VIEWS ABOARD, VIEWS ABROAD:

-
RECONSIDERING THE PHOTOGRAPHY AND RECEPTION
OF ELI LOTAR THROUGH AN EXAMINATION OF
HIS PATRIS II SERIES

Kimberley Williams, MA Dissertation, June 2012

Modernism After Postmodernism – Dr. Gavin Parkinson
10, 451 words

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS:

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 3

ABSTRACT 4

INTRODUCTION 5

1 [RE]FRAMING THE ABATTOIR 11

2 [RE]PRESENTING GREECE 20

3 [RE]POSITIONING LOTAR? 31

CONCLUSION 40

BIBLIOGRAPHY 42

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 46

ILLUSTRATIONS 50

2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

My first and foremost thanks go to Gavin Parkinson, whose enduring encouragement

and erudite scholarly advice have been the foundation of this thesis. In 2009, I
researched the respective relationships that Eugène Atget and Eli Lotar bore to
documentary photography and surrealism. Early into my research, I reported back to
Gavin that I was amazed to find that nothing was published on Lotar in English and
barely anything in French. He has always encouraged wonderful yet demanding topics,
and here, no less, began the makings of this MA research.

Damarice Amao, who is currently finalising her PhD thesis on Eli Lotar at (Université
Paris IV) has been instrumental in the formation of this paper. Not only did she facilitate
my research within the Lotar archive at the Pompidou, but also gave her valuable time to
discuss a number of my key ideas. Also my thanks go to Quentin Bajac and his team,
who, despite their busy schedules, allowed me to research in amongst them at the
Cabinet de la Photographie.

My further thanks go to Ms. Lucia V. Halpern and John Davies for the scholarship I was
awarded. Their support has enabled me to undertake my MA, without which, I would
not have been able to enjoy the development of my understanding of Lotar, that I hope
is reflected in this thesis.

The academic support provided by Judy Corbalis has been fundamental to the formation
of this paper. My thanks go to her, for her time and remarkable patience.

There have been so many people that have helped me in the course of researching and
writing this dissertation, but I would especially like to acknowledge the following: Simon
Baker, David Campany, Rosalind Jenkins, Ruth Harriss, Thomas Gallagher, Julia V.
Hendrickson, Carloline Levitt, Robert McNab and Julian Stallabrass. Their contributions
however great or small were invaluable.

Finally, to my parents, for their enduring and unflinching support throughout this whole
process.

3
 ABSTRACT

This thesis is a revisionary analysis of the photography and reception of Eli Lotar (1905-

1969). This re-examination takes place through a single series of negatives taken while

aboard the Patris II, in Greece and the Cyclades in 1931. Using this photographic series

as a framework, this thesis demonstrates the ways in which the key themes of Lotar’s

production during the 1930s can be extrapolated. It challenges the almost exclusive

association of Lotar’s work with Documents which has shadowed a wider understanding of

Lotar’s work. The thesis considers other, more germane frameworks such as Counter-

Philhellenism and ‘poetic realism’, within which to analyse and contextualise Lotar’s

photography. Finally it examines the broad range of stylistic techniques that Lotar

employs within the Patris II series, to demonstrate that his work not only resists an

association to Surrealism but to art-historical categorisation as a whole. The thesis

suggests that, he can, in fact, be regarded as a pioneering photographer of the 20th

century.

4
 INTRODUCTION

If some day on a deserted shore, among the wreckage cast up there, or perhaps at the
bottom of an old chest, someone were to find a roll of film preserved by miracle from
the damage of water and time, a roll with twelve snapshots taken down the course of the
ages and at particular moments, then a legend at one and the same time more precise and
more fantastic would take the place of another legend, and the realm of love and dream
would not only be preserved safe and sound but would once more become the lions
share. 1
Carlo Rim – Extract from ‘On The Snapshot’ (1930)

The extensive, yet largely unseen, archive of Eli Lotar (1905-1969), collectively presents a

remarkably varied oeuvre. His photographic career principally spans 1927-1938, with a

concentrated period of activity around 1928-1932. Despite the relative brevity of his

engagement with the medium, approximately 9000 negatives held in the Pompidou

Centre, Paris not only evince a photographer who travelled widely throughout the 1930s,

but also reveal an approach that definitively conflicts with the widely-held critical

association of Lotar with ‘dissident’ Surrealism. His entire photographic output is

serialised within his notebooks, which help to unlock the myriad of negatives held in the

archive. Analysis of both reveals the rich synthesis of diverse cultural influences that

occupied him, the breadth of professional and personal affiliations that he held and the

range of destinations to which he travelled.

It is reported that Lotar had two passions in life: women and the sea.2 The

archive certainly attests to the latter part of this premise, and it is in response to his love

of the sea from which this thesis departs: aboard the Patris II. Lotar’s first trip to Greece

was as a passenger on the Patris II in the spring of 1931, which stemmed from a

1 Rim, Carlo, ‘De l’instantané’ L’Art Vivant, no.137 (1 September 1930) in Christopher Phillips, ed.,
Photography in the Modern Era: European Documents and Critical Writings, 1913-1940 (New York, The
Metropolitan Museum of Art and Aperture, 1989) p.38
2 Lionel-Marie, Annick, ‘Essai Biographique: « Le cœur meurtri par de mortes chimères »’ in Eli Lotar,

(Paris, Centre Georges Pompidou, 1993), p.14

5
collective wish to make a ‘modern’ documentary film about the life of the Cycladic

archipelago. The film would be a collaborative effort with Lotar as the director of

cinematography (Fig. 0.1), alongside playwright and poet Roger Vitrac (Fig. 0.2), and

actor and film director Jacques B. Brunius (Fig. 0.3). Their travels lead to the creation of

the, now lost, Voyage aux Cyclades film, and Lotar’s collection of accompanying

photographs. Using the Patris II series as a framework, this thesis demonstrates the ways

in which the key themes of Lotar’s production during the 1930s can be extrapolated.

This enables a reappraisal of his connection to Surrealism, suggesting that he can, in fact,

be regarded as a pioneering photographer of the 20th century.

The aim is not to give a comprehensive biographical account of Lotar - for

which, arguably future scholarship is required – but to elucidate unknown themes that

emerge from an analysis of the negatives held in the Lotar archive. Because some basic

misconceptions about his background and production have led to a very clouded

understanding of Lotar’s activities as a photographer, filmmaker and active member of

the avant-garde, some biographical clarification ought to be established in order to

provide a firmer ground for analysis of his photographic output. In 1905, Eliazar Lotar

Teodoresco was born in Paris to Romanian parents and subsequently spent his

childhood in Bucharest. His father, Tudor Arghezi, was a well-known poet whose work

is widely celebrated throughout Europe.3 As a young man, Lotar wished to escape the

authority of his Father and aspired to become a film director. 4 From 1924, he visited

Paris intermittently and settled there in 1926 when he was ultimately granted French

citizenship. It was in this same year that his fortuitous meeting with the photographer

Germaine Krull took place, at the time a prominent figure, and soon after Lotar became

both her photographic assistant and lover. This can be seen as the beginnings of his

3 For more on the life and work of Lotar’s father see: Selected Poems of Tudor Arghezi, trans. Michael Impey
and Brian Swann (Princeton, Guildford, Princeton University Press, 1976)
4 Amao, Damarice, ‘Eli Lotar un photographe professionnel et militant en marge du Surréalisme’ (Paper

delivered as part of a conference: L'image comme stratégie: des usages du médium photographique dans le surrealisme,
at Institut national d’histoire de l’art, Paris, 11 December 2009), p.2

6
engagement with photography and would prove to be a decisive factor in his

professional development. While not underestimating the significance of this relationship

to Krull, by 1928 Lotar had established himself as a photographer in his own right, a fact

that has often been overlooked. His participation in a number of significant exhibitions

and a variety of commissions for illustrated publications such as Bifur, Jazz, Vu and

Varietés, indicate both a widespread appreciation and demand for his photography.5

However, Lotar has entered art history largely as a consequence of the inclusion

of his photographs in another publication; Lotar’s iconic Abattoir series of 1929 were

taken at La Villette, on the outskirts of Paris (Fig 0.4), and were published later that year

in Documents. The editor, Georges Bataille, selected three images from the series to

accompany his own ‘Abattoir’ text, which featured as part of the journal’s ‘Chronique:

Dictionnaire’ 6 This was one of many of Bataille’s writings that considered, what he saw as,

the inherent relationship between sacrifice, slaughter and modernity. The selected

photographs have been regarded by many as well suited to the pages of the journal and

as Ian Walker suggests were ‘typical of Bataille’s assault on the higher aspirations of

mankind and his belief in the impossibility of extricating the violent from the sacred

(indeed from life itself).’7 Not only as a result of this article has Lotar has subsequently

been studied through the prism of ‘dissident’ Surrealism, but the images have come to

define the journal’s ‘shock tactic’ ethos. In 1996, Rosalind Krauss and Yves-Alain Bois’s

influential exhibition and revisionist study of modern art, ‘L’Informe: mode d’emploi’, used

Bataille’s notion of l’informe as its theoretical basis, which instigated a resurgent scholastic

interest in Documents and Bataille. In the accompanying publication, Lotar’s images

feature alongside an evaluation of the Bataille’s Abattoir text relaying this one-time

5 For examples of other articles, see: S. Croissant, ‘À l’Instiut de sourds muets d’Asnières: une pépinière de

bons ouvriers,’ VU, No.6, (25 April 1928), pp.162-3; Variétés, no.9 (15 January 1929); Bifur, no.1 (25 May
1929); Jazz, no.9 (15 September 1929). Significant exhibitions include: Exposition Internationale de photographie,
Brussels, (1928), Film und Foto, Stuttgart (1929). For a comprehensive list of group exhibitions, see Eli
Lotar, (Paris, Centre Georges Pompidou, 1993), p.108
6 Documents, No.6, November 1929, p328-332
7 Walker, Ian, City gorged with dreams: Surrealism and documentary photography in Interwar Paris (Manchester and

New York, Manchester University Press, 2002), p.127

7
episode. Bois suggests that ‘no other image appearing in the journal is as realistically

macabre as these photographs taken at La Villette’ despite ‘cruelty and sacrifice, terror

and death’ being frequent themes among the pages of Documents.8 Similarly, in 2006, the

Hayward Gallery’s Undercover Surrealism exhibition reinforced a connection between Lotar

and Documents. His Abatoir photographs were hung in a singularly themed ‘Sacrifice’

room alongside artworks by Andre Masson, a motif which was continued in the

accompanying catalogue.9 The radicalism thus far accorded to Lotar’s perceived agenda,

encouraged by this association with Documents, has meant that art historians frequently

reference Lotar’s name or ‘the slaughterhouse photographs’, without attempting to

explore his wider production to substantiate their claims. These assessments of Lotar

have created difficulties for an evaluation of the artist in terms other than this series; and

while not to undermine its importance, the popularity and critical longevity of the

association to Documents has limited an appreciation of Lotar’s wider oeuvre.

The severity of this misunderstanding is highlighted by the existence of over one

hundred other photographic series. An analysis of the negatives in the archive allows for

the argument that the positioning of these photographs within art-historical discourse

has constructed a largely false perception of Lotar and necessitates a re-evaluation of his

works. Therefore, this thesis presents a revisionist analysis of his photography by

focusing upon an alternative, yet substantial and all-encompassing series: Patris II. The

substantial number of photographs within this series gives an overview of Lotar’s

approach that is largely consistent with other series’ similarly derived from his travels,

primarily in Greece and Spain throughout the 1930s. In the first chapter, a comparison

of the known Abattoir series to some unseen negatives of a different abattoir is provided.

The latter photographs taken while the Patris II was harboured in Athens, provoke a

reconsideration of the editorial framing of the former series, which potentially disrupts

8 Bois, Yve-Alain and Rosalind Krauss, Formless: A User’s Guide, (New York, Zone Books, 1997), p.43
9 See Neil Cox, ‘Sacrifice’ in Undercover Surrealism (London, Hayward Gallery, 2006), pp.106-114

8
Lotar’s current historical positioning. The second chapter focuses on the wider context

of the expedition to the Cyclades, analysing the apparent intellectual and editorial stimuli

associated with Greece and the perception of its culture at the time. The third chapter

considers the emerging artistic and critical tendencies, vis-a-vis an in depth-visual analysis

of the photographs within the Patris II series.

