Andre and Elizabeth Kertesz Foundation

[Troll]

Again and again when viewing an interesting documentary on PBS, the

sponsors are the big guys (IBM, GM, Robert Johnson Foundation,

etc). Lately I've often noted the "Andre and Elizabeth Kertesz

Foundation." During his lifetime Kertesz always bellyached about

being unappreciated, and unable to get work. But you don't do that

kind of sponsorship with chickenfeed. Anybody know the story?

[awahlster]

What does this have to do with Leica photography?

[__jon__]

>Mark Wahlster , apr 18, 2005; 08:02 p.m.

 

>What does this have to do with Leica photography?

 

Uhh... Kertesz shot with a Leica?

[ronald_moravec1]

You all should go to the library and look up his books. The man is a master of making the common look extraordinary.

[kent_tolley2]

When Kertesz immigrates to America (mid to late 30's) his success and reputation as a leading photographer does not follow him. An editor of Life tells him: "Your photographs speak too much. We only need documentary photos. Our editor writes the texts." Kertesz replied: "I can't help it, my photographs speak: I can't touch my camera without expressing myself." <BR>But he did not become a Life photographer and ends up shooting dining rooms and gardens in ranch style houses for "House and Garden" magazine and making a corporate wage. In 1964, the new curator of MOMA, John Szarkowski presents a solo show of Kertesz accompanied by a catalog of 64 photographs. Kertesz is rediscovered, now in America and his photographs become collectable by museums and collectors. It is a comeback with a 30 year period of anonymity between the two distinct periods of success.

[john15]

I don't think that Kertesz made a lot of money, at least not with his camera. He and Elizabeth lived in a modest apartment near Washington Square in NYC. In his early years he used the Leica as did just about everyone but later switched over to an Olympus SLR because he liked using a zoom lens.

[dagata]

Kent, your comments drive home the fact that what's marketable and labeled

as "successful" in commercial terms, or even editorial ones, has nothing to do

with the value of somebody's work. I can think of a million documentary shots

that will go forgotten, but I can't forget any of Kertesz's shots.

[kent_tolley2]

The laws in American in 1941 make Kertesz an enemy alien because he is from Hungary and he is forbidden to photograph on the streets of Manhattan. (Maybe that's why he ultimately gets so good at photographing from his window.) He is also forbidden to publish for several years during the war and during this down time Elizabeth starts what is to become a successful perfume business. After the MOMA show in '64 his photographs began to be in demand and commanded increasingly higher prices. But money from Elizabeth's business was undoubtably a significant part of the foundation he was able to leave.

[kent_tolley2]

He is a photographer and poet of melancholy.

[kent_tolley2]

Dino - It's sad but true, had not Szarkowski brought him forward his remarkable New York work would probably be lost forever.

[Brad_]

Thanks for the Kertesz info, Kent - that was really interesting.

[Troll]

Mark, Kertesz was one of the early great Leica photographers, whose work made the marque famous. That's why I posted it here.

[stuart_richardson]

I am currently reading "Andre Kertesz: His Life and Work" by Pierre Borhan. I highly

recommend it. The photographs are printed very well (and are of course phenomenal), and

the reading is interesting. I took a quick look to the end of the book, and it says that

people started buying his prints in earnest at the end of the 70s and during the 80s. One

of his vintage prints was sold for 250,000 dollars, so if that is any indication, he probably

made some money during his time. There was a print of his that I have always loved and I

looked to see if I could swing it and I think it was 5000, so somebody is making money off

of them...(I won't tell you the print, because I don't want you to buy it and drive the price

up!).

[msitaraman]

Kertesz was amongst the greatest of the great photographers.

[nesrani]

"What does this have to do with Leica photography?"

 

If you don't know the answer to this, what are you doing on this forum?

[andrewlamb]

"An editor of Life tells him: "Your photographs speak too much. We only need

documentary photos. "

 

Much as I really like Kertesz's photographs, I have always been supsicious

about the veracity of this exchange. It was Kertesz who quoted this story and I

think it comes across as a bit rich.

 

There is a fascinating discussion about Kertesz, and his work, in the Getty In

Focus book on him. What is made clear several times in the course of the

discussion is that Kertesz was not averse to creating a more mythic version of

his life and his work.

 

It's my guess that the above exchange falls into that category. Of course, it

doesn't detract from the quality of his wonderful photos.

 

Also, the appartment in New York may have been modest. The country house

in Connecticut wasn't. Elizabeth's cosmetics business must have been quite a

success story.

[kent_tolley2]

<i>Kertesz was not averse to creating a more mythic version of his life and his work</i><BR> I have heard this as well.

[jtk]

When I first saw his work in the 70s, I loved it. It took me five or ten years to realize that many of his photos were their own self-contained worlds, like stage settings...

 

He may have grumbled in "artistic" circles, but corporate work paid his bills. I have great respect for the corporate plodders in photography. It's nice work if you can get it, and nothing's wrong with living above Washington Square.

[dg1]

Wasn't Kertesz one of the earliest adopters of the Leica?

[jtk]

He's said to have adopted in 1925, when Leicas were first introduced on a commercial basis. But there are quibbles about that date...maybe a couple of years later. Some of his best work was done well before Leicas existed.

[andrewlamb]

According to the book 'Andre Kertesz of Paris and New York' he purchased a

Leica in 1928.

 

But wasn't it Kertesz that said he was a Leica photographer even before he

had a Leica?

[olliesteiner]

Here's a slide show of Kertesz photographs:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/photo/entertainment/G5042-2005Feb07.html