Can you explain why HCB chose this photo?

[Alex Benjamin]

But it's still a good idea to take everything people say with a grain of salt.

I strongly disagree. Serious people—those who think about what they do, those who take the time to investigate the mysteries of art and/or life—, be it writers, artists, philosophers, photographers, etc., deserve to be taken seriously. Thinking is not a bad thing, and sharing these thoughts is an act of generosity, and comes out of necessity, not ego.

Now nobody forces anybody to read anything. If one doesn't want to dive deep into a philosopher, artist, writer, photographer's thought process, that's up to each person. Either you want to understand more, or you don't. But to dismiss it "with a grain of salt" is an insult to the miracle of human intelligence.

As is comparing HCB with Joe Dude-Guy trying to build his community on YouTube by giving advice on which version of the Pentax 67 one should buy.

If anybody is a fully-dressed emperor, it's HCB.

 

[Pieter12]

Some photographers don't give good interviews, they are more visual than verbal. Many actors are pretty dull and uninteresting unless they have a role to play and dialog written for them. Sometimes during an interview, the interviewee is asked a question they might not be qualified or prepared to answer, but answer anyway just to get on with it. And so it goes.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Some photographers don't give good interviews, they are more visual than verbal.

Cartier-Bresson gave OK interviews. He just didn't like to talk about his photographs. For him, they spoke for themselves—which doesn't necessarily mean that they can be understood; his affinity with Surrealism is just too strong for that.

Here's a pretty good documentary about him—in which he does talk about a few photos, concluding "There's no explanation".

 

[Don_ih]

s is comparing HCB with Joe Dude-Guy trying to build his community on YouTube by giving advice on which version of the Pentax 67 one should buy.

HBC may just be a YouTube guy, if he were alive now. His influence. his talent, his art were as much a product of his time as they were his product. Otherwise, I agree with you. But you can't compare him with anyone who has benefited or not from his existence. Diminishing what is available to people now is not fair, in comparison with an totally uncharted world that was available 90 years ago.

If HBC had cell phones to compete with, no one would know his name.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

If HBC had cell phones to compete with, no one would know his name.

There is what is, and what has been. There is no "if". "If" things were different is not an argument—or an argument that can be made for just about everybody that has ever lived before our time: if Plato was alive today, if Da Vinci was alive today, if Picasso was alive today, if Virginia Woolf was alive today... That everybody belongs to their time is a truism that leads us nowhere.

And I stand firm: if Joe Dude-Guy had the talent, instinct and intelligence of HCB, he wouldn't be wasting his time trying to build a community on YT telling people which version of the Pentax 67 they should get.

Moreover, I there are lots of photojournalists out there following HCB's example—i.e., trying to explain the world either to us, or to themselves. That—the need to understand— belongs to all time.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

There is what is, and what has been. There is no "if". "If" things were different is not an argument—or an argument that can be made for just about everybody that has ever lived before our time: if Plato was alive today, if Da Vinci was alive today, if Picasso was alive today, if Virginia Woolf was alive today... That everybody belongs to their time is a truism that leads us nowhere.

And I stand firm: if Joe Dude-Guy had the talent, instinct and intelligence of HCB, he wouldn't be wasting his time trying to build a community on YT telling people which version of the Pentax 67 they should get.

Moreover, I there are lots of photojournalists out there following HCB's example—i.e., trying to explain the world either to us, or to themselves. That—the need to understand— belongs to all time.

I said "explain the world", but to be more in tune with Carter-Bresson's toughts, I should say "question the world", not explain, but reveal its mystery.

 

[Pieter12]

HBC may just be a YouTube guy, if he were alive now. His influence. his talent, his art were as much a product of his time as they were his product. Otherwise, I agree with you. But you can't compare him with anyone who has benefited or not from his existence. Diminishing what is available to people now is not fair, in comparison with an totally uncharted world that was available 90 years ago.

If HBC had cell phones to compete with, no one would know his name.

HCB would have loved using a smart phone. The Leica would sit on a shelf.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

HCB would have loved using a smart phone. The Leica would sit on a shelf.

What he would have loved is an iPad on which he could draw.

 

[Don_ih]

That everybody belongs to their time is a truism that leads us nowhere.