Lotar was a prodigious collaborator and this led to invariably to spates of travel;

in addition to ‘Voyage aux Cyclades’, he would also work on many other films alongside

distinguished figures such as Jean Painlevé, Luís Buñuel, Jean Renoir, and Yves

Allégret. 10 In 1946, Lotar directed Aubervilliers, accompanied by a commentary from

Jacques Prévert, which was selected for Cannes Film Festival. Lotar’s film collaborations

in themselves present an equally rich opportunity for wider analysis; however, without

wanting to undermine their artistic significance or the formative relationships they

generated, for the purposes of this thesis, an attempt to separate his authorial

contributions in film is problematic, and therefore his activities as a cameraman are only

referred to in order to contextualise his photographic output.

Although he was a highly sought after photographer as well as a cameraman,

contemporary criticism specifically pertaining to Lotar’s photography is limited. This

thesis hopes to establish Lotar as one of the leading photographers of his generation,

alongside Henri Cartier-Bresson, André Kertész, and Germaine Krull. Such a coterie of

photographers do not constitute a formal movement or grouping, however their shared

affinities are far more relevant to a discussion of Lotar’s photography than the

peripheries of Surrealism. This emergent photographic sensibility led to the genesis of

new photographic orientated publications and alternative critical approaches to the

medium, distinct from those of Surrealism. Philippe Soupault’s introductory essay, ‘The

10 See Annick Lionel-Marie, ‘Essai Biographique: « Le cœur meurtri par de mortes chimères »’ and

‘Filmographie’ in Eli Lotar, (Paris, Pompidou, 1993), p.9-31 and p.109

9
Present State of Photography,’ for the 1931 issue of Photographie, 11 promoted a move

away from the experimentation and ‘artistic pretensions’ of photographers in the 1920s,

arguing that ‘a photograph is above all a document’.12 Soupault’s conviction that ‘this

album obliges us to believe that all hope is not lost, since the collaborators […] have the

courage to face up to the most urgent problems,’ suggests that Lotar was amongst those

photographers who lead a move away from surrealism, instead exploring the new

documentary possibilities of the medium. 13

To write about Lotar presents a substantial challenge insofar as hardly any

scholarship currently exists about his production, despite his substantial activity in the

late 1920s and 1930s. Since his withdrawal from the avant-garde in the mid-1940s and

subsequent death in 1969, his archive has been hidden for many decades and the

reception and appreciation of Lotar has suffered. His contemporaries would achieve

international scholarly and commercial recognition, while Lotar would largely fade into

historical oblivion. A reconsideration of the contents of his archive now presents the

opportunity to uncover a rich and near-forgotten photographer.

11 Lotar was featured both in the 1930 and 1931 of this annual photographic supplement to Arts et Metiers
amongst other leading photographers.
12 Soupault, Philippe, ‘The Present State of Photography’ (1931) in Phillips, ed., Photography in the Modern

Era: European Documents and Critical Writings, 1913-, p.51

13 Ibid.

10
 1 – [Re]framing the Abattoir: From La Villette to Le Pirée

To represent is to aestheticize; that is to transform. It presents a vast field of choices but

it does not include the choice not to transform, not to change or alter whatever is being
represented.14
John Berger, The Documentary Debate: Aesthetic or Anaesthetic? (2003)

Roland Barthes recognised the predicament of the published photograph: its situation

within ‘a complex of concurrent messages with the photograph as centre and surrounds

constituted by the text, the title, the caption, the lay-out and in a more abstract but no

less ‘informative way’, by the very name’ of the publication.’15 An appreciation of these

determining factors is helpful when instigating a reappraisal of the perception of Lotar,

through a comparison of the framing of the Abattoir series within Documents and other

contemporaneous publications. Initially this chapter considers how the editorial subtext

can radically vary the interpretation of a single set of photographs. As established in the

introduction, Lotar’s present reception has largely been determined by the inclusion of

three Abattoir photographs accompanying Bataille’s text in Documents (1929), the

prevailing connection of which has shadowed the fact that the series was reproduced in

other avant-garde journals such as Variétés (1930) and VU (1931).16 These publications

give an indication of Lotar’s wider editorial recognition, thus enabling an explication of

how a ‘straight’ photograph with an apparently obvious content and meaning can take on

a range of poetic, philosophical and political meanings depending on the context in

which it is framed. Following this, the chapter compares the known Abattoir series to a

largley unpublished collection of negatives in Patris II series, taken of an abattoir at the

14 Berger, John, ‘The Documentary Debate: Aesthetic or Anaesthetic?’ in David Levi Strauss, Between the
eyes: essays on photography and politics, (New York, Aperture, 2003), p.9
15 Barthes, Roland, ‘The Photographic Message’ in Image, Music, Text, trans. Stephen Heath (London,

Fontana, 1977), p.15

16 See: Variétés, Vol. 3, No.12, (15 April 1930), n.p and Carlo Rim, ‘La Villette Rouge’, VU, No.166, (20

May 1931), pp.698-700

11
Athenian port of Pireaus. From hereon, in order to distinguish clearly between the two

photographic series, they are referred to respectively as the La Villette series (1929) and

the Le Pirée series (1931). The photographs included in Le Pirée series act as a springboard

for an examination of the remaining negatives within the Patris II series, which

collectively elucidate the modus operandi of Lotar’s wider career. Furthermore, Lotar’s

1929 text, ‘Ici, on ne s’amuse pas’, invites an inspection of the Le Pirée series that enables

a reconsideration of the concerns of the artist, which potentially neutralizes the

constructed Bataillean radicalism of the La Villette series.

Framing the Abattoir: Documents

Documents was a short-lived but highly influential journal, which published fifteen issues

between 1929 and 1930. Bataille conceived the journal as a ‘war machine against received

ideas’ and drew together a diverse range of significant contributors, including many of

those who had either left or were expelled from André Breton’s surrealist group.17 The

extent of Lotar’s involvement within this intellectual nebula is uncertain, but what is clear

is that, unlike Jacques-André Boiffard, Lotar’s participation within Documents was limited

to a single instance. The semblance of a shared attitude with Bataille’s circle is be

suggested by the existence of the photographic components of the Un Cadavre pamphlet

in the Lotar archive (Fig. 1.0&1.1), however, the fact he shared a studio with Boiffard

from 1930-31 may also explain his complicity in this endeavour.18

In his ‘Abattoir’ text, Bataille states that the slaughterhouse is ‘linked to religion

insofar as the temples of times past…served two purposes: they were used for both

17Undercover Surrealism, p.11

18The published pamphlet was a vitriolic attack upon André Breton, that revealed his ‘excommunicatory
tendencies by papal analogy.’ See Simon Baker, ‘A Corpse’ in Undercover Surrealism, p.82. The pamphlet
included essays by Bataille, Georges Limbour, Robert Desnos, Raymond Queneau, Michel Leiris, Alejo
Carpentier, Jacques Prévert, Roger Vitrac, George Ribemont-Dessaignes and Jacques-André Boiffard.
Many of the aforementioned participants of Un Cadavre would bear some relation to Lotar at various
points in his career but outside of the context of Documents.

12
prayers and for killing.’19 From this perspective, it is unsurprising that Bataille responded

favourably to Lotar’s impassive photographs of the slaughterhouse. Lotar went to La

Villette with André Masson, whose particular interests were centred on notions of

‘violent death, sacrifice and struggles of animals’ and therefore closely aligned him with

the writings of Bataille and Michel Leiris, who ‘drew analogies between sacrifice and

aspects of contemporary life.’20 Bataille’s choice of Lotar’s photographs as opposed to

the artworks of his friend, implies that the indexicality of the images resonated more

deeply with Bataillean ideals of base materialism. Moreover, according to Leiris this

appropriation was ‘one occasion in the magazine when the text was written in response

to the images.’ 21 Bois also suggests that their inclusion is surprising insofar as ‘the

iconographic violence in Documents is mediated, distanced through representation:

ethnographic or artistic phenomena are displayed there, not raw images from daily life.’22

Bataille’s subjective positioning of Lotar’s photographs occurs through the

selection of only three photographs from a series of 35 (Figs. 1.3&1.4). The first

photograph reproduced full-page is an initially inconspicuous passageway, which reveals

an orderly arrangement of cow hocks propped against a wall. Bataille evidently

recognized the strong diagonals within the frame of Lotar’s photograph and replicated

this through an image of a collapsing chimney on the facing page. Two of the three

images selected are eerily static, emblematic of the lack of revelation Bataille sought to

construct. Bois argues ‘the photographs exhibit nothing that is not extremely orderly, and

it is the banality of this very order that is sinister,’ he continues, as ‘it is not violence as

19 Bataille, Georges, trans. Annette Michelson, ‘Slaughterhouse’, October, Vol. 36, (Spring, 1986), p.10
20 Poling, Clark V., Andre Masson and the Surrealist Self (New Haven and London, Yale University Press,
2008) p.71. In 1936, six years after the breakup of Documents, Bataille would create a new journal Acéphale,
which concentrated more heavily upon notions of sacrifice to which Masson would contribute alongside
Roger Caillois, Jules Monnorot, and Pierre Klossowski.
21 Walker, City gorged with dreams, p.127
22 Bois, Formless, p.44

13
such that interests Bataille, but it’s civilised scotomization that structures it as

otherness.’23

But if the meaning of a photograph is ‘inevitably subject to cultural definition’, it

is possible to consider Allan Sekula’s assertion that ‘all communication is, to a greater or

lesser extent, tendentious; all messages are manifestations of interest’ as a pertinent

synopsis for the operation at play in Bataille’s potential misappropriation of Lotar’s

photographs. 24 Not only were the Abattoir photographs published elsewhere, it is

important to clarify that Documents was not the first journal to publish the images, as is

often presumed to be the case; the monthly review Jazz (1928-9) was to ‘reproduce

Lotar’s abattoir photos but in its second issue (January 1929)’ ten months ahead of

Bataille.25 It is Sekula’s contention that ‘only by beginning to uncover the social and

historical contexts of the […] photographs can we begin to acquire an understanding of

meaning as related to interest’ which predicates the following analysis of the other

journals.26

Framing the Abattoir: Variétés

A year later, in 1930, eight images from the La Villette series were reproduced in

Variétés.27 Edited by E.L.T. Mesens and based in Brussels, this monthly ‘anthology of

modernity’ was not a mere art journal but also included a range of articles on popular

culture. Despite a special issue on ‘Le Surrealisme en 1929’ published that June, Variétés’

relationship to Surrealism is complex: Patricia Almer infers that ‘only those Surrealists

23 Bois, Formless, p.44

24 Sekula, Allan, ‘On the Invention of Photographic Meaning’ in Victor Burgin, ed., Thinking Photography
(Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1982), p.84
25 Ades, Dawn., and Fiona Bradley, ‘Introduction’ in Undercover Surrealism, (London, Hayward Gallery,

2006), p.13. Jazz was a monthly review dedicated to ‘l’actualité intellectuelle’, directed by Titaÿana and -edited
Carlo Rim, that existed from 1928-9.. There is some discrepancy as to exactly when the photographs were
taken. Lotar’s notebooks would suggest October 1929, however the suggestion by Dawn Ades that they
appear in Jazz in its second issue prior to October, which could imply a flaw in Lotar’s own chronology.
26 Sekula, On the Invention of Photographic Meaning’, p.92
27 Variétés, Vol.3, No.12, (15 April 1930), n.p

14
who did not belong to the central group of Breton took part in Variétés.’ 28 This is

demonstrated by the contributions of writers such as Georges Ribemont-Dessaignes,

Philippe Soupault and Roger Vitrac. Lotar’s photographs frequented the magazines’

pages on a near-monthly basis during its brief two-year tenure, his subjects ranging

widely, from isolated abstracted objects, to more literal street scenes; interestingly, a

number of photo essays published in Variétés reflect Lotar’s interest in the sea,

reproducing a number of his photographs of maritime paraphernalia.29

In Variétés, Lotar’s Abattoir photographs were spread across four pages in a

series of juxtaposing pairs. Apart from the title, ‘La Viande: Huit photos prises à

l’abattoir par Eli Lotar,’ the photographs were presented in a visual essay form, not as

illustrations for a given text (Fig. 1.5). Mesens similarly opted for the cow-hock image,

but its photographic remove serves to counterbalance the uncompromising brute reality

of its partner, a startling image depicting a single isolated calf head that fills the majority

of the frame. J.B Brunius later suggested that each of Mesens’ layouts within the

magazine ‘became an unacknowledged collage by the sole game of confrontation.’30

While Walker considers ‘Mesens’ cool, almost imperceptible irony’ as ‘closer to the tone

of Lotar’s photographs than Bataille’s melodrama,’ it is in the publication VU that

Lotar’s photographic intentions are more faithfully represented. 31 This is supported by

both the existence of a rare article authored by Lotar in Jazz, and the similar framing

methods he employed in the photographs of the Le Pirée series.

