Biography

Discussion

The artistic and political climate of the school where Emmy Andriesse studied during the years 1932 to 1937 was of great importance for her development as a photographer. She took classes at the KABK (Koninklijke Academie van Beeldende Kunsten, ‘Royal Academy of Art’) in The Hague, in the department of advertising design referred to as ‘A 6’, established at the academy in 1929. In this department, photography and film formed the study programme’s main core. The classes given by Paul Schuitema and Gerrit Kiljan were based on the ideas of ‘New Photography’. The emphasis of the study lay on the expression of surface texture, the use of varying camera angles, and the creation of dynamic compositions through the introduction of a forced diagonal.

It was primarily this last stylistic tool that the New Photographers drew from Russian film of the 1920s, a source from which ideas were taken for both formal and ideological reasons. In the department ‘A 6’, a group made up of political-minded students formed around Paul Schuitema, who was as well a very socially engaged designer and photographer. Emmy Andriesse also belonged to this group. Fighting the rising fascism was an important part of the group’s activities, with a significant number of its members living in a ‘gemeenschapshuis’ (‘community house’). This commitment to social issues played an important role in Andriesse’s work from the very start.

From the outset of her studies, she did virtually nothing besides taking photos. The passion with which Andriesse operated her speedy 35mm camera was what led to her being called ‘Emma Leica’, a nickname that stuck with her even when she began using a Rolleiflex. She had virtually no ambition in the area of typography, certainly after her days at the academy.

The first work that Andriesse presented to the public was the social photo reportage ‘In de Jordaan’ (‘In the Jordaan’, an Amsterdam working-class neighbourhood.) It was shown at Foto ’37, an exhibition held in Amsterdam that was crucial for Dutch photography. Evident in these photos are the formal and political components of Andriesse’s schooling.

Completely in line with this photography, after her study Andriesse became affiliated with a group of Amsterdam photographers, who, in part based on the same commitment to social issues, were also working as reportage photographers: Eva Besnyö, Carel Blazer, and Cas Oorthuys. Like them, Andriesse furnished photos on a freelance basis to various newspapers and magazines, including Wij. Ons werk, ons leven (‘We. Our Work, Our Life’), the magazine of the SDAP (Sociaal Democratische Arbeiders Partij, ‘Social Democratic Workers’ Party’), right up until World War II. Her contributions to this magazine are excellent examples of the ‘New Photography’ as it was described by the magazine’s editors: attention to the expression of surface texture, the use of unexpected camera angles, and a preference for diagonal compositions—consistently applied in the magazine’s layout—are traits that characterise her work.

The topics that Andriesse photographed for various publications are generally documentary in nature. What is special about her work in the years shortly before the Second World War—and in that of the photographers around her—is a marked interest in folklore and landscape, photographed with a strong emphasis on aesthetics, e.g. the picturesque attire of traditional attire, the linear play of clothing on a wash line, and the vast polder landscapes of the Netherlands. This preference found its apotheosis in the series of photobooks—by today’s standards rather chauvinistic—entitled ‘De Schoonheid van ons land’ (‘The Beauty of our Country’) produced in the 1930s and ’40s, to which Andriesse also contributed. The increasing emphasis that was placed Dutch national identity in the second half of the 1930s can generally be understood in light of the ever-increasing threat of fascism and the disintegration of the international avant-garde that came with it, which literally and figuratively cast artists back to their own home territory.

Although Andriesse married Dick Elffers in 1942, as such entering a ‘mixed’ marriage, as a Jew she was by no means allowed to publish her work during the German occupation. After being ‘de-starred’ in late 1944, she joined the group that would later be referred to as ‘The Illegal Camera’ after the war and began photographing certain aspects of the Hunger Winter in Amsterdam. As a visual account depicting the horrors of this final winter of the war, this documentation is of enduring historical significance. In technical terms, Andriesse’s photos and those of the other members of the ‘Illegal Camera’ are extremely poor: to blame are the difficult conditions under which these photographers were forced work and the inferior quality of the photographic material. In terms of content and form, these photos mark an extremely important phase in Andriesse’s development as a photographer.

It is during this period that people begin to figure central in her work—not only as the photo’s subject, but also as part of the composition. ‘Jongen met pannetje’ (‘Boy with a Pan’) and ‘De doodgraver op zijn bakfiets’ (‘The Grave-Digger on his Carrier Bike’) are clear examples of this new approach. Emmy usually photographed her subjects frontally, often in highly symmetrical compositions. As such, her images possess a balanced, static quality that bestows these photos with a timeless quality, in spite of their historical specificity.

It is likely these aesthetic aspects that explain why Andriesse’s work during the war has received greater notoriety than, for instance, the documentary photos of Menno Huizinga, a photographer from The Hague who worked in the same period. His photos form a terrifying account of the war that one is prone to quickly lay aside. Andriesse’s images, through their formal-aesthetic properties, have become symbols of hunger, poverty, and misery during WWII.

Following the war, Andriesse collaborated on a number of photobooks in which one finds numerous shots of cities and landscapes. While not her most convincing work, her background at the academy is most evidently displayed in a number of these photos, particularly in terms of surface texture and composition. With the contributions she made to these photobooks, there is no real distinction between herself and other photographers, e.g. Cas Oorthuys, with whom she collaborated on a regular basis. The most noticeable difference is Oorthuys’ technical superiority versus Andriesse’s specific approach to people. Andriesse found her most personal form in portraiture, in the biggest sense of the word. Among her best works are her artists’ portraits taken for the Stedelijk Museum, the portraits that belong to her travel photos, and a number of ‘fashion portraits’.

For the artists’ portraits commissioned by Willem Sandberg, Andriesse visited French, Belgian, and Swiss sculptors and painters in their studios. These photos were made for catalogues to accompany exhibitions at the Stedelijk Museum in Amsterdam. It was the first time the museum had ever commissioned a photographer to fulfil such a task. In addition to these artists, Andriesse also photographed several Dutch writers, including Gerard den Brabander and Gerrit Achterberg, in about 1950. ‘Posed still lifes’ is the best way to describe her portraits of these artists and writers.

In contrast to photographers such as Eva Besnyö in her later years, Andriesse rarely photographed sculptors and painters at work. Instead, the artists she portrayed are generally looking directly into the lens, sitting or standing while surrounded by their work. Their emphatic poses and the strict, often symmetrical compositions give these portraits a monumental character. Technically, these photos represent some of her best work: the textural expression of the sculpture’s surface is perfectly in focus and the prints possess a beautifully nuanced tonal range.

Dating from the same period as her artists’ portraits are Andriesse’s fashion photos: commissioned photographs of clothing and accessories, as well as portraits of mannequins and pretty women, shot primarily in Paris and Italy. Particularly in this last category, Andriesse produced a number of stunning fashion portraits that generally lack the commercial qualities found in true fashion photography. Most typical is a shot taken during the Balmain fashion show of 1951 in Amsterdam. It becomes immediately clear that this photo can in no way be seen as an example of true fashion photography. In the mirror one sees a mannequin, which at first seems to be in no way related to the woman actually standing in front of the mirror, who turns around to see herself. The duplicity of the image is strengthened by the fact that the figure appears to be standing next to the mirror: only then does one realise that the mannequin and the woman have come together as one.

In many of her fashion photos, such a tension is present: a contrast between the woman and the mannequin. In a number of these images, the vague presence of a male designer serves, as it were, as a kind of ironic commentary or heightens the effect of an overly mannered posed. Andriesse captured the sensuality of the material and the fashion line with great feeling. Despite the fact that a number of shots demonstrate she was familiar with the work of leading fashion photographers abroad, her own fashion photos are far more simpler than the refined theatrical images produced by, for instance, photographers working for Vogue magazine.

During her trips abroad—Belgium, London, Paris, Italy and Southern France—Andriesse photographed primarily people. Among these travel photos, the images made in Provence based on the work of the painter Vincent van Gogh fall into a separate category. Besides landscapes, Andriesse was also able to find individuals who, in terms of type and persona, possessed a surprising number of similarities to the people portrayed in Van Gogh’s paintings. The people that she photographed often filled the entire image, or because of her extremely selective focus, drew all of the attention in vaguely blending surroundings. Her interest was aimed at what was typical, characteristic, i.e. what was personal and touching about the ordinary individual.

In this way, she was connected to the humanistic vision shared by many photographers shortly after WWII: a vision that found its most convincing form in the 1952 New York exhibition Family of Man, in which Andriesse also took part. In contrast to documentary photography of the 1960s and ’70s, the emphasis of the socially engaged photographer during this period lies more on the representation of a characteristic image of humanity, rather than the injustice rendered in these photos. More than anything, Andriesse’s images convey strong, recognisable emotions: compassion, pride, loneliness, love, pleasure, humour. Acknowledging this and the fact that the people she portrayed were virtually always aware of her presence, these photos also demonstrate her tremendous respect for these people.

Her vision is diametrically opposed to that of the candid photographer: rarely did she photograph people unbeknownst to them. When this was indeed the case, the emphasis was either on humour, as in the case of the ‘Londense dames’ (‘Ladies of London’), or on a beautiful composition in which people were a component. This form of personal engagement is typical of photography shortly after the Second World War. Besides her striving for the highest quality in technical and compositional terms, the most important aspect of Emmy Andriesse’s photographic work is her humanistic approach to people.

Documentation