if the content of Vivian Maier's storage locker would have been thrown away as junk, would she still be a great photographer
Of course she would. Just nobody would know. Greatness has nothing to do with notoriety, it is about talent and ability.if the content of Vivian Maier's storage locker would have been thrown away as junk, would she still be a great photographer?
Of course she would. Just nobody would know. Greatness has nothing to do with notoriety, it is about talent and ability.
Aren't you guy just discussing semantics. It HCB wanted to show that image in OP then why not. He is a brilliant photographer and many of us understand exactly what he is doing.
"Great" implies a level of influence that would not be available to someone who is unknown to everyone. She would have been just as talented and just as good but she could not have been great. If you want the word "great" to just mean "very good" then that's basically meaningless.
What exactly is he doing, then?
I did watch that video a while back, but I will watch it again to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. Meanwhile, ‘not explaining’ is, IMHO, what makes many photos by HCB and others ‘surreal’. The mind searches internally for ways to make sense of the mystery. The real context may be quite banal, and to reveal it would destroy the mystery/wonder.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".
I did watch that video a while back, but I will watch it again to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. Meanwhile, ‘not explaining’ is, IMHO, what makes many photos by HCB and others ‘surreal’. The mind searches internally for ways to make sense of the mystery. The real context may be quite banal, and to reveal it would destroy the mystery/wonder.
I think there being nothing to understand is a different point. In HCB’s paradigm, the image is sufficient in itself. If its ‘point’ could be explained in words, one might as well do just that. Somewhere I read that in the case of his USSR photos, not providing detailed captions was a way to avoid appearing to either approve or criticise what he saw - that judgement was passed on to the viewer. Here was what he saw on his trip … except that of course these were not random snaps.
"Great" implies a level of influence that would not be available to someone who is unknown to everyone. She would have been just as talented and just as good but she could not have been great. If you want the word "great" to just mean "very good" then that's basically meaningless.
What exactly is he doing, then?
I did watch that video a while back, but I will watch it again to make sure I’m understanding you correctly. Meanwhile, ‘not explaining’ is, IMHO, what makes many photos by HCB and others ‘surreal’. The mind searches internally for ways to make sense of the mystery. The real context may be quite banal, and to reveal it would destroy the mystery/wonder.
I think there being nothing to understand is a different point. In HCB’s paradigm, the image is sufficient in itself. If its ‘point’ could be explained in words, one might as well do just that. Somewhere I read that in the case of his USSR photos, not providing detailed captions was a way to avoid appearing to either approve or criticise what he saw - that judgement was passed on to the viewer. Here was what he saw on his trip … except that of course these were not random snaps.
To persue this thought a little further, I'm trying to remember if I've come across other examples in photojournalism, not by HCB, in which context became in time annihilated, so to speak, by aesthetic contemplation while being essential at the moment the photo was taken. It's a rare feat. One of the few that comes to mind is Gene Smith's Minamata photo, Tomoko Uemura is Bathed by her Mother. Smith achieved his perfection totally diffently than Cartier-Bresson—i.e., mostly in the darkroom. But even then, one can wonder if context is totally avoidable here.
Not saying it's necessary that it be avoidable in order to have great documentary photography. Robert Frank's The Americans is all about context. As is the work of Gordon Parks.
Surely one could suggest several photographers for whom context has become largely irrelevant to the images. Among my favourites I would think of Lartigue, Koudelka, Tony Ray Jones, …
Koudelka was a good friend of Bresson and they both had a similar desire to depict life.
Getting back to the photo in question, I think it's terrible. It's cluttered, has no subject, the foreground is out of focus, and there is a black square in the middle left that I can't figure out what it is. The only thing interesting is the nest or fungal growth in the tree at the top right. I hope this photo is not considered one of HCB's best by Szarkowski. What should we learn from it?
Getting back to the photo in question, I think it's terrible. It's cluttered, has no subject, the foreground is out of focus, and there is a black square in the middle left that I can't figure out what it is. The only thing interesting is the nest or fungal growth in the tree at the top right. I hope this photo is not considered one of HCB's best by Szarkowski. What should we learn from it?
Even as I wrote Koudelka’s name up above, I realised that the Prague invasion series doesn't fit because of its very specific context. I was thinking more of his gypsies, and photos of Ireland. This one, for instance.Koudelka is a great example of how difficult it is to generalize about this (which I'm guilty of). Granted, there are many photos in the Prague 68 series that now transcend their context.
I am unsure how you come to the conclusion the "great" implies influence. Many "great" artists go undiscovered during their lifetimes. Many more are never discovered. Does that make their art less "great"? The old if a tree falls in the woods, you know.
Koudelka is a great example of how difficult it is to generalize about this (which I'm guilty of). Granted, there are many photos in the Prague 68 series that now transcend their context.
That said, this photo absolutely doesn't. It only makes sense within its context. It's all about context. You can only feel the tension because you know that in a few seconds Russian tanks are going to start rolling at the end of that street (actually in an hour, Koudelka got the hour of their arrival wrong). As opposed to the Cartier-Bresson photographs we've been discussing (like the one I posted above), this is not, from a compositional point of view, a great photo, per se. You probably wouldn't stop and admire it were it be hanging on a museum wall. It begs context, it begs understanding. It's a very powerful photo but it becomes a powerful photo because of its context.
And also because Koudelka thought of taking that photo, had the instinct to take that photo, a photo revealing the tension, anticipation of the moment just before. Takes a special kind of genius to do that. I certainly wouldn't have thought of it. I would have taken the photo with the tanks in the street. And it wouldn't have been as good a photo.
Man, no disrespect, but you really need to read a bit about the ‘68 invasion of Prague, and what this photo recorded.This picture would be important part of a three-picture essay. An earlier shot of people and traffic moving normally, then this one, then tanks in the street. And a fourth if the tanks damaged structures.
Then you are free to use "good" or "nice". He's a "great photographer" = he's a "good photographer" = he's a "cute photographer" = he takes nice photos.
While you're at it, rename WWI to The Good War.
And that 17th century tsar of Russia can be called Peter the Nice.
Man, no disrespect, but you really need to read a bit about the ‘68 invasion of Prague, and what this photo recorded.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?