Reframing Lotar: ‘Ici, on ne s’amuse pas’

An insight into Lotar’s concerns is garnered from one of the only known articles to be

written by Lotar. ‘Ici, on ne s’amuse pas’ appeared in Jazz in November 1929, following a

28 Almer, Patricia and Hilde Van Gelder, eds., Collective Intentions: Surrealism in Belgium, (Leuven, Leuven
University Press, 2007), p.39
29 For an example see ‘Retour de Terre Neuve,’ Variétés, (15 May 1929), n.p
30 Walker, City gorged with dreams, p.102
31 Walker, City gorged with dreams, p.135-6

15
trip he made with filmmaker Joris Ivens to Zuyderzee, a northern region of the

Netherlands. In this short text Lotar reflects upon his experiences and describes the grim

and exhausting conditions of navvies working on a land reclamation project:

The life is reduced there to exhausting work… Forced labour in perpetuity… The effort of
these men is quiet and serious like a rite…And this fight between the sea and the machine,
this gesture unceasingly repeats, this stubbornness of the men against nature is a so
splendid spectacle and if moving that one would contemplate it until the degradation, the
feet stick in the soil… Nothing counts here but work… I acknowledge the appalling
simplicity of this life without surprise, the perfect beauty of this mechanical existence is one
of the most disturbing things, but also to see itself which is powerful - and more
32
beautiful.

If the text serves as a crucial indication of Lotar’s interests and his sympathy for the

plight of the worker, it potentially disrupts what has previously been gleaned from the La

Villette series; subsequently it also provides a useful context for why he might have

turned his lens to Le Pirée. Furthermore, it suggests that the prioritization of the worker’s

daily life is most accurately reflected in VU, despite it being the last of the four journals

to publish the images.

Framing the Abattoir: VU

VU (1928-1940) was a weekly, richly illustrated publication launched and directed by

Lucien Vogel and edited by Carlo Rim. A key component of VU’s visual identity was

achieved through innovative layouts, employing techniques such as collaging and

cropping images, as well as inventive typographies that produced compelling interplays

between text and image. VU was conceived to emulate ‘a ‘beautiful film’ that would

‘bring all of life within the range of the human eye’, with the hope that it would provide

32Lotar, Eli, ‘Ici, on ne s’amuse pas,’ originally published in Jazz, (15 November 1929), reproduced in Eli

Lotar, (Paris, Centre Georges Pompidou, 1993), p.20. Author’s translation from original: ‘La vie y est
réduite à un épuisant travail…Les travaux forces à perpétuité…L'effort de ces hommes est silencieux et
grave comme un rite … Et cette lute entre la mer et la machine, ce geste sans cesse répété, cet entêtement
des homes contre la nature est une spectacle si magnifique et si émouvant qu’on le contemplerait jusqu’a
l’abrutissement, les pieds collés au sol. Parfois, la machine travaille jusque…Rien ne compte ici, que le
travail –J’avoue que l’effroyable simplicité de cette vie sans surprise, la parfait beauté de cette existence
mécanique est une des plus navrantes choses qui se puissant voir – et aussi une plus belles.’

16
its readers with the ‘same kind of experience as the cinema reels watched by millions of

people each week.’33 Within the first year of its publication, Lotar would contribute

photographs for no less than ten articles, and sporadically continued to collaborate with

the title until 1935.

For the ‘La Villette Rouge’ article in VU, Carlo Rim selected nine images from

the La Villette series (Figs. 1.6&1.7). The onus is placed on the workers and their

involvement in the modern process of meat production in Paris, as opposed to an

abstracted or fetishized presentation of death. The images document real figures for

which this is their everyday existence, a livelihood that the bourgeoisie failed to

acknowledge, and which VU draws to the attention of its readership. As VU’s editorial

motto went: ‘The text explains, the photo proves.’ 34 Three photographs particularly

demonstrate this focus: one of a butcher making incisions to an animal flank; a woman

bent over pig carcasses; and a defiant butcher, standing square to the picture plane.

Whereas in Documents and Variétés the photographs are published with little explanation,

here the images are supported by an accompanying descriptive text that negates

misinterpretation of the La Vilette series.

Reframing the Abattoir: Le Pirée

The Patris II series is mostly comprised of three to four views of a single moment on

Lotar’s travels throughout Greece and the Cyclades. As such, the extended focus given

to eight photographs of another abattoir in the port of Le Pirée appears to be unusually

large and provides significant grounds for comparison to the earlier La Villette series. The

two series not only reveal nearly identical subject matter, but also a surprising number of

shared focal points and compositional strategies. Such symmetry is arguably more

reflective of Lotar’s interest in daily-life than a wish to uncover something sinister or

33Frizot, Michel, VU: The story of a magazine that made an era, (London, Thames & Hudson, 2009) p.7
34Ibid., p.7

17
banal. Lotar returned to Athens, five years later in 1936, and was once again drawn to

this exact same abattoir and the photographs are almost identical to those taken earlier,

thus suggestive of the photographer’s recurrent fascination in this particular phenomena.

In both of the series, Lotar examines the intense concentration of the worker

butchering the carcass (Fig. 1.7). At La Villette, Lotar tightly frames his subject,

emphasizing the symmetry between the butcher’s angled elbow and the protruding limb

of the cattle (Fig.1.8). Similarly, the sombre reality of a herd of sheep being ushered past

the hung carcasses of their fellow species is a patent reminder of the animals’ fate

(Fig.1.9); the photograph echoes an earlier scene (Fig.1.10) where scores of carcasses

continue out of frame into an unknown continuum. The subjects involved in each hardly

appear concerned by the photographer’s presence, or perhaps the photographs were

captured in a quasi-voyeuristic manner. What Lotar does make apparent in both series

are the socio-cultural conditions in which the abattoir is located both geographically and

psychologically. Where the in Paris, the consequences of Haussmannisation, pushed the

abattoirs such as La Villette out-of-sight, out-of-mind to the peripheries of the city

(Fig.1.11), in the Athenian port of Le Pirée, Lotar acknowledges its location in amongst

the daily street life of the port, a sight which fascinates him (Fig. 1.12).

The primary intention of correlating the La Villette and Le Pirée series is to

highlight the conditions of their framing, or lack of it rather than to introduce an exercise

in comparative iconography. The Le Pirée series corresponds more closely to the framing

of the La Villette series as presented in VU, and thus disassembles the construct of Lotar

as a photographer with transgressive intent. There is a certain irony in the fact that the

La Villette photographs, albeit striking, were unusual in the context of Documents, and that

Lotar would be to a greater extent be defined by this episode. Whereas his subsequent

inclusion in Variétés and VU, the modes of framing Lotar’s photographs were not

remarkably different to the scope of other editorial features, whereby the articles were

18
more easily subsumed and integrated into the magazine’s wider output and therefore did

not come to historically define the journal as is the case with Documents. Although the

images taken aboard the Patris II were not shot with the primary intention of publication

in the illustrated press, this possibility cannot have been wholly absent in Lotar’s mind,

and they too would in fact be reproduced in VU (Figs. 1.13&1.14). One photograph

from the Le Piree series (Fig.1.15) was included in this article on the Cyclades, which

serves as a final comparison point to the editorial frameworks in which Lotar’s abattoir

photographs were reproduced.

Even if it is possible to discuss VU and Variétés in the context of surrealism, they

certainly cannot be described as ‘Surrealist’. Even if, as Krauss argues, that the ‘parade of

surrealist magazines […] more than anything else are the true objects produced by

Surrealism,’ then Lotar’s inclusion in all but those affiliated with orthodox surrealism

cannot alone be persuasive enough to justify his position within the wider discourse of

the movement. Therefore, following a reframing of Lotar’s agency and a disruption of

the ties to Documents, it is possible to position Lotar here as a witness to Surrealism,

participating in and amongst an avant-garde that is essentially peripheral to the

movement. Perhaps what is repressed in the reception of Lotar’s photographs is not a

burgeoning sacrificial tendency, but in fact the sheer ordinariness, the everyday

documentary of brute reality in Lotar’s photographs and wider career.

19
 2 – [Re]presenting Greece: Incarnate alterity within Lotar’s Patris II series

‘The device of archaeology is fundamental to the national imagination; it is a device that

produces facts on the ground, the experiential and physical national truths. It creates
regimes of truth for the nation. It re-collects the fragments, that is, it re-members the dis-
membered ruins to produce a mnemonic landscape, which is at the same time a
landscape of oblivion, of forgetfulness. It produces the ordered and sanitized national
memory in order to forget the diverse, multiple, chaotic, fragmented past.’35

Yannis Hamilakis, The Nation and its Ruins, 2007

The ‘inspiration for the € symbol […] came from the Greek epsilon (Є)’ states

the European Commission portal, ‘a reference to the cradle of European civilisation –

and the first letter of the word Europe, crossed by two parallel lines to ‘certify’ the

stability of the euro.’36 As discussions take place about the future of an apparently almost

ungovernable country and the potential advent of the ‘Grexit’, references to Greece’s

past greatness in antiquity are ubiquitous, generating headlines such as ‘Europe’s Achilles

Heel’ and satirical cartoons such as KAL’s caricature, which bastardizes icons of

Greece’s cultural past: the Venus di Milo, the Laocoön and the Discobolus of Myron.

(Fig. 2.0).37 While these sentiments effectively undermine the European Commission’s

conflation of civilisation with stability, they simultaneously persist in referencing the

nation’s historical past to articulate those issues.

The intention of this chapter is to underscore the pervasive cultural associations

embedded in discussions of Greek culture. Even when Lotar visited Greece during the

1930s, the country was socio-economically backward by western standards. Throughout

the 1920s, Greece had suffered economic depression, political instability, and a severe

35 Hamilakis, Yannis, The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National Imagination in Greece,
(Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007) p.293-4
36 European commission website:

http://ec.europa.eu/economy_finance/euro/cash/symbol/index_en.htm. Accessed 25 May 2012.

37 The Economist, (14 May 2012), p.9

20
earthquake in Athens, with the added catastrophic influx of one and a half million

refugees from Asia Minor in 1922, the culmulative effect of which meant the country did

not share in the wider modernisation seen across the rest of Europe. Derek Aldercroft’s

study, Europe’s Third World contends that ‘from the inception of the new state, Greece

had been saddled with heavy debts, first to defray the cost of gaining independence, and

then to meet the expenses involved in repeated conflicts in pursuit of aggrandisement,

through to the final and disastrous war against Turkey in the early 1920s.’38 The situation

he describes was reflected in the backwardness of contemporary Greek agriculture,

resulting in it having to import many of its essential foods, which made up over a third of

all its imports in the 1930s.39 Lotar’s photographs from his Greek travels substantiate

such analyses, with many images showing impoverished provincial villages and their

people surrounded by arid landscapes and rocky outcrops (Fig. 2.1).

In order to contextualise Lotar’s Patris II series, this chapter will attempt to

explicate the relationships between the intellectual currents in Paris and the socio-historic

attitudes toward Greece around 1931. It will give specific attention to the intertwined

aspects of travel, ‘counter-Philhellenism’40 and ethnography, while noting that, as James

Clifford suggests, within ‘the hothouse milieu of Parisian cultural life, no field of social or

artistic research can long remain indifferent to influences or provocations from beyond

its disciplinary boundaries. 41 Lotar’s corruscating lens presents a challenge to the

academic ‘construct’ of Greece, revealing a country that is fraught with contradictions,

crumbling ruins, provincial villages, and which shatters the persistent myth of Greece as

an Arcadian civilisation.

38 Aldcroft, Derek, H., Europe’s Third World: The European Periphery in the Interwar Years, (Aldershot, Ashgate,
2006), p.145
39 Ibid., p.149
40 For the purposes of my argument, I have coined the term Counter-Philhellenism to describe the

prevailing interest around 1930 amongst the Parisian avant-garde to explore other ancient Greek cultures.
It counters the axis of Philhellenism by negating the emphasized European, and particularly French and
British, teleology of Classical antiquity through to modernity. As such, the term Counter-Philhellenism,
disrupts the notion of continuity, by locating ‘Other’ within both ancient Greek civilization and
contemporary Greece.
41 Clifford, James, ‘On Ethnographic Surrealism’, Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol. 23, No.4

(October, 1981), p.539

21
Aboard the Patris II

Tourism in Greece, and more specifically the Greek islands before the Second World

War ‘was practically non-existent.’42 A significant role in facilitating tourism to the region

was played by the Neptos Company, which, according to its prospectus, organized

‘summer trips for artists on board the Patris II.’43 Figures such as Roger Caillois, Michel

Leiris and Florent Fels were among the impressive array of artists, writers, and architects

who travelled on the boat, and whose testimonies appeared in Le Voyage en Grèce, the on-

board publication of the Patris II. What is remarkable about their comments is the

unfettered enthusiasm with which many recount the ‘real’ Greece, and at times describe

the formative experience their travels engendered, for example Raymond Queneau stated

‘I did not expect anything of it – I returned different from there.’ 44 Similarly, Le

Corbusier exhorted ‘everyman who is in love with life, tortured by the slow shipwreck of

conscious in the tempest of early mechanization’ to ‘embark at Marseilles and head for

Greece,’ because there lay ‘the point of departure of our West. It represents, in its

exceptional simplicity (still intact today), a totality of shape and of the landscape, the

quality of light sufficient traces of a human civilisation, land, sea and ourselves.’45 Like

his fellow travellers, and as a young photographer, Lotar was immensely enthralled by

both the subject matter and opportunity to travel by sea, which led to a number of later

trips.

42 Loukaki, Argyro, Living Ruins, Value Conflicts (Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing, 2008), p.38
43 Hollier, Dennis, Against Architecture: The Writings of George Bataille, trans. Betsy Wing (London and
Cambridge, Mass., October/The MIT Press, 1992), see footnote p.181
44 Queneau, Raymond as quoted in Le Voyage en Grèce, No.1, (Spring-Summer 1934), p.18. Author’s

translation: ‘Je n’en attendais rien; j’en suis revenue autre.’ Queneau later wrote that the trip was the
impetus for one of seminal novels. See Raymond Queneau, Letters, numbers, forms: Essays, 1928-70, trans.
Jordan Stump (Urbana, Univeristy of Illinois Press, 2007), p.xiii. Roger Vitrac is also quoted in Le Voyage en
Grèce, and responding to the following questions: ‘1° What did you think of Greece? 2° What do you think
about it on your return? 3° Would you return? And why?’ Vitrac responded: ‘1° A deception. 2° Upon my
return I thought that Greece did not correspond to any geographical need and that beyond its presence
and by a kind of inexpressible confusion it could only change the destiny of men. 3° In this case, it is
useless to ask to me whether I will go back there, nor why. I go back there every year. From now on
Greece for me is written and pronounced Grace.’
45 Le Corbusier as quoted in Le Voyage en Grèce, No.1, (Spring/Summer, 1934), p.4

22
 The boat set sail from Marseilles, at the time the biggest port in the

Mediterranean, and which Robert McNab describes as ‘the capital of dépaysement’46; the

term accurately reflects this modish appeal to step beyond one’s own culture and

revaluating that from which one left. Certainly, it was with a similar inclination that Lotar

and his friends would leave France far behind as they ventured via the Cyclades and

Athens as far as Constantinople. It is probable that Lotar’s itinerary did not significantly

differ from the route outlined on a map in the inaugural issue of Le Voyage en Grèce,

published by the Neptos Company in 1934 (Fig. 2.2). Furthermore, the boat’s route

largely corresponds to the photographic locations indicated in Lotar’s notebooks (Fig.

2.3)47 A more precise dating for the voyage has recently been put forward by Damarice

Amao, following the discovery of a letter sent from Lotar to Boiffard on headed paper of

Patris II, dated 1st April, suggestive of a journey between March and June 1931.48 Lotar’s

trip aboard the Patris II in 1931 was the first of three voyages to Greece he would make

during the decade. He would sail many more times from Marseilles and throughout the

Mediterranean, to marginal areas of Europe, such as Spain, Portugal and Morocco as

confirmed by the corresponding series of photographs held within the archive. 49 These

photographs reveal a similar intention to that evinced in the Patris II series, and like his

friend Henri Cartier-Bresson, he drew his attention to the dispossessed and peripheral

46 McNab, Robert, Ghost Ships, (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2004) p.57
47 See also, F. W. Kuhlicke, ‘A School Tour to Greece,’ Greece & Rome, Vol. 4, No. 12 (May, 1935), pp. 180-
183. Kuhlicke’s testimony of his travels aboard the Patris II allows a further reconstruction of Lotar’s
voyage: “Leaving Bedford on August 31 we caught the 10.20.a.m. Newhaven boat-train for Paris, where
we had an evening meal and boarded the night express for Marseilles. We reached our port at 10 a.m. and
proceeded directly to the docks, whence the Patris sailed at noon directly for Piraeus. Our route lay north
of Corsica and down by Elba, which were seen next day, followed by a 'close-up' of Stromboli the day
after. Passing through the Straits of Messina we safely escaped Scylla and Charybdis and the following day
were in Greek waters. Sailing between Cephalonia and Zante with a distant view of Ithaca and a nearer one
of the Oxyia Isles we entered the Gulf of Patras and so through the narrows at Rhion to the Corinth
Canal, through which we were towed by the tug Titan. After a glorious sunset as we approached Salamis we
steamed into Piraeus on the evening of September 4.” Note that even in this most literal of accounts, the
references to Greek mythology are also pervasive.
48 Amao, Damarice, ‘Voyages en Grèce’ in Zervos et Cahiers d’art, (Paris, Centre Pompidou, 2011), p.73. In

the letter, Lotar asks Boiffard to send him more supplies to Le Pirée.
49 In 1938, Lotar would also depart from Marseilles to travel to Indo-China, his farthest destination during

his career, on board the President Doumier and Jean Laborde.

23
areas of Europe. Peter Gallassi’s remark that ‘photography, which had grown out of

travelling, now fuelled it,’ is without doubt also applicable to Lotar’s agency.50

Counter-Philhellenism: Cahiers d’Art & Le Voyage en Grèce

During the period, as discussed in Chapter 1, editors of art journals and illustrated

magazines exerted a substantial influence on photographers such as Lotar. Two editors,

both Greek by birth, whose significant relationships to Lotar have largely been

overlooked were Christian Zervos,51 editor of Cahiers d’Art and Eleftheriades Tériade, art

director of Minotaure and editor of Le Voyage en Grèce.52 These two compatriots were well

integrated within the Parisian avant-garde and close to Hercules Johanniedes, owner of

the Neptos Company. In the 1930s, both Zervos and Tériade arguably instigated an

alternative presentation of Greece that served to both balance and complicate the

Phillhellenestic fervour that had swept through Western Europe during the ninteenth

Century, and remerged as Le rappel a l’ordre in the 1920s. In the aftermath of the Great

War, Elza Adamowicz states that during the 1920s the ‘official rhetoric was calling for a

return to the so-called European – and, implicitly, French – values of classicism,

grounded on Cartesian principles of rationality, order, reconstruction.’53 Not only would

Lotar assist Zervos and Tériade in their [re]presentation of Greece, but they were also

motivating forces in the dissemination of the ‘Voyage aux Cyclades’ film and associated

photographs. oeuvre

Where pre-Classical Greek art had been viewed as ‘primitive’, irrational and

chaotic, and had long-been denigrated in favour of the Classical, using Cahiers d’Art as a

platform, ‘Zervos presented a highly influential version of the belief in the relevance of

archaic and ‘primitive’ art to contemporary art, which Sophie Bowness describes as ‘part
50 Galassi, Peter, Henri Cartier-Bresson: The Early Years (New York, Museum of Modern Art, 1987) p.20
51 Other titles by Zervos include The Art of Crete, The Art of the Cyclades, L'art de l'époque du Renne en France,
and a catalogue raisonné of Picasso’s oeuvre
52 Teriade had formerly worked with Zervos as art director at Cahiers d’Art
53 Adamowicz, Elza, ‘Off the map’, Elza Adamowicz, ed., Surrealism: Crossings/Frontiers (Bern, Peter Lang

AG, 2006), p.199

24
of a new consciousness in Greek art in France in the 1930s.’54 The interest in Archaic

Greece emerges in the work of writers like Henri Rivière, who published an article

comparing pre-classical Greek statues to Khmer art and in the artwork of contemporary

figures such as Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque. It appears that Zervos commissioned

Lotar to take a portrait of Braque to accompany an article on the artist, in the January

1931 edition of Cahiers d’Art; therefore, it is possible to propose that Lotar not only

would have been aware of such artistic currents, it is certain that Lotar had direct contact

with one of it’s leading proponents only weeks ahead of his voyage. Furthermore, certain

negatives from the Patris II series suggest that Lotar’s photographic subjects were

comparable to Zervos’s heterodox historical ethos: Lotar captures a collection of

Cycladic figures sat on a window sill (Fig. 2.4) and two an un-classically proportioned

carved figures, integrated with an exterior wall of dwellings (Fig. 2.5&2.6). These

photographs reflect this emerging editorial ethos, where the historic co-exists alongside

the present.

Zervos also wrote a number of books, most significantly L’Art en Grèce, published in

1934, which similarly presented a radically different model of ancient Greek art,

welcomed by artists and academics alike. 55 Herbert Read’s review recognizes the

entrenched views that Zervos both faced and challenged:

‘M. Zervos has selected his examples of Greek art from a point of view entirely
opposed to that held by Winckelmann and every academic scholar up to the present
day. He begins his illustrations with certain Neolithic terra-cotta figures of about
3000 B.C., and continues through the Cycladic and Mycenaean periods and then
down to the beginning of the fifth century. The art of the succeeding period, the art
hitherto held as supremely representative of the Greek genius, the art of Pheidias,
Praxiteles and Skopas - is completely omitted. It is dismissed as decadent […] Those
who prefer an idealistic naturalism in art will inevitably be scandalized by the
production; for such people, the book is blasphemous.’56

54 Bowness, Sophie, ‘Braque’s Etching for Hesiod’s ‘Theogony’ and Archaic Greece Revived’ The Burlington

Magazine, Vol.142, No.1165 (2000), p.204

55 Before founding Cahiers d’Art in 1926, Zervos had been a scholar of classical philosophy
56 Read, Herbert, ‘Review of L'Art en Grèce by Christian Zervos; The Acropolis by Walter Hege; Gerhart

Rodenwaldt’, The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 64, No. 373 (Apr., 1934), pp. 190-191. Similarly
see J. E. Barton, Greece & Rome, Vol. 6, No. 17 (Feb., 1937), pp. 65-69: ‘The remarkable work produced in
Paris (1934) by Christian Zervos, and entitled L'Art en Grèce, laid stress on aspects of Greek sculpture
which appeal to twentieth-century taste […] The photography of L'Art en Grèce was actually too good for
some critics. I have heard it described as tendentious, and its producers have been charged with the

25
It is useful to consider Lotar’s voyage to the Cyclades in the context of Zervos’

enthusiastic counter-Philhellenism, especially given that a year after the trip, an unnamed

review of the Voyage aux Cyclades film appeared in Cahiers d’Art in 1932.57 Damarice

Amao, has recently uncovered a letter dated 28th May 1931 from Zervos to Kandinsky,

that reveals he was disappointed that he was unable to take this trip with Lotar et al,

which simultaneously confirms Zervos’s knowledge of the voyage, and, given his close

relationship to Johannides, suggests that he may have been a persuasive force in its

instigation.58

Tériade’s knowledge of Lotar’s voyage is also highly probable given that he too

was a close friend of Johannides. Tériade is perhaps best known through his association

to the art journal Minotaure which published thirteen issues from 1933-39, and where

advertisements for the Patris II appeared in a number of editions of the journal (Fig. 2.7).

Like Cahiers d’Art and Documents, Minotaure combined art and ethnography59 of Kelly

highlights the apparent ‘tensions’ between the advertisements in Minotaure and the

developing field of ethnography: ‘The offer of Greek cruises belonged to the realms of

travel as leisure, travel writing and travel photography, realms from which ethnography

was fighting hard to distance itself.’60 However, given the established connections to

Johannides, their inclusion is perhaps less surprising, nor is the fact that Tériade was

serious crime of manipulating light and vision so successfully as to upset the still prevailing academic
standards of judgement. They had the audacity to photograph, direct from Greek vases of the fifth
century, large-scale details of drawing which might readily be mistaken for products of twentieth- century
Paris, distortion and all. That Pericles and Picasso should kiss each other is a notion revolting to staid
minds, and the indignation it caused is not surprising to those who know our universities.’
57 ‘Un Voyage aux Cyclades: Film realize par Bernard Brunius, Eli Lotar, Roger Vitrac. Muisique de

A.Jeanneret,’ Cahiers d’Art, (1932), p.84. It is also notable that on the preceding page, Zervos reviews recent
publications including Photographie 1931 in which Lotar featured. In the review, Zervos only individually
refers to a handful of the photographers included in the publication, singling out Lotar: ‘who succeeds in
drawing a very strong poetry from objects and captures the major expressions of a landscape with his
apparatus.’ See Ibid., p.83
58 Amao, ‘Voyages en Grèce’, p.72
59 The journal also became the unofficial catalogue in which the photographic reportage from the Dakar-

Dijibouti mission of 1933 to which the whole of Minotaure No.2 was devoted.
60 Kelly, Julia, Art, Ethnography and the Life of Objects: Paris, C. 1925-35 (Manchester, Manchester University

Press, 2007), p.92

26
happy to overlook this potentially problematic conflation in the support of an

engagement with a more universal approach to Greek culture. Lotar’s engagement with

Minotarure is relatively minimal, however, it is worth drawing attention to Lotar’s

photographs of archaic sculptures that were published in the journal in 1936 (Fig.2.8).61

Teriade’s connection to Lotar and their mutual appreciation of Greece, is better

reflected in the relatively unknown periodical: Le Voyage en Grèce (Fig.2.9). The magazine,

published from 1934-39, simultaneously presented both high and low Greek culture in

an approach and format comparable to Documents. The journal reflects a similar ethos to

that of Cahiers d’art in promoting an alternative vision of Greece and its historic cultures.

One aspect of the magazine’s counter-Philhellenism is reflected in Phillipe Jockey’s

statistical analysis of the magazine’s editorial content, which shows that the references to

Greek antiquity frequently favoured the Archaic period over its otherwise privileged

Classical counterpart.62 Photography was used liberally throughout the magazine, and

given that Lotar illustrated the greatest number of articles during the course of the

magazine’s publication, his relationship to it is significant. By comparison to other

photographers who contributed to Le Voyage en Grèce, Lotar’s photographs stand out as

essentially ‘realist’ in their approach; without the saccharine traces of romantic idealism.

In fact, the first issue of the magazine includes a photograph from the Patris II series

taken in Naxos (Fig. 2.10).

Ethnography and the avant-garde

The relationship between Documents and ethnography has been extensively analysed, but

in order to contextualise the proximity of those intellectual currents emerging at the time

of the 1931 voyage, it is helpful to examine certain specific connections. Although short-
61 Prévert, Jacques, ‘Terre Cuites de Béotie’ Minotaure, Vol.3, No.10, (15 December, 1936), pp.40-45
62 Jockey, Philippe, ‘De l’œuvre à l’acte même : fouilles et sculptures mises en image(s) dans Le Voyage en
Grèce’ in Sophie Basch and Alexandre Farnoux, eds., Le voyage en Grece, 1934-1939 : du periodique de tourisme a
la revue artistique (Athens, École française d'Athènes, 2006), p.139. Jockey outlines the distribution of
periods implicitly represented in Le Voyage en Grèce: Minoean 1%, Archaic 39%, Severe 9%, Classic 9%,
Hellenistic 33%, Imperial 9%.

27
lived, Documents exemplified a radical reappraisal of culture and demonstrates how the

movements of the artistic avant-grade and ethnography were interlinked. Certainly, its

editorial objective and content is explicitly expressed on the journal’s front cover:

Archéologie, Beaux-Arts, Ethnographie, Variétés. The juxtaposition of photographic

reproductions of ethnographic objects alongside contemporary art, seen in journals such

as Cahiers d’Art and Minotaure, was a method similarly employed within Documents. Kelly

describes the journal as a ‘heterogeneous mixture of cultures and concepts held at a point

of irreconcilability, patched together with a collage of photographic materials, represents

the principle of cultural relativism and a fundamentally anthropological impulse.63

The magazine sought to break the binary of ‘otherness’, and as such ‘European

and non-European objects were displayed with a disregard for frontiers’ producing ‘a

critique of established aesthetic hierarchies.’ 64 However, Documents’ usual role as a

transgressive platform was much less marked and more complex in relation to Greek

culture. Although Documents did include articles on archaic Greek statuary, Cycladic art,

and the prehistoric sculptures, by more conventional historians and archaeologists such

as Valentin Mueller, Charles Theodore Seltman, and Paul Jacobsthal, the journal

somewhat surprisingly, did not extend its cultural critique to consider the ethnographic

reality of present Greece, in order to counterbalance its historical focus where by

comparison, ‘primitive’ cultures are represented both ethnographically and

archeologically.65 As Hollier states, ‘the imposition of the East versus West binary model

onto the experience of alterity evacuates its concrete content. Alterity within Documents is

‘contractured on the basis of a mere rotation, a mere reversal.’66 Surely, therefore, a

European ethnography would be the most transgressive assault on those cultural

pretensions the Documents sought to dismantle?

63 Kelly, ‘Discipline and indiscipline: the ethnographies of Documents’, Papers of Surrealism, Issue 7, The Use
Value of Documents (2007), p.1
64 Adamowicz, ‘Off the map’, p.203
65 See respectively: Louis Clarke ‘L’art îles Salomon’ Documents, (1930), No.7, pp.277-281and Michel Leiris

‘L’Oeil de l’ethnographe (A propos de la Mission Dakar-Djibouti)’ in Documents, (1930), No.7, pp.404-415

66 Hollier, Dennis, ‘Surrealism and its Discontents’, Papers of Surrealism, Issue 7, (2007), p.4

28
Ethnos: Incarnate Alterity

The temptation to investigate ethnography in far-flung places, in a environment of anti-

colonialism, ignores the potential opportunity, and necessary questioning of European

culture, through an ethnographic presentation of Greece as impoverished, crumbling and

backwards. It is this approach, which has been relatively under-examined which can be

considered in relation to Lotar. In a vein similar to the ethnographic exploits of his peers

studying non-European cultures, what is effectively achieved in Lotar’s Patris II series is

an ethnographic form of counter-Philhellenism that irrefutably presents cultural

otherness as existing in Europe. There is a certain irony in the etymology of

ethnography, a word derived from the Greek ethnos, which Edwards suggests

‘subsequently acquired the connotation of otherness…[and] came to refer to barbarians,

heathens – in a word, outsiders.67 If the term is defined as ‘the scientific description of

nations or races of men, with their customs, habits, and points of difference,’ it must be

considered that an ethnographic approach to Greece is equally as valid as that of non-

European cultures.68 The relationship of photography and ethnography can therefore be

seen to be complicated in Lotar’s Patris II series.

If ‘Bataille considered alterity as a disruptive force present not in some

geographically locatable or imaginary ‘beyond’, but interrupting in the very spaces of the

everyday,’ 69 then surely Lotar’s lens locates alterity within a territory that is culturally and

artificially ‘known’ augmenting the ethos of Documents. Caillois, a principal contributor to

Documents, later targeted this ‘cultural relativism purportedly ingrained in the ethnographic

67 Edwards, Brent Hayes, ‘The Ethnics of Surrealism: Review(s) of Formless: A User's Guide by Yve-Alain

Bois; Rosalind Krauss; La ressemblance informe, ou le Gai-Savoir visuel selon Georges Bataille by Georges Didi-
Huberman; Refusal of the Shadow: Surrealism and the Caribbean by Michael Richardson,’ Transition, No. 78
(1998), p.89
68 Oxford English Dictionary, Second edition, 1989.

http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/64809?redirectedFrom=ethnography#eid. Accessed 6 June 2012

69 Adamowicz, ‘Off the map’, p.214

29
questioning of Western superiority.’70 Lotar does question notions of Western stability,

not through cultural relativism but through his quotidian scenes of Greece that conflate

the binaries of West and Other, historical and present. Futhrermore, in his photographs

of Constantinople, (Fig.2.11) Lotar reverses the binary by framing the city,

conventionally considered within the parameters of the Orient, in a harmonious and

ordered manner. The Patris II series can therefore be seen to reveal a backwardness and

poverty, in a vein of ethnographic practice, that disrupts those stable orders of collective

interpretation applied to Greek culture, and thus European civilisation as a whole.

70Caillois, Roger, as quoted in Hollier, ‘Surrealism and its Discontents’, p.2

30
 3: [Re]positioning Lotar?

Where the preceding chapters have examined the both the editorial frameworks and

intellectual contexts in which Lotar’s photographs are partially situated, what follows will

be a reconsideration of some of the artistic stimuli that Lotar was exposed to, and how

these are conveyed within the Patris II series. Lotar rarely opted for clichéd views or

conventional subjects, and through his innovative framing, Lotar often revitalised those

quiet incidents in the background, the unassuming details of architecture or landscape,

and maritime paraphernalia that surrounded him on his journey. In the absence of any

apparent formal or stylistic concerns, broad frameworks are more useful for a discussion

of Lotar’s photographs; therefore, this chapter will consider notions of the ‘social

fantastic’, ‘documentary depaysement’, and ‘poetic realism’. Despite a general disregard for

style, Lotar’s enthusiasm for the medium at his disposal is apparent, and his often

creative approach enabled him to capture the many visual possibilities within a society

that was new to him. This chapter visually analyses a variety of the photographs within

the Patris II series looking at the various approaches Lotar adopted. However, to begin

with the chapter will consider the contemporaneous reception of Eugène Atget (1857-

1927), whose work Lotar was undoubtedly familiar with. This is necessary for two

reasons: firstly, to establish the critical approaches to new modes of photography, and

secondly, to comprehend the emergent aesthetic impetus within straight photography

directed towards the everyday and a lyrical documentary style.

Lotar and the Legacy of Atget

Atget’s pioneering documentary photographs of Paris not only marked photography’s

seismic shift away from the traditions of Western painting, but also revealed the visual

31
possibilities for a whole host of new potential subjects that could be drawn from

everyday life. In the course of thirty years, Atget systematically catalogued the city’s

urban fabric revealing an obstinate, anterior Paris. Despite the indexical specificity of

Atget’s photographs, they were seen to be enigmatic and poetic due to a frequent lack of

contextual detail that evokes a sense of ‘emptiness’ in his work. Atget’s oeuvre largely

began to emerge in 1925, instigated by a Surrealist interest and continued by other

concurrent aesthetic discourses. It is necessary to reiterate that in 1929, both Atget and

Lotar were the loci of a discussion within L’Art Vivant, titled: ‘La Photographie est-elle

un art?’71 At the time, L’Art Vivant was an influential illustrated magazine that set out to

explore the manifestations of modern culture in the arts and everyday life. Such an

association locates Lotar as part of a wider movement that reassessed the role and

direction of photography in the period. Furthermore, both Atget and Lotar were

included in the 1929 ‘Film und Foto’ exhibition in Stuttgart, alongside other avant-garde

photographers of the 1920s.72 As such, the direct or indirect influence of Atget should

not be underestimated when interpreting the Patris II series.

Atget’s work in Paris also heralded the response of a number of writers, who

initiated new critical approaches to the medium, that amalgamated otherwise wide-

ranging aesthetic and ideological influences on photography at the time. Robert Desnos,

described the works of Atget as the ‘visions of a poet’ and that ‘since the time of Nadar

[…] it is the work which has most revolutionized photography.’73 Another advocate,

Albert Valentin similarly lauded Atget, ridiculing ‘those who turn their backs on the

fantastic and perfect mirror Atget holds out to them: should they wish to smash it and to

scatter its debris, they will only multiply the view which is reflected there and which will

71 Galotti, Jean, ‘La Photographie est-elle un art?’, L’Art Vivant, 1st August (1929), p.605
72 Six of Lotar’s photographs and five of Atget’s were exhibited alongside other photographers including:
Berenice Abbott (5), Karl Blossfeldt(5), John Heartfield, Hannah Hoch, André Kertesz (7), Germaine
Krull (6), Man Ray (1), E.L.T. Mesens (2), Moholy-Nagy (11), Paul Outeridge (6), Maurice Tabard (7)
73 Desnos, Robert, Spectacles of the Street – Eugene Atget, (1928), in Christopher Phillips, ed., Photography in the

Modern Era: European Documents and Critical Writings, 1913-1940, (New York, The Metropolitan Museum of
Art and Aperture, 1989), p.17

32
pursue, will haunt them.’ 74 Whereas Atget’s influence as the photographer that

precipitated the birth of a new documentary approach has been recognized, alongside

others such as Henri Cartier-Bresson and Kertész (and further afield in the work of

Walker Evans and Manuel Alvarez Bravo), it is perhaps less recognised, or taken for

granted in Lotar’s photography.

The Near and Elsewhere: Lotar and the ‘Social Fantastic’

Writer and photography critic Pierre Mac Orlan, recognized Atget as the precursor of

this new photographic sensibility. Referring to Atget as a ‘man of the street, an artisan

poet of the crossroads of Paris’ Mac Orlan asserts: ‘he knew how to recognize in

everything the nuance that gave the thing its value.’ In response to the move away from

the contrivances of studio photography and its inspiration taken from the life of the

street, Mac Orlan derived the concept ‘the social fanstastic’ which he saw epitomized in

the photography of Atget. He expounds his enthusiasm in his preface to ‘Atget:

Photographie de Paris’:

Like all the world’s cities from the greatest to the smallest, [they] possess a
socially fantastic character all its own that gives it a more intimate meaning.
There is the great international fraternity of historic monuments. They may
help give an official personality to the big cities, but they leave no mark on
the city’s thousands of faces. Cities’ personalities do not differ because of
their official architecture, but by that indefinable appearance of the ordinary
streets which are really the small songs of a delicate patriotism[ …] One must
know what it is like to live there, close to the very nature of the street, which
is nothing but an assemblage of shops, dwellings, cafes, bars, big stores
people with human creates of various expressions. 75

Lotar can also been seen as a principal exponent of this concept, locating a ‘socially

fantastic’ character in the modern-day Athens, equivalent to that of Atget’s Paris. This is

74 Valentin, Albert, ‘Eugène Atget’ in Phillips, ed., Photography in the Modern Era: European Documents and

Critical Writings, 1913-1940, p.21

75 Mac Orlan, Pierre, ‘Preface to Atget: Photographie de Paris’ (1928) in Phillips, ed., Photography in the Modern

Era: European Documents and Critical Writings, 1913-1940, p.45

33
no more apparent than when, during his stop in Athens he favours the bustling hub of

Le Pirée instead of being drawn to the Parthenon, the celebrated monument and very

icon of Greece itself, instead.

Where Mac Orlan considered that Atget translated a place or a moment into an

image saturated with evocative power to invoke an ‘adventure of interpretation,’ this

arguably can be found in one of Lotar’s negatives (Fig. 3.0). The casual unfolding of

everyday events demanded an eye attuned to foresee such photographic opportunities;

and certainly the multitude of interactive elements within the frame are condensed with a

richness, that lends itself to a lyrical examination. Like Lotar, many of the people at Le

Pirée were in transit, and those who passed through often did so only as an interlude to

another place. Individual itineraries converge momentarily and the latent possibility of

continuing adventure is momentarily suspended. The sun distils the movement of the

ordinary-looking passers-by, who break their journeys by stopping in the café at Le Pirée.

A disorderly collection of empty chairs, baskets and belongings lie in wait for their

owners, who by contrast, appear arranged in pockets of conviviality interspersed by the

vertical poles of the ramshackle awnings. The formal structure of the photograph is well-

balanced, created by a series of horizontal bands of light and shadow, activity and

inactivity. This would stand as an effective composition alone, but Lotar’s aptitude for

timing results in capturing the instant where it would appear that the gramophone stems

from the ear of the lone man at the right of the frame. Even this single photograph of

unpremeditated spontaneity, can demonstrate how intricacies of the modern world can

effectively be captured photographically. Not only did Lotar share this ability to

recognize such discreet phenomena with Atget, but also he advanced the genre through

his innate ability to create dynamic compositions from everyday subject matter and

perhaps is indicative of his appreciation of cinematic narrative.

Mac Orlan also located the ‘social fantastic’ as emerging from those photographs

of Atget’s which captured ‘marginal characters whose codes of conduct, inherited from

34
earlier epochs, brought them into conflict with the modern world.’76 The principal of the

‘social fantastic’ is effectively continued by Lotar in Greece and his photographs reveal

charming yet anachronistic characters and landscapes (Fig. 3.1 & 3.2), whose humble

simplicity seems distinctly at odds with twentieth century modernity. While it is

appreciated that Lotar’s pictures themselves ‘cannot convey a full picture of the period,

of its nuances and subtleties, its contradictions, the invisible lines of power in the

economy and the social relations that lie behind the look of the times,’ Lotar’s lens

nevertheless captured those aspects of Greece peripheral to the European consciousness,

with a lyrical documented sensibility, that arguably can be traced back to Atget’s earlier

enterprise in Paris. 77

New places, unorthodox viewpoints: Lotar and Documentary Depaysement

Many of the photographs within the Patris II series may initially appear, to be rather

unremarkable documentary records of what Lotar encountered on his travel. However,

they reflect the new opportunities for travel combined with the mobility offered by

photography, which Peter Galassi saw as fuelling ‘the freewheeling aesthetic that

exploded’ during this period.78 Lotar’s use of the latest Rolleiflex camera (indicated by the

remaining 6 x 6cm negatives), allowed him to operate more spontaneously and capture

views at both long and short range. Moreover the Rolleiflex, which incorporated a waist-

level viewfinder, would assist in the formation of innovative compositions as can be seen

throughout the series. This can be demonstrated in the way he captures the constantly

evolving outlook of sea-faring life, with views aboard of his fellow passengers (Fig. 3.3),

outwards to other vessels at sea (Fig. 3.4), and of daily life when stationary at the port

76 Mac Orlan, Pierre, ‘The Literary Art of the Imagination and Photography’ (1930) in Phillips, ed.,

Photography in the Modern Era: European Documents and Critical Writings, 1913-1940, p.27
77 Trachtenberg, Allan, ‘Signifying the real: Documentary Photography in the 1930s’ in The Social and the

Real, political art of the 1930s in the western hemisphere, Alejandro Anreus, Diana L. Linden and Jonathan
Weinberg, (eds.), (University Park, PA., Pennsylvania State University Press, 2006), p.4
78 Galassi, Peter, ‘Rude and Crude: Cartier-Bresson at Julien Levy Gallery’ in Documentary & Anti-Graphic:

Photographs by Henri Cartier-Bresson, Walker Evans & Alvarez Bravo (Göttingen, Steidl, 2004), p.100

35
(Fig. 3.5). The subject matter is diverse, but even in these three photographs, he exhibits

an attention to the strong diagonals that break the photographic plane, that suggest, even

when Lotar is looking at something relatively ordinary, he nevertheless cannot escape his

innate aesthetic sensibility to locate and exploit the latent lines and shapes of the subject

matter before him. This tendency to reveal and appreciate forms in almost everything is a

recurring feature throughout a series that otherwise has few stylistic consistencies.

The notion of depaysement is highly relevant to a consideration of not his own

culture that Lotar was distanced from, but the preconceived notions of the culture

presented before him; this may account for his widespread appreciation of those very

ordinary things surrounding him. Therefore the series can also be interpreted as the

experience of looking at another culture and a process of framing his own vision. The

rejection of a strictly objective framing can be seen, for example in a village perched

upon a hillside (Fig. 3.6). Lotar presents the series of terraces emerging organically from

the landscape and where rational planning is obsolete. The scene is not unwelcoming,

but the graphic compression of visually rich forms renders the settlement as a labyrinth.

The collage-like assemblage of forms and disruption of perspectival recession may also

interpreted as a development of the post-cubist photographic vocabulary of Germaine

Krull and László Moholy-Nagy, and the distorted perspectival recession mastered by

Atget. He is not framing concepts, but without reason, playing with the framing of

vision, and it is this approach that can be seen as a wider reflection of the series.

Another scene taken in Santorini, strengthens this argument, whereby the tightly-

framed and angled composition, emphasises the symmetry of the zig-zag formations in

the rocks and building of an almost impossible civilisation clinging to a cliff-side

(Fig.3.7). Lotar disrupts a stable sense of foreground and background in opposition to

conventional expansive objective depictions of landscape. This dizzying vertiginous

scene is emblematic of the way that Lotar often denies a full disclosure of that presented

before him, in order to destabilise and dislocate. Lotar takes uncontrived documentary

36
depaysement to its extreme, and thus he partakes in what Bill Nichols describes as ‘the

explosive power of avant-garde practices [which] subverts and shatters the coherence,

stability, and naturalness of the dominant world of realist representation.’79

Out of the Ordinary: Lotar and ‘poetic realism

Unlike the cold scientific approach employed by ethnographers, a number of Lotar’s

photographs employ a poetic and subjective vision that transcends and negates the

premise of making the subject purely visible through the more literal medium of

photography. While essentially all photographs occasion fragmentations of space and

time, many of the images within the Patris II series exploit the forms of doors, windows

and other openings, both to define those locations and enact a reflexive framing of

Lotar’s own experiences as a witness to the passage of time. This is well illustrated by a

comparison of a contemporary domestic door (Fig.3.8) to an isolated ancient arch

(Fig.3.9). The former presents a domestic scene from a real Greece that is teeming with

the trappings of daily life, from the array of vegetables suspended in the doorway to the

span of generations captured. The timelessness of the image reflects the fact that Lotar

was both observing the world and witnessing to the passage of time. This humble setting

is starkly contrasted to the second image, a scene devoid of human content, a ruin, which

stands like a gate to nowhere, suggestive of a loss of its former relevance and the vacuous

emphasis upon the nation’s Classical past. Lotar’s beguiling photograph possesses a

symmetry between the structure of the photograph and its content that exploits the

formations of the vegetation in the foreground in order to direct the viewers’ line-of-

sight to the arch. Here, Lotar is not interested in capturing detail, instead, his real subject

is the ostensible framed void, where again he employs a frame within a frame, using it as

a metaphor for the bridging of space and time, a world within a world. Lotar’s

79 Nichols, Bill, ‘Documentary Film and the Avant Garde’, Critical Inquiry, Summer (2001), p.592

37
photograph almost literally demonstrates Carlo Rim’s assertion that ‘the snapshot flies in

the face of time, violates it.’80

A number of Lotar’s photographs present themselves as metaphors for travel.

