No Transitions: Reality to Distortion

André Kertész was a man ahead of his time in photography. His work was widely accepted in Europe, but when he moved to the United States in 1936, his work was harshly criticized. The American public did not understand Kertész’ larger goal though. He wanted to capture what was natural in people, even if that meant their expressions spoke entirely for them. He also found distortions interesting because they placed more focus on the subject. His portrayal of people revealed “the fragile, evolving nature of all human experience” and the life within them.
Kertész did not begin his career as a photographer. He began working for the Stock Exchange in Hungary, where he was born, and eventually taught himself the art of photography. His art began simply enough, taking pictures of Hungary and its people, but when he was recruited into the Austro-Hungarian army, during World War One, he began taking pictures of soldiers and his new surroundings.
He eventually moved to Paris in 1925 and worked for magazines, where he did some of his most controversial work. His work on Distortions placed a focus on the female nude, distorted by a fun-house mirror.
After his time in Paris, André Kertész and his wife Elizabeth moved to New York City, where his work was harshly criticized. His work with the female nude was called pornography, he was told his work spoke too much, and that he was too human. He continued with his work though, and after his wife’s death produced some of the most touching photographs. He used a glass bust, reminiscent of his wife, and photographed it every day with his Polaroid camera, allowing the background to affect the face of the bust.
André Kertész’ work in photography caught people in their most vulnerable state. His photographs were never staged, and because of this, the subjects were not overly posed or fake. Their expressions are their own, revealing their state of mind. To capture these raw emotions he would even sacrifice clarity and standard conventions in order to get the best picture.

Prompts:
• Was there anything in my presentation that was unclear or confusing? Is there anything about character issue that I need to add?

• Kismaric makes an argument, and uses the following quote, to articulate what photography was to Kertész and how that reflected in his work. Do you agree with what Kismaric has to say? Why or why not?
He [André Kertész] found no need to manufacture pictures or to force responses when the richness of the world was so plainly visible, and the camera so capable of capturing it. Thus his pictures began to take individual form, to record what his eye instinctively found to see. As such, they were not crystal-clear renditions of the world. Visually, abstractions began to take shape as photographic detail was sacrificed to capture the essence of a moment. These were the fruits not of happy accident, but of conscious choice, (Kismaric 8).

• Even though Kertész took pictures of glass busts during the last stages of his life do you think they can portray an emotion and a feeling to the audience? Why or why not?

• Out of his various photos and genres, which do you think show the most emotion and character of the subject? His early work, his photos from the war, his distortions, or his busts? Why? What makes the specific group of photos stand out the most to you?