I was going to let all of that go, but all you need to do is think about that to know it's false.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I strongly disagree. Serious people—those who think about what they do, those who take the time to investigate the mysteries of art and/or life—, be it writers, artists, philosophers, photographers, etc., deserve to be taken seriously. Thinking is not a bad thing, and sharing these thoughts is an act of generosity, and comes out of necessity, not ego.

Now nobody forces anybody to read anything. If one doesn't want to dive deep into a philosopher, artist, writer, photographer's thought process, that's up to each person. Either you want to understand more, or you don't. But to dismiss it "with a grain of salt" is an insult to the miracle of human intelligence.

As is comparing HCB with Joe Dude-Guy trying to build his community on YouTube by giving advice on which version of the Pentax 67 one should buy.

If anybody is a fully-dressed emperor, it's HCB.

I often ask questions of posters here of photographers who aren't famous and whom I don't really know. They're serious people, but are they knowledgeable about the topics they preach about? Maybe. I have to use judgment with their answers and advice, and I often believe them.

What about so-called experts? Ever notice how experts are often divided on subjects? Half the economists with PhDs say the economy is great, and the other half claim we're going into recession. Same with the stock market pickers, horse racing aficionados, etc. These experts can't all be correct. It's worse in the arts where so much is feeling, emotion, innate talent, etc. How do you measure these things? Just because an artist is famous doesn't make them the keeper of truth. Nor do unknown artists lack the ability to know the truth.

 

[Don_ih]

Just because an artist is famous doesn't make them the keeper of truth. Nor do unknown artists lack the ability to know the truth.

Alex wasn't saying famous. He said "serious". He'd admit that Joe Dude-Guy on YouTube can have a level of fame but questions how serious he is. But if Joe Dude-Guy wants views on YouTube, he has to provide his audience what they want. His audience doesn't want to watch Joe's slide-show of street photos taken in Paris - they want to hear about the camera he used. So, Alex really has no access to Joe's genuine attitude or any inkling of how much talent or knowledge the guy has. No one does, other than the limited private audience of Joe's actual work (if there is any, that is). It may seem a bit arrogant to dismiss someone on such a superficial basis.

 

[Milpool]

I often ask questions of posters here of photographers who aren't famous and whom I don't really know. They're serious people, but are they knowledgeable about the topics they preach about? Maybe. I have to use judgment with their answers and advice, and I often believe them.

What about so-called experts? Ever notice how experts are often divided on subjects? Half the economists with PhDs say the economy is great, and the other half claim we're going into recession. Same with the stock market pickers, horse racing aficionados, etc. These experts can't all be correct. It's worse in the arts where so much is feeling, emotion, innate talent, etc. How do you measure these things? Just because an artist is famous doesn't make them the keeper of truth. Nor do unknown artists lack the ability to know the truth.

I think it would help to separate those fields you listed as they are fundamentally very different in how knowledge is applied, how questions can be answered etc. Another problem is that in some fields, there is what one might broadly term aptitude or talent. When it comes to the fine arts in particular that can frustrate attempts at characterizing or defining expertise.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

What about so-called experts? Ever notice how experts are often divided on subjects? Half the economists with PhDs say the economy is great, and the other half claim we're going into recession. Same with the stock market pickers, horse racing aficionados, etc.

Acutally, all economists agree whether the economy is good or bad. It's how to fix it when it's bad that they don't agree upon, which is normal because so much of the (of our) economy is based on speculation. As for horse-racing experts, well, pretty normal they can't agree on which horse is gonna win, no?

Elsewhere, if you take the time to look, you'd realize that 99% of all scientists agree on 99% of scientific matters, from the creating of the universe to the effects of man-made climate change. Those who disagree, or spread misinformation about such matters, are either non experts but pretend to be when they have a camera in their face—and I'll stop here because this can get political very fast.

It's worse in the arts where so much is feeling, emotion, innate talent, etc. How do you measure these things?

Now if you are telling me that art critics and art historians don't agree that Da Vinci, Delacroix, Monet, Caravaggio, Velasquez, etc., were all great painters, that Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Dorothea Lange, Diane Arbus, Robert Adams, Gordon Parks, etc. were all great photographers, and that the greatness and depth of their works, way above what the average artist or photographer can do in a lifetime, cannot be described, then we really have nothing to talk about.

I don't know why you make this about fame. We're not talking the Kardashians, who are famous because they are famous—that very modern phenomenon in which fame is both a means to an end and the end itself. Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Dorothea Lange, Diane Arbus, etc., are famous because they produced great work. And people talk about the greatness of these works not because the people who produced them are famous but because they took the time to look at the works, think about the works, be moved by they works and try to understand what makes them great, including all that is inherently mysterious about the greatness of works of art.

Are there non famous people who have also produced great works? Of course! Just think if Vivian Maier's work would not have been found and simply destroyed after her death. That in no way diminishes the greatness of the other artists' accomplishments.

Now if you don't believe in greatness, if you don't want to acknowledge that of Cartier-Bresson's work, or if you don't want to stop and take the time to try to understand why so many people see greatness in his works, that's your prerogative. To me, it comes to a question of trust, of levels of trust. When Ernst Gombrich tells me about the greatness of an artwork, I trust him, not because he bears the title "expert", but because I've read him, tried to understand what he says about art—The Story of Art is a fantastic book, by the way—and decide that he's an expert I can trust. That's how it works.

Now if you don't trust anybody's expertise, if you don't trust the fact that some people have more knowledge than you and that you can learn something from this knowledge and better understand the works of art you love and admire, to me, that's entering a realm of pure cynicism in which I cannot find myself. And it goes against my deep belief that ignorance is a blessing and the ability to learn from others a blessing.

He'd admit that Joe Dude-Guy on YouTube can have a level of fame but questions how serious he is. But if Joe Dude-Guy wants views on YouTube, he has to provide his audience what they want.

I'd say the same thing about Joe Dude-Guy than stated above: levels of trust, and audience expectation—because, as opposed to all great photographer, he's playing for an audience, as you adequately point out.

I'm not dismissing Joe Dude-Guy, to make it clear. The ones I've found I can trust have guided me immensely, from helping me buy my Pentax 67 to figuring out how to bleach my prints (honestly, a life-changer).

 

[BrianShaw]

“Acutally, all economists agree whether the economy is good or bad.”

Depends on your definition and tolerances for “good or bad”. Not necessarily true as different economists use different models and metrics. Just like different meteorologists will give different predictions. Only the past is certain and more likely to achieve consensus. It’s okay for experts to have variations of the right answer and never reach a full consensus. Only people who can’t, or don’t want to, think and understand insist on a single answer or opinion. Usually they focus on their own opinion or desired answer, no matter how ill informed it may be.

“Elsewhere, if you take the time to look, you'd realize that 99% of all scientists agree on 99% of scientific matters, from the creating of the universe to the effects of man-made climate change.”

The “99% agreement” is likely a bit of confirmation bias…

 

[BrianShaw]

At the moment, I’m taking this weather prediction with a grain of salt. It’s just not clear which part needs the salt and which can be believed… until tomorrow.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Acutally, all economists agree whether the economy is good or bad. It's how to fix it when it's bad that they don't agree upon, which is normal because so much of the (of our) economy is based on speculation. As for horse-racing experts, well, pretty normal they can't agree on which horse is gonna win, no?

Elsewhere, if you take the time to look, you'd realize that 99% of all scientists agree on 99% of scientific matters, from the creating of the universe to the effects of man-made climate change. Those who disagree, or spread misinformation about such matters, are either non experts but pretend to be when they have a camera in their face—and I'll stop here because this can get political very fast.



Now if you are telling me that art critics and art historians don't agree that Da Vinci, Delacroix, Monet, Caravaggio, Velasquez, etc., were all great painters, that Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Dorothea Lange, Diane Arbus, Robert Adams, Gordon Parks, etc. were all great photographers, and that the greatness and depth of their works, way above what the average artist or photographer can do in a lifetime, cannot be described, then we really have nothing to talk about.

I don't know why you make this about fame. We're not talking the Kardashians, who are famous because they are famous—that very modern phenomenon in which fame is both a means to an end and the end itself. Cartier-Bresson, Robert Frank, Dorothea Lange, Diane Arbus, etc., are famous because they produced great work. And people talk about the greatness of these works not because the people who produced them are famous but because they took the time to look at the works, think about the works, be moved by they works and try to understand what makes them great, including all that is inherently mysterious about the greatness of works of art.

Are there non famous people who have also produced great works? Of course! Just think if Vivian Maier's work would not have been found and simply destroyed after her death. That in no way diminishes the greatness of the other artists' accomplishments.

Now if you don't believe in greatness, if you don't want to acknowledge that of Cartier-Bresson's work, or if you don't want to stop and take the time to try to understand why so many people see greatness in his works, that's your prerogative. To me, it comes to a question of trust, of levels of trust. When Ernst Gombrich tells me about the greatness of an artwork, I trust him, not because he bears the title "expert", but because I've read him, tried to understand what he says about art—The Story of Art is a fantastic book, by the way—and decide that he's an expert I can trust. That's how it works.

Now if you don't trust anybody's expertise, if you don't trust the fact that some people have more knowledge than you and that you can learn something from this knowledge and better understand the works of art you love and admire, to me, that's entering a realm of pure cynicism in which I cannot find myself. And it goes against my deep belief that ignorance is a blessing and the ability to learn from others a blessing.



I'd say the same thing about Joe Dude-Guy than stated above: levels of trust, and audience expectation—because, as opposed to all great photographer, he's playing for an audience, as you adequately point out.

I'm not dismissing Joe Dude-Guy, to make it clear. The ones I've found I can trust have guided me immensely, from helping me buy my Pentax 67 to figuring out how to bleach my prints (honestly, a life-changer).

If you don't like someone's type of work, you don't usually care what they have to say or what others think of them. Wiliam Eggleston is a famous photographer. I;m, not impressed. To me his work is boring and trite. He says nothing to me. So if some guy at MOMA tells me he's great, I should therefore follow his advice and shoot snaps? It reminds me of this forum. Someone asks which is the best film or camera format, and thirty responses are posted. Then we spend 5-6 pages of arguing among ourselves who's right and why. How silly? We're doing it right now in this thread. Of course, it pays to listen to more experienced people, and experts, especially with technical questions. I do that all the time. But with art, especially, so much is emotional.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

“Acutally, all economists agree whether the economy is good or bad.”

Depends on your definition and tolerances for “good or bad”. Not necessarily true as different economists use different models and metrics. Just like different meteorologists will give different predictions. Only the past is certain and more likely to achieve consensus. It’s okay for experts to have variations of the right answer and never reach a full consensus. Only people who can’t, or don’t want to, think and understand insist on a single answer or opinion. Usually they focus on their own opinion or desired answer, no matter how ill informed it may be.

“Elsewhere, if you take the time to look, you'd realize that 99% of all scientists agree on 99% of scientific matters, from the creating of the universe to the effects of man-made climate change.”

The “99% agreement” is likely a bit of confirmation bias…

I diagree with ALex, Brian, economists disagree virulently. They are not in lockstep. The Fed is a perfect example. Here are experts in the field, with PhDs in economics who missed inflation and kept rates too low then kept them too high and are now probably going too low too fast again. How can so many experts get it wrong? Meanwhile, other expert economists were telling them they were wrong. Just because some guy in MOMA says an artist is great, everyone jumps on the me-too bandwagon. After all, no one wants to be called ignorant by disagreeing with the so-called experts. I agree with you it's often confirmation bias.

 

[Arthurwg]

Here's a pretty good documentary about him—in which he does talk about a few photos, concluding "There's no explanation".

Fabulous. Thanks for posting. At one time years ago I thought HCB had done photography a disservice because his influence was so pervasive and compelling, not to mention his not-to-crop doctrine. Thousands tried to copy him, but of course no one could.

I particularly liked the inclusion of HCB's connection to painting and drawing, and the beauty of his early artwork. As I mentioned earlier, I do see a relationship between the photo in question and his drawings.

 

[Arthurwg]

If HBC had cell phones to compete with, no one would know his name.

Don't be silly.

 

[Arthurwg]

Depends on your definition and tolerances for “good or bad”. Not necessarily true as different economists use different models and metrics.

Good point. Corporate profits, growth of GDP and the value of real estate suggest one thing, while the 650,000 US homeless and working-class people who struggle to put food on the table suggests another.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I enjoy looking at photographs of photographs like HBC, Ansel Adams, Dorothea Lange, and many others must more than trying to get into their minds.

 

[snusmumriken]

I diagree with ALex, Brian, economists disagree virulently. They are not in lockstep. The Fed is a perfect example. Here are experts in the field, with PhDs in economics who missed inflation and kept rates too low then kept them too high and are now probably going too low too fast again. How can so many experts get it wrong? Meanwhile, other expert economists were telling them they were wrong. Just because some guy in MOMA says an artist is great, everyone jumps on the me-too bandwagon. After all, no one wants to be called ignorant by disagreeing with the so-called experts. I agree with you it's often confirmation bias.