Perched above distant scattered figures below, who proceed up a seemingly endless

succession of steps Lotar has just ascended, he frames the formations of the coastline as

though to indicate the presence of a boat in the distance, the vessel which will later

transport the him (Fig.3.10). The image encapsulates the process of travel both literally

and metaphorically, imparting a sense of ‘looking’ onto the viewer so that we also engage

in the journey. In a further example taken aboard the ship (Fig.3.11), a complex

arrangement takes place, whereby the external form of the photograph’s parameters

mirrors the square shape of a centralised window, which subsequently frames a further

parallel window, which in turn frames the ship’s funnel. On closer inspection, one can

discern the entrance to the Corinth Canal in the distance at the vanishing point of this

staggered recession. The image draws the viewer inwards, mimicking in the ship’s own

movement towards the waterway, so that one is immersed within the scene and partakes

in the experience of looking and travelling. In this apparent mise-en-abyme, an additional

level of complexity is added by the faintly reflected outline of Lotar’s body; the

photographer, metaphorically speaking becomes subsumed into the boat’s structure and

thus part of the journey itself. It permits a reading of the photograph as form of

picturing the conditions of his own vision and a metaphor for the series as whole. The

photograph demonstrates Lotar’s ability to create compositional complexity from his

surroundings.

The photographs discussed in this chapter reveal Lotar’s wish to create aesthetically

pleasing photographs, whose primary aim was not to necessarily reveal everything but

80 Rim, ‘On the snapshot’ in Phillips, Phillips, ed., Photography in the Modern Era: European Documents and

Critical Writings, 1913-1940, p.38

38
impart the great richness of his newfound surroundings. The benefit of examining the

negatives in pure form, without any editorial cropping or framing, allows for a clearer

appreciation of his compositional ability and understanding of his lyrical documentary

agency. These photographs were made alongside the creation of the ‘Voyage aux

Cyclades’ film, without the primary intention of publication; as such this accorded Lotar

a stylistic freedom and aesthetic experimentation that is apparent within the photographs.

The Patris II series, can therefore be seen as a playful experimentation with new subjects,

forms and ideas that effectively demonstrate the breadth of Lotar’s photographic

approach. The diverse means by which he divides his square format shows a persisting

reverence for composition that reinvigorates both the form and medium, which

subsequently raises the problematic issue of documentary photography as anti-

expressive. Throughout this chapter, notions of ‘social fantastic’, ‘documentary

depaysement’ and ‘poetic realism’ have been utilised in order to provide a new frameworks

in which to interpret Lotar’s photographs, none of which are restrictive in the same way

as formal style or movement. Like Atget before him, and his contemporaries like Cartier-

Bresson he would wander throughout Europe, documenting those ordinary sights,

focusing his coruscating lens upon the commonplace, finding moments of charm, beauty

and strangeness in each place he went. Where he has been regarded historically in

relation to Surrealism, this is largely undermined by an analysis of the photographs within

the Patris II series, which demonstrate other areas of interest and the fascinating methods

he employed to capture them. Not only is it possible to view the series as highly

fragmented, it exists as representative of Lotar’s wider oeuvre.

39
 CONCLUSION

The principal intention of this thesis has been to draw attention to the diversity and

richness of Lotar’s production, and to show that, even within the parameters of a single

series, it is possible to gain a broader understanding of his work. By specifically focusing

on the Patris II series, which marks the beginning of his enduring interest in Greece, it

has been possible to examine his activities as a photographer and cameraman, to

extrapolate the conflation of his journalistic and artistic motives and look at the breadth

of his relationships and collaborations. While this series may not be representative of his

entire oeuvre, unlike the Abattoir series, for which he is more widely known, it is more

characteristic and wide-reaching and provides a means to initiate a revision of Lotar’s

reception, while predicating the need for further scholarship.

One of the primary aims of this thesis has been to challenge the sole association

of Lotar’s work with Documents, seemingly an accepted trope of art historical discourse,

and, by an evaluation of the Patris II series, to show how this has restricted a wider

appreciation of his oeuvre. While it may be possible to discuss the notion of the informe in

relation to Lotar’s La Villette series, this should serve only to explicate the transgressive

theories of Bataille and should not be mistaken for the intention of the photographer.

This thesis has not set out to suggest an alternative movement in which to situate Lotar

but, in fact to show how, throughout his life, his work rejected formal stylistic or

theoretical classification. Through a discussion of Counter-Philhellenism and ‘poetic

realism’, it is possible to demonstrate other, more germane, frameworks within which to

analyse and contextualise Lotar’s photography. While the scope of this argument has not

denied any engagement with Surrealism or, more accurately, the peripheries of the

40
movement, it has sought to promote Lotar’s position within the emerging field of lyrical

documentary photography.

His contemporaries, Henri Cartier-Bresson and Kertesz, have been established

within art history as photographers whose work appears to transcend any required

association to a particular movement. Yet, despite the iconic status of the La Villette

photographs, there has been a persistent lack of scholarship on Lotar, perhaps reflecting

his own disregard for posterity. Although in the mid-thirties, Tériade conceived the idea

of publishing an album, uniting the photographs of Lotar, Brassaï, Bill Brandt, and

Cartier-Bresson, the project was abandoned. 81 Had this not been the case, Lotar’s

reputation today might have been equal to theirs and the appreciation and understanding

of his work might not have suffered in comparison to that of his peers.

Interconnected, but remaining largely independent of one-another, the chapters

in this thesis mirror the argument that there is no single framework through which to

dissect, not only Lotar’s Patris II series, but also his photographic oeuvre as a whole.

Kelly Dennis’s contends that ‘photography anarchically disrupts the attempt to

circumscribe it in formalist or auterist boundaries’; arguably, it is photography’s own

indexicality that has made it difficult to situate Lotar’s work within the narrative of art

history.82 Persisting absence of scholarship and lack of documentation mean that it is

possible to argue the case for further scholarship on his work so that he can take then

take his place alongside other photographic masters of the twentieth-century.

Lionel-Marie, ‘Essai biographique’, p.25

81

Dennis, Kelly, ‘Benjamin, Atget and postmodern photography studies’, in J.J. Long Andrea Noble, and
82

Edward Welch, eds., Photography: Theoretical Snapshots (London & New York, Routledge, 2009), p.116-7

41
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

− ADES, Dawn, and Fiona Bradley, ‘Introduction’ in Undercover Surrealism (London,

Hayward Gallery, 2006), pp.11-16
− ADAMOWICZ, Elza, ‘Off the map’, in Elza Adamowicz, ed., Surrealism:
Crossings/Frontiers, (Bern, Peter Lang AG, 2006), pp.197-216
− ALDCROFT, Derek H., Europe’s Third World: The European Periphery in the Interwar Years,
(Aldershot, Ashgate, 2006)
− ALLMER, Patricia and Hilde Van Gelder (eds.), Collective Intentions: Surrealism in Belgium,
(Leuven, Leuven University Press, 2007)
− AMAO, Damarice, ‘Eli Lotar un photographe professionnel et militant en marge du
Surréalisme’ (Paper delivered as part of a conference, L'image comme stratégie: des usages du
médium photographique dans le surrealisme, at Institut national d’histoire de l’art, Paris, on 11th
December 2009),
− AMAO, Damarice, ‘Voyages en Grèce’ in Zervos et Cahiers d’art, (Paris, Centre Pompidou,
2011), pp.71-78
− ARGHEZI, Tudor, Selected Poems of Tudor Arghezi, trans. Michael Impey and Brian Swann
(Princeton, Guildford, Princeton University Press, 1976)
− Arts et Métiers Graphiques, Photo 1930, (Photographie), Vol.1, (1930)
− Arts et Métiers Graphiques, Photo 1931, (Photographie), Vol. 2, (1931)
− Atelier Man Ray, 1920-1935: Berenice Abbott, Jacques-Andre Boiffard, Bill-Brandt, Lee Miller
(Paris, Centre Georges Pompidou, 1982)
− BARTHES, Roland, ‘The Photographic Message’ in Image, Music, Text, trans. Stephen
Heath (London, Fontana, 1977), p.15-31
− BATAILLE, Georges, , ‘Slaughterhouse’, trans. Annette Michelson, October, Vol. 36,
(Spring, 1986), pp.10-11
− BATAILLE, Georges, ‘Abattoir’, Documents, No.6, (November 1929), pp.328-332
− BATE, David, Photography and Surrealism: Sexuality, Colonialism and Social Dissent, (London,
I.B. Tauris, 1999)
− BERGER, John, ‘The Documentary Debate: Aesthetic or Anaesthetic?’ in David Levi
Strauss, ed., Between the eyes: essays on photography and politics, (New York, Aperture, 2003)
− Bifur, No.1 (25 May, 1929)
− BOIS, Yve-Alain and Rosalind Krauss, Formless: A User’s Guide, (New York, Zone Books,
1997)
− BOWNESS, Sophie, ‘Braque’s Etching for Hesiod’s ‘Theogony’ and Archaic Greece
Revived’ The Burlington Magazine, Vol.142, No.1165 (2000), pp.204-214
− Cahiers d’Art, No.10, (1931)
− CAVANAC, Guy and Jean-Pierre Pagliano, Une Partie de Campagne: Eli Lotar, Photographies
di Tournage (Montreuil, Edition de l’oeil, 2007)
− CLIFFORD, James, ‘On Ethnographic Surrealism’, Comparative Studies in Society and
History, Vol. 23, No.4 (October, 1981), pp. 539-564

42
− CONLEY, Tom, ‘Documentary Surrealism: On Land without Bread’ in Rudolf E.
Kuenzli, ed., Dada and Surrealist Film (New York, Wills, Locker & Owens, 1987),
pp.176-198
− COX, Neil, ‘Sacrifice’ in Undercover Surrealism (London, Hayward Gallery, 2006), pp.106-
114
− CROISSANT, S., ‘À l’Instiut de sourds muets d’Asnières: une pépinière de bons
ouvriers,’ VU, No.6, (25 April 1928), pp.162-3
− DE DUVE, Thierry, ‘Time Exposure and Snapshot: The Photographic as Paradox’,
October, Vol.5, (Summer, 1978), pp.113-125
− DENNIS, Kelly, ‘Benjamin, Atget and postmodern photography studies’, in J.J. Long
Andrea Noble, and Edward Welch, eds., Photography: Theoritcal Snapshots (London & New
York, Routledge, 2009), pp.112-124
− Documents, No.6, (November, 1929)
− Documentary & Anti-Graphic: Photographs by Henri Cartier-Bresson, Walker Evans & Alvarez
Bravo (Göttingen, Steidl, 2004)
− EDWARDS, Brent Hayes, ‘The Ethnics of Surrealism: Review(s) of Formless: A User's
Guide by Yve-Alain Bois; Rosalind Krauss; La ressemblance informe, ou le Gai-Savoir visuel
selon Georges Bataille by Georges Didi-Huberman; Refusal of the Shadow: Surrealism and the
Caribbean by Michael Richardson,’ Transition, No. 78 (1998), pp. 84-135
− EDWARDS, Gywnne, A Companion to Luís Buñuel, (Woodbridge, Suffolk, Tamesis
Books, 2005)
− Eli Lotar, (Paris, Pompidou, 1993)
− FRIZOT, Michel, VU: the story of a magazine that made an era (London, Thames & Hudson,
2009)
− GALASSI, Peter, ‘Rude and Crude: Cartier-Bresson at Julien Levy Gallery’ in Documentary
& Anti-Graphic: Photographs by Henri Cartier-Bresson, Walker Evans & Alvarez Bravo
(Göttingen, Steidl, 2004)
− GALASSI, Peter, Henri Cartier-Bresson: The Early Years (New York, Museum of Modern
Art, 1987)
− GALOTTI, Jean, “La Photographie est-elle un art? Eli Lotar,” L’Art Vivant (1 August,
1929), pp.605 and 609-10.
− HAMILAKIS, Yannis, The Nation and its Ruins: Antiquity, Archaeology, and National
Imagination in Greece, (Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2007)
− HOLLIER, Dennis, Against Architecture: The Writings of George Bataille, trans. Betsy Wing
(London and Cambridge, Mass., October/The MIT Press, 1992)
− HOLLIER, Dennis, ‘Surrealism and its Discontents’, Papers of Surrealism, Issue 7, (2007),
pp. 1-16
− Internationale Austellung des Deutschen Werkbunds: Film und Foto 1929, (1929)(Stuttgart,
Deutsch Verlags Anstalt, 1979)
− Jazz, no.9 (15 September 1929)
− JOCKEY, Philippe, ‘De l’œuvre à l’acte même : fouilles et sculptures mises en image(s)
dans Le Voyage en Grèce’ in Sophie Basch and Alexandre Farnoux, eds., Le voyage en Grece,
1934-1939 : du periodique de tourisme a la revue artistique (Athens, École française d'Athènes,
2006) pp.135-156

