rearranged composition 1

Atget’s photos are standing between the earlier period photography which has a character of document and the contemporary photography which has a character of art. This context doesn't merely mean about the chronicle. It does mean that Atget’s photography take a traditional role of document and a value of art at the same time. That is to say, Atget’s works is showing an ultimate role of photography as a medium. However, the critique as a sight in the history of photography seems not to be enlightened in that point. That's because there are hindrances interrupting the right evaluation of Atget's works. They were generated by the defective criticism of his photography. Although they are trying to criticize what art is, there is a lack of understanding or nothing with regards to the object of their criticism. One case emphasizing Atget’s photos as the art works even doesn’t consider Atget and his photography as its object of criticism.

Hello there!

 

Thank you for having the time to do your homework and for sharing your thoughts and your opinion about this matter. :)

I appreciate your efforts and continue to strive for the better! :)

 

T. Jeny ^^

 

Atget’s photos are standing between the earlier period photography which has a character of document and the contemporary photography which has a character of art.

>>Correct.

>>Atget\'s photo\'s are standing between a character of document in earlier period photography and character of art in contemporary photography.

This context doesn\'t merely mean about the chronicle.

>>Correct.

It does mean that Atget’s photography take a traditional role of document and a value of art at the same time.

>>It means that Atget\'s photography takes the traditional role of document and the value of art at the same time.

That is to say, Atget’s works is showing an ultimate role of photography as a medium.

>>That is to say, Atget\'s works show the ultimate role of photography as a medium.

However, the critique as a sight in the history of photography seems not to be enlightened in that point.

>>However, critics in the history of photography seem not enlightened about that.

That\'s because there are hindrances interrupting the right evaluation of Atget\'s works.

>Correct.

They were generated by the defective criticism of his photography.

>>They were generated from the defective criticism of his photography.

Although they are trying to criticize what art is, there is a lack of understanding or nothing with regards to the object of their criticism.

>>Although they are trying to criticize what art is, there is a lack of understanding with regards to the object of criticism.

One case emphasizing Atget’s photos as the art works even doesn’t consider Atget and his photography as its object of criticism.

>>In one case, the emphasis of Atget\'s photos as an art does not consider Agtet and his photography as an object of criticism.