If you are saying that you don’t feel HCB’s work merits the reputation it has among ‘experts’, that’s not what this thread is about. For those of us who love the photos regardless of his reputation, this thread is about his possible reasons for showcasing one particular photo that seems a surprising choice.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Fabulous. Thanks for posting. At one time years ago I thought HCB had done photography a disservice because his influence was so pervasive and compelling, not to mention his not-to-crop doctrine. Thousands tried to copy him, but of course no one could.

I totally agree. I think it's why many people have a very ambivalent relationship with his work. It's unavoidable, unescapable if you want to understand anything about 20th century photography. Because of the formal beauty and perfection, it's power of seduction is so strong that many photographers felt they had somehow to define themselves not necessarily in opposition to HCB, but with different formal solutions.

That's what the quote regarding Robert Frank I mentioned earlier was about. And he could have said the same about Koudelka—he actually did, Koudelka was a photographer HCB admired greatly—Winogrand or Friedlander. None of them tried to copy him, or each other for that matter. Each answered differently the main question/problem about photography, which is how to organize three dimentional space on a single plane. The other aspect that makes Cartier-Bresson's work both so seductive and so essential as a means, as a starting point to think about photography is that his answer to the main problem about photography seems so obvious when you look at his works.

When I started photography, his was some of the first works of any photographers I started looking at. And of course, I wanted both to travel the world and "decisive-moment" this and "decisive-moment" that. Which was OK—imitation, or the attempt of, is, contrary to what many believe, one of the best learning tool there is. After a while, things changed. Actually sold many of my HCB books. Only recently reconciled with the greatness of his works, without any need now to emulate. Mostly because I'm starting to find my own solutions to the problem—or, at least, looking elsewhere for them (helloooo Robert Adams....).

I wouldn't be surprised if many of us here went through the same process.

Wiliam Eggleston is a famous photographer. I;m, not impressed. To me his work is boring and trite. He says nothing to me.

Confusing two sets of things, fame and greatness, opinion and consensus of ideas.

Opinions are of no value other than to the self. They essentially tells us about our limits, nothing about our depths. Bach cantatas bore me—I could spend years listening to nothing other than his instrumental music, but, I don't know why, the cantatas just bore me. In no way does it mean they are boring. This is a sign of my failure, my incapacity to understand them and hear in them what other people—many of whom I admire—do. I fell a slight sadness in that.

What I wouldn't do is participate in a thread on Bach cantatas, because my opinion, that they bore me, would be useless and irrelevant to others. My advice to you is thus not to participate in threads about William Eggleston.

So if some guy at MOMA tells me he's great, I should therefore follow his advice and shoot snaps?

First of all, nobody ever said that acknowledging greatness means imitating. Acknowledging greatness, by definition, means acknowledging it cannot be imitated.

Secondly, just need to tell you that John Szarkowski is on line one and wants a word with you... (I don't think he appreciated that "some guy at MoMA" quip...)

For those of us who love the photos regardless of his reputation, this thread is about his possible reasons for showcasing one particular photo that seems a surprising choice.

Did you watch the documentary I posted? There is a passage that, while not directly linked to the photo in question, is relevant to our conversation. It's the passage where a museum curator shows a photograph Cartier-Bresson took in China. He talks about the fact that no context is provided, no explanation, and why the mystery, the "not knowing" actually enriches to photograph. It's at the 36:30 mark in the film.

In many places elsewhere, Cartier-Bresson hints at the same thing. That there is nothing to be "understood".

 

[Don_ih]

Don't be silly.

Don't ignore the paragraph that prefaced that sentence. I didn't just say it out of the blue. There's nothing silly about it. Cartier Bresson made his name using a miniature format camera to take spontaneous photos - something everyone on earth is currently capable of doing all day long. He would become the blade of rush in a pile of hay. Sure, he could still be great - but could he be noticed? Quite probably.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Sure, he could still be great - but could he be noticed?

Now this could bring up an interesting conversation, albeit in another thread: if the content of Vivian Maier's storage locker would have been thrown away as junk, would she still be a great photographer?

There's that zen koan again...

(Hear that? it's the sound of just one of Cartier-Bresson's hands clapping )