Re: [Leica] atget WAS the one-second test

[Guy Bennett <gbennett@lainet.com>]

>Not so that Atget was every bit a poor at the end. His large volume sales to
>the BN and city archive allowed him to live modestly but in some comfort.
>Arthur

Arthur,

Maybe I've got my facts wrong, but pretty much everything I've read about
Atget suggests that he was quite poor when he died. Typical of the
descriptions of A at the end of his life is Ian Jeffrey's, who claims in
his history of photography (Thames & Hudson, 1981) that A died "in
obscurity and poverty in 1927," which would suggest that his sales to
museums and libraries (and to shopkeepers, whose businesses he
photographed) did not bring him as much money as you suggest. Where did you
get your info?

In addition to being a fan of E.A., I'm also curious about the details of
his life. (He seems to embody the [unfortunately typical] image of the
artist poor and obscure in life, but eminently important in death.) For
that reason I'd be interested in seeing some biographer's proof of the
contrary.

Guy