Lartigue

Until I saw a major exhibition of his work at Arles a few years ago, I used to subscribe to the widely held view that he was a genius. Then I realized that I had mostly seen the same carefully selected pictures again and again, in books and magazine articles, and that a much closer appreciation would be that he was a financially overprivileged amateur whose passion for photography far exceeded his talent. His reputation was much enhanced by the glimpse he gave of the extremely rich at a time of great inequality: the Downton Abbey effect.

His great pictures (and some of them are great) were to a large extent a result of the law of averages: take enough pictures, and you need to be REALLY incompetent and unadventurous if you cannot take a few good ones.

For me, he is one of the most wildly overrated photographers in the world; and I say this as an ex-fan, not as someone who never "got" his pictures.

Cheers,

R.
 
I'm inclined to agree, Roger. My daughter has bought me a series of books by photographers, and Lartigue doesn't seem so great when you look at a whole book of his work. I much prefer books of HCB's or Thesiger's photos, for instance.
 
I think the reason many think the work is good is it is a glimpse in a world most will never know and it is really rare given the time it was created. I don't think there are many other photographic glimpses into that world from a kids perspective from the era.

Is it important how many sketches a painter makes and how many times he changes a painting before it's finished? I don't think so. All that matters is what he decides to show. I agree with Winogrand when he said that art is not a product of industrial efficiency.
 
The law of averages can't account for the exceptional quality of his great pictures, and there were a lot of them. It was simply that he had the eye for superb composition and beauty. And whether or not he had a privileged background has nothing to do with it except insofar as it gave him the time and opportunity to photograph elegant people in beautiful places.
 
Could it be that Lartigue was just like the celebrity photographers of the 60s,70s,80s,90s? Maybe just because their subjects were rich and/or famous we think these photographers are geniuses.
 
I don't think he set out to be a great photographer:
but he did not let the opportunity pass, had the enthusiasm, the technical skills, a good eye and most certainly mastered the snapshot and more.
I think that stands the test of time and deserves praise.
 
Smiling JFK hiding his groin while surrounded by babes is an interesting photo but not a great photograph by any means.

He must have did very well that day, but that is the famous JFK magic at work.
 
According to the article, Lartigue lived into his '90s. (Have) you ever noticed how many famous photographers lived to a ripe old age? I wonder if it is something in the chemicals. Maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part...
 
"The law of averages can't account for the exceptional quality of his great pictures, and there were a lot of them. It was simply that he had the eye for superb composition and beauty. And whether or not he had a privileged background has nothing to do with it except insofar as it gave him the time and opportunity to photograph elegant people in beautiful places."
Couldn't agree more.
 
Thanks for the link.

I think Lartigue's contribution has less to do with documenting his world and more to do with aesthetics. Didn't his recognition of the camera's unique vision help to differentiate photography from the other arts. I don't think anyone would have painted that girl flying down the staircase, nor could they ever have painted that distorted race car. Many of his pictures are uniquely photographic and many later masters like Friedlander and Winogrand owe a debt to him in my opinion (and would probably acknowledge as much).
 
Gns and Luis you sum up Lartigue's contribution very well. Having seen the exhibition of his work at the Hayward Gallery a few years ago, I would very much agree.
 
airfrogusmc said:
I think the reason many think the work is good is it is a glimpse in a world most will never know and it is really rare given the time it was created. I don't think there are many other photographic glimpses into that world from a kids perspective from the era.

Is it important how many sketches a painter makes and how many times he changes a painting before it's finished? I don't think so. All that matters is what he decides to show. I agree with Winogrand when he said that art is not a product of industrial efficiency.
Click to expand...

When you consider the equipment Lartigue was working with, I think you'd have to concede he did better than average with it. People would be quick to write off Atget too, if they had no appreciation for what he was working with. These days I don't give much credit for "tryhardability" because it is so easy to make good photographs these days, but one has to keep things in perspective for those who were working in an era when making good photographs not only required a keen eye, but also hard work.
 
He had the time and money to take thousands of photographs and I bet a lot were duds. The novelty of a bygone age and the rarity of the camera then (and his subjects) means they get a lot of coverage.

I'd like to see all his shots before deciding. In the meantime I'll assume that only the best or most interesting are on show and the basis of the judgement.

Regards, David

PS I get thousands looking at my photo's on my website every month; does that make me a great photographer? And if I showed the most popular you'd think yuk!
 
David Hughes said:
I'd like to see all his shots before deciding. In the meantime I'll assume that only the best or most interesting are on show and the basis of the judgement.
Click to expand...

Of course only the most interesting would be on show. Even Picasso's dealers would reject some of his paintings. That's just how it goes. Practice makes perfect, and everything that's not perfect is just practice. :)
 
airfrogusmc said:
In my opinion his best work he took when he was a kid documenting the very wealthy class and how they played.
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's not forget that this was very early in photography's history, he was very young when he made some of the photos, I can't think of anyone who photographed what he photographed before him, he used various different methods, and there is early action photography (cars / planes) in the mix. I don't think we should trivialize the contribution. I'm not going to hate him because he came from a wealthy family. Most photography was expensive to do at the time.
 
"According to the article, Lartigue lived into his '90s. (Have) you ever noticed how many famous photographers lived to a ripe old age? I wonder if it is something in the chemicals. Maybe it is just wishful thinking on my part..."

I think it has more to do with the sense of purpose. Many photographers who continue working till the end live long lives, because they never "retire".

As to Lartigue, he was a competent "enthusiast" and he rode the first wave of handheld cameras, making good use of them. The photographs followed.

FWIW, if you are interested, there will be an exhibition of his works now in Nice, France: http://www.tpi-nice.org/expo/
so all you plaboys planning your yearly holidays on the Cote d'Azur have an opportunity to visit... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom