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?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
André Kertész was a very talented photographer who showed raw emotion in his pictures. I think that Kismaric’s quote about Kertész is very accurate in describing his images. Kertész’s main goal was definitely to portray how someone was feeling in a specific moment which is what Kismaric says. It also makes sense to me that Kertész’s distorted images clearly portray an emotion. However, I think that for these pictures to be effective, the viewer still needs to be able to recognize the subject’s body language or facial expression. Kertész’s pictures seem to show this expression, so it is easier for the viewer to see how the distortion amplifies the subject’s feelings. As Kismaric says, Kertész seems to be very determined in his purpose of showing who a person is and what they are experiencing at a particular moment.
ReplyDeleteBesides Kertész’s distortions, his pictures of glass busts can also show this emotion. Even though the busts are not real people and do not have facial expressions, they have body language and their background can reflect the emotion that Kertész wants to show. However, I do think that the pictures of two busts together can portray more of an emotion than the ones of just one figure. For example, two particular bust pictures show emotion. The first figure, in Glass Bust on Window, New York (André Kertész , Glass Bust on Window, New York, 1978, http://www.luminous-lint.com/app/home), looks melancholy and depressed. The town behind the bust is reflected in the glass. The darkness of the picture gives the viewer the impression that this bust, while completely inanimate, is experiencing some emotion.
The second picture, which is untitled, shows two figures in shadow (André Kertész, 1979, http://higherpictures.com). This picture shows not only emotion, but also a relationship between the figures. The busts convey an emotion of sadness like the first picture. The figure on the right looks like it is turning to the other bust for comfort and support. It seems like the bust on the left is glad to give this comfort and there is obviously a great amount of love between these subjects. The shadow of the man, possibly Kertész, adds more depth to the picture and makes me think that maybe the figures in the image are supposed to be the artist and his wife, Elizabeth. To me, the second picture shows a more complex emotion and relationship than the first because there are two busts so we can look at how they are interacting with each other. It is amazing that Kertész can show so much feeling in pictures of glass busts.
I think that various pictures throughout Kertész’s career show a huge amount of emotion, but the genre that is most consistently successful in this is his war pictures. Because war is such an emotionally charged and disturbing time, the moment of feeling that Kertész captures is more obvious. The men in his war pictures are obviously dealing with a lot of emotion such as the men with the dying baby. Kertész shows their pain and helplessness and the viewer can see that they feel bad for the child and wish they could do something to help. These war pictures are a good example of Kertész’s talent for capturing a moment and the emotion in that instant.
André Kertész was obviously an exemplary photographer, especially for, or maybe due to, being self taught. His photographs portray real emotion, and his glass busts perhaps portray emotion the strongest. While his photography at first was rejected by those in the United States, some of his images are easily recognizable and popular. The presentation was very clear and used appropriate images to support the thesis. However, mention of a formative experience for Kertész (or lack thereof) could have added to the subject of character.
ReplyDeleteI believe André Kertész’s photographs of the glass busts can portray an emotion and feeling to the audience. The fact that they are very plain, except for taking the outline of a human bust, allows them to convey these feelings with no distractions. The nature of the busts allow them to take on the colors of their surroundings. A dark surrounding gives the bust a dark and gloomy presence, whereas lighter surroundings give them a light and airy, almost content, character. The slight tilt to the “head” with lack of facial features allows the bust to portray many different emotions, from contemplation, to sorrow, to love, to utter ambiguity depending on its surroundings. The presence of another bust portrays a deep connection between the two since they both take on the same aura of their surroundings, and they become as intertwined with each other as is possible for two separate entities. They almost always seem to convey love, which is fitting since this series was taken after the death of his wife Elizabeth.
To me, the busts show the most emotion and character of the subject. Any human being, whether they are being posed or not, change once they are aware that their photo is being taken. Thus, a person’s character is changed or hidden in a photograph, and may not be their true character. The busts portray character with no distractions. They have no physical attributes that attract the eye, they are just there. Since character is almost always the interpretation of the viewer, the busts allow the viewer to see the essence of the image, with no distractions. These photos definitely stand out the most to me. The collection shows the flexibility and complexity of all the emotions the busts can show.
I agree with what Kismaric has to say. Photographic detail was sacrificed was sacrificed to capture the essence of a moment in Kertész’s photographs. Yet again, the busts are a great example of this. The photograph of the bust looking into the spoon is very soft and details are minimal. However, it is obviously a time of self reflection, and that the bust is contemplating “his” existence. In Elizabeth and I [face w/hand on shoulder], Kertész cropped out half his wife, and all of himself but his hand. The sorrow on his wife’s face is quite obvious, and it seems that he is very loving with how he is holding her, but that it feels like neither of them are putting all of themselves into the marriage.
