. It makes the difference between a simple rendition of a subject and one that rises beyond the subject. To capture soul means capturing something deeper and much more meaningful.

It may be possible that with digital, we have not yet made the leap to a spiritual connection with our subjects. If so, could it be because we are still in the early phases of digital imaging and that "thing" will become more evident to us as we become better digital photographers? Is the task of digital imaging too easy or possibly too difficult or distracting that we fail to connect with the subject? Do we pay more attention to the camera and the technology of digital rather than the subject itself? Is it possible that we are better able to become “one” with our subjects with a less complicated medium such as film?

I believe that it is a combination of these and perhaps other circumstances that results in a failure to touch the soul of the subject. And I should say here that film alone does not produce the magic. But, there may be a valid reason that the magic is more prevalent with film.

Personally I think that it is a matter of connecting with your subject in a meditative manner. Awareness and anticipation as well as having genuine concern for the subject matter allows for a better opportunity of becoming one with your subject. I believe that this can happen with either media. It just seems to be less prevalent and more difficult to achieve with digital.

I sense a difference.

© John Neel

Is any of this important to you? If not, why not?
How do we get soul into an image? This will be a topic for another post.