Photos by Eugène Atget as expression of objectivity of architecture: Hôtel de Beauvais
https://doi.org/10.22394/2412-9410-2024-10-1-297-323
Abstract
The article compares the representation of architecture in French and Russian academic art history, on the one hand, and in Eugène Atget’s photographs, on the other. The starting point for the art historical descriptions is Jacques-François Blondel’s analysis, supported by Jean Marot’s drawings. The choice of characteristics analyzed by Blondel and later researchers reflects the schematism in the understanding of architecture, its distance from the human being, and its lack of existential characteristics. This representation finds correspondence in the illustrative material — in the preference for drawings, plans, frontal point of view, and the absence of the human being in it. Atget’s images, due to the personal characteristics of their author, as well as of photography as an art form in general, reflected those characteristics of architecture which art historians overlooked, and which are related to its fundamental immersiveness and inseparable connection with the human lifeworld. Atget achieves this effect with the help of complex angles, naturalness of visual coverage, and seriality of photographs. “Unadorned” pictures of old buildings correspond to the naturalness of their aging, to actual and potential ruin as an important characteristic of architecture. On the basis of the analysis, the conclusion is reached about the need to revise the subject of architectural studies in the direction of its greater multidimensionality, inseparability from the human being, dynamism and uncertainty.
About the Author
S. P. Khokhlova
State University “Dubna”
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Svetlana P. Khokhlova, Cand. Sci. (Philosophy) Associate Professor, Department of Sociology and Humanities, Faculty of Social and Human Sciences
141980, Dubna, Universitetskaya Str., 19
References
1. Alferova, G. V. (1969). Arkhitektura vremeni frantsuzskoi absoliutnoi monarkhii [Architecture of the time of the French absolute monarchy]. In A. V. Bunin (Ed.). Vseobshchaia istoriia arkhitektury (Vol. 7, pp. 111–186). Stroiizdat. (In Russian).
2. Aubenas, S., & Le Gall, G. (Eds.) (2007). Atget: une rétrospective. Bibliothèque nationale de France.
3. Benjamin, W. (1977). Kleine Geschichte der Photographie. In W. Benjamin. Gesammelte Schriften (H. Schweppenhäuser, & R. Tiedemann, Eds., Vol. 2, Pt. 1, pp. 368–385). Suhrkamp.
4. Du Seigneur, M. (1886). L’hôtel de Beauvais. La construction moderne, 1886(May 8), 361– 363; 1886(May 15), 378–380; 1886(May 22), 391–392.
5. Gady, A. (2002). Le Marais: Guide historique et architectural. Le Passage.
6. Gady, A. (2008). Les hôtels particuliers de Paris du Moyen-Âge à la Belle Époque. Parigramme. Gautrand, J.-C. (Ed.) (2016). Eugène Atget. Paris. Taschen.
7. Goets, B., Madec, P., & Younès, C. (2009). L’indéfinition de l’architecture: un appel. Éd. de la Villette.
8. Iakimovich, A. K. (1995). Arkhitektura [Architecture]. In E. I. Rotenberg, & M. I. Sviderskaia (Eds.). Istoriia iskusstv stran Zapadnoi Evropy ot Vozrozhdeniia do nachala 20 veka. Iskusstvo 17 veka: Gollandiia, Frantsiia, Angliia, Germaniia (pp. 64–95). Iskusstvo. (In Russian).
9. Khokhlova, S. P. (2013). O granitsakh paradigm v issledovaniiakh po istorii arkhitektury [On the boundaries of paradigms in architectural history research]. Istoricheskaia psikhologiia i sotsiologiia istorii, 6(2), 147–168. (In Russian).
10. Khokhlova, S. P. (2019). Neopredelimost’ arkhitektury v teorii Benua Gettsa, Filippa Madeka i Kris Iunes [The indeterminacy of architecture in the theory of Benoît Goetz, Philippe Madec and Chris Younès]. Vestnik gosudarstvennogo universiteta “Dubna”, Ser. Nauki o cheloveke i obshchestve, 2019(4), 80–87. (In Russian).
11. Knabe, G. S. (2001). Strogost’ nauki i bezbrezhnost’ zhizni [The rigor of science and the immensity of life]. Voprosy filosofii, 2001(8), 113–124.
12. Lotman, Yu. M. (2002). Kanonicheskoe iskusstvo kak informatsionnyi paradoks [Canonical art as an informational paradox]. In Iu. M. Lotman. Stat’i po semiotike kul’tury i iskusstva (pp. 314–321). Akademicheskii proekt. (In Russian).
13. Pérouse de Montclos, J.-M. (1989). Histoire de l’architecture française, Vol. 2: De la Renaissance à la Révolution. Mengès.
14. Simmel, G. (1923). Die Ruine. In G. Simmel. Philosophische Kultur: Gesammelte Essais (3rd ed., pp. 135–143). Kiepenheuer.
15. Sontag, S. (1977a). Melancholy objects. In S. Sontag. On photography (pp. 51–82). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
16. Sontag, S. (1977b). Photographic Evangels. In S. Sontag. On photography (pp. 115–149). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
17. Vasil’eva, E. V. (2018). Ezhen Atzhe: khudozhestvennaia biografiia i mifologicheskaia programma [Eugen Atget: An artistic biography and a mythological program]. Mezhdunarodnyi zhurnal issledovanii kul’tury, 2018(1, no. 30), 30–38. (In Russian).
18. Wölfflin, H. (1915). Kunstgeschichtliche Grundbegriffe: das Problem der Stilentwickelung in der neueren Kunst. Bruckmann.
Review
For citations:
Khokhlova S.P. Photos by Eugène Atget as expression of objectivity of architecture: Hôtel de Beauvais. Shagi / Steps. 2024;10(1):297-323. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.22394/2412-9410-2024-10-1-297-323
Views:
62
Email this article 