André Kertész was a great photographer, and captured the essence of a moment very well.
You did a very good job with your presentation. Your position was clearly explained and supported by Kertesz’s images. However, I can’t say that I agree with your analysis of character in the distortions that you showed. They merely appeared oddly shaped to me and seemed to lack character. The positioning of the subjects’ was indeed vulnerable. I suppose that I just can’t see how the distorting of these vulnerable photographs added to their character. The abnormality of the distortion drew the eye away from the true character and toward wondering why the artist had chosen to distort the images. That portion of your presentation was the only part that I had trouble with. You showed great support with all the quotes that you included in you presentation.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the quote by Kismaric on Andre Kertesz, I would mostly agree with the notable exception of the mirror distortions. The mirror distortions were entirely manufactured and Kertesz was portraying emotions that were not necessarily true. The models were merely doing their job and even their stance was set. However, all of the other photographs that I saw during your presentation lead me to agree full-heartedly with Kismaric. The picture of the blind musicians and the midget was entirely natural and free-flowing. Kertesz did not need to position the subjects or mirrors. I am sure that with these photographs he went against artistic convention, but what he created was artistic in a way that no set of conventions could hope to contain.
There is an old adage: “chance favors the prepared mind.” This adage fits perfectly with my perception of Kertesz’s style of photography. I don’t think that he went out the door every morning listing to himself exactly what he wanted to capture that day. He seemed to be ready for whatever opportunities the world offered him and so made the conscious choice to capture the essence of special moments.
Kertesz’s talent as a photographer allowed him to convey character and emotion through non-sentient objects. His series based on glass busts is a perfect example of this talent for portraying emotion. The colors from the city outside are reflected within the “head” of the glass bust almost giving it an expression. Yet, there are no distinguishing marks on the glass bust. The contrast between the color reflected and the smoothness of the face connect on an emotional and instinctual level. Nothing is definite in these photographs and so the viewer can interpret them as he or she chooses.
Kertesz’s Glass Bust in Window exemplifies exactly what I’m talking about. I see what appears to be almost as a normal figure. The shadowing from the city outside gives the bust a solid appearance as well as giving definition to the body. There even appears to be a chin suggested by the shadowing though the bust itself is smooth. The cocked head seems to convey a contemplative, almost sad, mood. It’s a though the bust, like Kertesz himself, has lost something precious and is trying to decide how to go on. The ability that Kertesz uses to create these images without shaping them is truly stunning.
I thought you had a very informative presentation on Andre Kertész. The only question I had was about your introduction. You mentioned that he was neither a photographer nor a painter and that he did not need transitions between the two. However, you never mentioned any paintings. Did Kertész paint as well? I was unsure. I also wondered if the pictures of the busts were all taken in the same location. You said that he would just wake up and photograph the figures at different times of the day, but some of the backgrounds are so different that I cannot imagine that they are all the same setting. Overall, I thought you did a great job and I do not think you left out any important information. Good job.
ReplyDeleteIn his earlier photographs, Kertész was able to effectively capture the emotion of his subjects. But, he also managed to give inanimate objects feelings and personalities when he photographed the two featureless glass busts. The small abstract glass sculptures, to me, almost portray even more emotion than his living, breathing human subjects, though they do not actually have feelings and emotions. Instead of communicating the audience, the busts reflect the setting in which they are placed, constantly changing and evolving. Through the environments Kertész chose for the backgrounds of these photographs, the two miniature figures take on every emotion, from sadness to pensiveness to love.
Kertész created emotion in the “faces” of these glass busts, but he also established a relationship between them. He intertwined the two busts as if they were two lovers, creating heart shapes between them and angling their inclined heads toward one another. Though they do not have faces, one might imagine that they were a couple that had been together for years. In one picture, Kertész created a relationship between one bust and its reflection in a spoon. This bust is pensive and seems as though it is reflecting on its life. It is difficult to realize that these figures are not living and do not even have faces.
Because of the dynamic nature of the busts of Kertész’s later photographs, they portray more character than any of his other photographs. Some of his funhouse nudes, though they do emote sadness, insecurity and shyness, they look very much the same. In a way, they almost look posed because of their similarity of pose and expression. On the other hand, none of the bust photos look the same, even though they are merely simple glass figures. It is amazing that something so simple can show more life and signs of emotion and thought than human subjects.