43
− KELLY, Julia, Art, Ethnography and the Life of Objects: Paris, c.1925-35 (Manchester,
Manchester University Press, 2007)
− KELLY, Julia, ‘Discipline and indiscipline: the ethnographies of Documents’, Papers of
Surrealism, Issue 7, The Use Value of Documents (2007), pp.1-20
− KRAUSS, Rosalind, ‘The Photographic Conditions of Surrealism’, October, Vol. 19,
(Winter, 1981), pp. 3-34
− KUHLICKE, F. W., ‘A School Tour to Greece’, Greece & Rome, Vol. 4, No. 12 (May,
1935), pp. 180-183
− Le Voyage en Grèce, No.1, (Spring/Summer, 1934)
− LICHTENSTEIN, Therese, ‘The City in Twilight’ in Therese Lichtenstein, ed., Twilights
visions: surrealism and Paris (Berkley, University of California Press, 2009) pp.11-70
− LIONEL-MARIE, Annick, ‘Essai Biographique: « Le cœur meurtri par de mortes
chimères »’ in Eli Lotar, (Paris, Pompidou, 1993), pp.9-35
− LOUKAKI, Argyro, Living Ruins, Value Conflicts (Aldershot, Ashgate Publishing, 2008)
− MAC ORLAN, Pierre, ‘The Literary Art of the Imagination and Photography’ (1928) in
Christopher Phillips, ed., Photography in the Modern Era: European Documents and Critical
Writings, 1913-1940 (New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Aperture, 1989)
pp.27-30
− MAC ORLAN, Pierre, ‘Preface to Atget: Photographie de Paris’ (1930) in Christopher
Phillips, ed., Photography in the Modern Era: European Documents and Critical Writings, 1913-
1940, (New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art/Aperture, 1989) pp.41-49
− MCNAB, Robert, Ghost Ships (New Haven and London, Yale University Press, 2004)
− NICHOLS, Bill, ‘Documentary Film and the Modernist Avant-Garde’ Critical Inquiry 27
(Summer, 2001) pp.580-610
− OSBORNE, Peter D., Travelling Light: photography, travel and visual culture (Manchester,
Manchester University Press, 2000)
− PEYRE, Henri, ‘What Greece Means to Modern France,’ Yale French Studies, No.6,
France and World Literature (1950), pp.53-62
− PHILLIPS, Christopher, Photography in the Modern Era: European Documents and Critical
Writings, 1913-1940 (New York, The Metropolitan Musuem of Art and Aperture, 1989)
− PHILLIPS, Christopher, ‘Resurrecting Vision: European Photography Between the
World Wars’ in Maria Morris and Christopher Phillips, eds., The new vision: Photography
between the World Wars. Ford Mototr Company Collection at the Metroplitan Museum of Art, New
York (New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1989)
− POLING, Clark V., Andre Masson and the Surrealist Self (New Haven and London, Yale
University Press, 2008)
− PRÉVERT, Jacques, ‘Terre Cuites de Béotie’ Minotaure, Vol.3, No.10, (15 December,
1936), pp.40-45
− PRICE, Mary, The Photograph: A Strange, Confined Space (Stanford University Press, 1997)
− READ, Herbert, ‘Review of L'Art en Grèce by Christian Zervos; The Acropolis by Walter
Hege’, The Burlington Magazine for Connoisseurs, Vol. 64, No. 373 (April, 1934), pp. 190-191
− RIM, Carlo, ‘On the Snapshot,’ (1930) in Christopher Phillips, ed., Photography in the
Modern Era: European Documents and Critical Writings, 1913-1940 (New York, The
Metropolitan Museum of Art and Aperture, 1989), pp.37-40

44
− SEKULA, Allan, ‘On the Invention of Photographic Meaning’ in Victor Burgin, ed.,
Thinking Photography (Basingstoke, Macmillan, 1982), pp.84-109
− SICHEL, Kim, Photographs of Paris, 1928-1934: Brassai, Andre Ketesz, Germanie Krull and
Man Ray, (Ann Arbor, UMI, 1986)
− SICHEL, Kim, Germaine Krull: photographer of modernity (Cambridge, MA., MIT Press,
1999)
− SONTAG, Susan, On Photography, (London, Penguin, 1977)
− SOUPAULT, Philippe, ‘The Present State of Photography’ (1931) in Christopher
Phillips, ed., Photography in the Modern Era: European Documents and Critical Writings, 1913-
1940 (New York, The Metropolitan Museum of Art and Aperture, 1989), pp.50-51
− TAGG, John, The Disciplinary Frame: Photographic Truths and the Capture of Meaning
− TOLOUDIS, Constantin, Rewriting Greece: Queneau and the Agony of Presence (New York,
Peter Lang, 1995)
− TRACTENBERG, Allan, ‘Signifying the real: Documentary Photography in the 1930s’
in Alejandro Anreus, Diana L. Linden and Jonathan Weinberg, eds., The Social and the
Real, political art of the 1930s in the western hemisphere, (University Park, PA., Pennsylvania
State University Press, 2006), pp.3-19
− Undercover Surrealism (London, Hayward Gallery, 2006)
− VALENTIN, Albert, ‘Eugène Atget’ in Christopher Phillips, ed., Photography in the Modern
Era: European Documents and Critical Writings, 1913-1940, (New York, The Metropolitan
Museum of Art and Aperture, 1989) pp.18-22
− Variétés, Vol.2, No.9 (15 January 1929)
− Variétés, Vol.3, No.12, (15 April 1930)
− VÉDRINE, Helene, ‘La Substance des Spectres: Les textes d’e. Tériade autour des
photographies de Fred Boissonas et d’Eli Lotar’ in Sophie Basch and Alexandre Farnoux
(eds.), Le voyage en Grèce, 1934-1939 : du periodique de tourisme a la revue artistique, (Athens,
École française d'Athènes, 2006), pp.119-134
− Vitrac, Roger, ‘ENQUÊTE’, Le Voyage en Grèce, No.1, (Spring/Summer, 1934) p.20
− WALKER, Ian, City gorged with dreams: Surrealism and documentary photography in interwar Paris
(Manchester and New York, Manchester University Press, 2002)
− ZERVOS, Christian, L’Art en Grèce des temps au début du XVIIIe siècle (Paris and London,
Editions ‘Cahiers d’Art’, 1934)

45
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS:

Preface note:
The illustrations marked with a * are the author’s photographs taken from negatives in
the Eli Lotar archive, under the supervision and authorization of the Cabinet de la
photographie, Musée national d’art moderne, Centre Pompidou, Paris. The images are
reproduced as faithfully as possible to the originals.

0.1
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Eli Lotar with Camera), 1931*. Digital image obtained from gelatin-
silver negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne,
Paris

0.2
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Roger Vitrac), 1931*. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

0.3
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (J.B. Brunius), 1931*. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

0.4
Eli Lotar, Abattoir, 1929. Bromide print of glass negative, 37.5 x 24.5cm. Collection
Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

1.0
Eli Lotar, André Breton - (Photobooth). Element used for the photomontage “Un Cadavre”, 1930.
Gelatin-silver negative on glass, 9.1 x 6.4 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou,
Musée national d'art moderne, Paris

1.1
Eli Lotar, André Breton - (Mask with crown of thorns and hair). Element used for the photomontage
“Un Cadavre”, 1930. Gelatin-silver negative on glass, 9.3 x 7.9 cm. Collection Centre
Georges Pompidou, Musée national d'art moderne, Paris

1.2
Spread from Documents, No.6, (November 1929), p.328-329

1.3
Spread from Documents, No.6, (November 1929), p.330-332

1.4
Spread from Variétés, No.12, Vol.2 (1930), n.p

1.5
Spread from VU, No.166, (20 May, 1931), p.698-699
1.6
Spread from VU, No.166, (20 May, 1931), p.700-701

1.7*

46
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Le Pirée – 95-4-5-s5), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

1.8
Eli Lotar, Aux Abattoirs de la Villette, 1929. Gelatin-silver negative on glass, 6.5 x 9 cm.
Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

1.9*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Le Pirée - 95-4-5-s4), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

1.10
Eli Lotar, Aux Abattoirs de la Villette, 1929. Gelatin-silver negative on glass, 6.5 x 9 cm.
Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

1.11
Eli Lotar, Aux Abattoirs de la Villette, 1929. Gelatin-silver negative on glass, 6.5 x 9 cm.
Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

1.12*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Le Pirée - 95-4-5-s1), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

1.13
Spread from VU, No.180, (26 August, 1931), p.2102-3

1.14
Spread from VU, No.180, (26 August, 1931), p.2104-5

1.12*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Le Pirée - 95-4-5-s3), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

2.0
Cartoon by KAL, The Economist, (19 May, 2012), p.9

2.1*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Naxos – 95-13-s4), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

2.2
Map showing route of Patris II from Le Voyage en Grèce, No.1 (1934), p.24

47
2.3*
Authors photograph of the notebooks of Eli Lotar

2.4*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Naxos – 95-13-s6), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

2.5*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Naxos), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver negative, 6 x
6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

2.6*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Naxos), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver negative, 6 x
6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

2.7
Advertisement for the Patris II, Frontmatter of Minotarue, no.1 (1933), n.p

2.8
Spread from Minotarue, Vol.3, No.10, (15 December, 1936), p.40-41

2.9
Front cover of inaugural issue of Le Voyage en Grèce, No.1 (Spring-Summer, 1934)

2.10
Spread from Le Voyage en Grèce, No.1 (Spring-Summer, 1934), p.22

2.11
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Constantinople), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

3.0*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Le Pirée), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver negative, 6 x
6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

3.1*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Naxos(?)), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver negative, 6
x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

3.2*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Tripodes - 95-14-s3), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

3.3*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Passagers sur le puot - 95-2-2), 1931. Digital image obtained from
gelatin-silver negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art
moderne, Paris

3.4*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Constantinople – 95-10-s4), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-
silver negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne,
Paris

48
3.5*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Le Pirée - 95-4-4-s1), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

3.6*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Santorin - 95-7), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

3.7*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Santorin - 95-7), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

3.8*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Naxos - 95-13-s1), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

3.9*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Naxos - 95-13-s3), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

3.10*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Santorin - 95-7), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-silver
negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne, Paris

3.11*
Eli Lotar, Untitled, (Vues de Bateau - 95-2-1), 1931. Digital image obtained from gelatin-
silver negative, 6 x 6 cm. Collection Centre Georges Pompidou-Musée d’art moderne,
Paris

49
0.1

0.2

50
0.3

0.4

51
1.0

1.1

52
1.2

1.3

53
1.4

1.5

1.6

54
1.7

1.8

55
1.9

1.10

56
1.11

1.12

57
1.13

1.14

58
1.15

59
2.0

2.1

60
2.2

2.3

61
2.4

2.5

62
2.6

63
2.7

2.8

64
2.9

2.10

65
2.11

66
3.0

3.1

67
3.2

3.3

68
3.4

3.5

69
3.6

3.7

70
3.8

3.9

71
3.10

3.11

72