Can you explain why HCB chose this photo?

St. Clair Beach Solitude

D
St. Clair Beach Solitude

  • 6
  • 2
  • 47
Reach for the sky

H
Reach for the sky

  • 3
  • 4
  • 72
Agawa Canyon

A
Agawa Canyon

  • 3
  • 2
  • 123
Frank Dean,  Blacksmith

A
Frank Dean, Blacksmith

  • 13
  • 8
  • 317

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,867
Messages
2,782,221
Members
99,735
Latest member
tstroh
Recent bookmarks
0

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,759
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
There is no such thing as "THE viewer".

Yes, there is. Every viewer is an example. You can try to push the responsibility for a shoddy work onto as many variegated people as you like, but the work is still the work of the one who produced it. And, in this instance, many viewers (each of which is a "the viewer") find the work .... lacking.

Furthermore, for an artist creating a work, there is an idealized "the viewer" who has a certain idealized capacity for appreciation. And, in the instance where you have an artist who claims they don't care about the audience, "the viewer" is a projection of him- or herself.

If you want to say that everyone will see a different picture, then there is genuinely nothing to talk about whatsoever.

There is a reality to the experience. And the vast majority of people will have practically the same experience, with only minor amendments due to extraneous influences on interpretation.

You assume I meant something less sophisticated by "viewing" than what you went on to describe. I didn't. I agree that there is a complexity to viewing, as there is to all aspects of understanding. That's not extraordinary - it's commonplace. It's no more or less sophisticated than what goes into making a sandwich.
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,479
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
And, in this instance, many viewers (each of which is a "the viewer") find the work .... lacking.

We both agree that the work is lacking. Most people would. That's not what I'm talking about. As a viewer, I may totally discard the aesthetic quality of a work and be interested by something else. Aesthetics is only a part of one's rapport with artistic works -- if it weren't, punk music would never have existed. So the fact that a work may be mediocre, artistically-wise, may become totally irrelevent to my appreciation.

In this case, I'm interested in HCB the man, not the person. What I think about the photograh is unimportant, uninteresting, irrelevant. That's not what my conversation with this work about, not what my conversation with Cartier-Bresson is about.

Honestly, I find this, to be in a state in which you are totally without judgment, very liberating.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
501
Location
?
Format
Analog
I don`t know a lot about composing a picture - and i know nothing about HCB, except for his "decisive moment".
But i was following this discussion and had some ideas, before it was discovered where this picture was taken and i think some of my ideas may be interesting, still.

When looking at this picture the first time i considered it a rather unimportant and missed shot, as the foreground is blurred and nothing important or special is in the picture. But at a second glance i saw quite some elements of composition making this picture more interesting.
When taking a picture you get a two-dimensional print - unless you use a stereoscopic camera. So the print does not have any depth, but you can try to create an illusion of depth - for example by placing several objects or plains behind each other. If you place several people behind each other, in a way you still can see each person, you can see on the print that the object photographed must have had depth - while the print of course doesn`t.
On this picture here is see several plains behind each other. First would be the wire-fence, second the line of big trees and third plain the line of trees in the background. If you realize these planes, the pictures gets more "depth".
The second thing adding to depth are lines creating a vanishing point. The dark wall on the left and the smaller wire fence on the right, both leading to a vanishing point pretty much in the center of the picture also show that the object was three-dimensional - creating even more an illusion of depth on a two-dimensional picture.
Then there is the blurred foreground. When this picture was taken sky was cloudy, but as there is snow on the landscape brightness was rather high. It should have been possible to select an f-stop to get everything sharp - at least HCB could have putten focus more on the foreground, accepting some blur on infinity. But aparrently he didn`t, maybe because he wanted to add some realism to the picture:
If you stand close to a wire fence - closer than on this picture - look through the fence and focus on an object further away, the wire fence would become blurred to your own eyes. This is what we are used to by every day life - and this can add some realism to a picture, because sharpness looks like we see it with our own eyes.
The longer i look at this picture the more three-dimensional and realistic it gets to me, though its just a two-dimensional and B/W picture.

And there is quite some structure in it, the planes, the wall+fence creating a vanishing point - if there wasn`t that chaotic nature in it, trees, bushes etc., this would make a very tidy, structurized, centralized etc. picture.
But there is this chaotic nature in it, counteracting the structural elements - there is contrast in this picture. And i`d say the contrast is pretty even, i see about as much structure as chaos.
This then reminded me of jazz.
In a documentary about jazz a famous musician, i think it was a trumpet player, explained what jazz is about - in an interview from the 60s or 50s. He did explain that jazz has certain rules, i cannot remember what rules exactly, but within these rules you are free. You don`t have to stick to the melody but you can vary - and you also don`t neccesarily have to stick to the rhythm. There is some structure, but there also is chaos - just like in this picture.
This may be too far-fetched, but who knows, maybe HCB also had jazz in his mind when he took this picture. In the 60s for example there was psychedelic rock and then people also tried to take psychedelic pictures - in `44 jazz still was big, rock`n roll wasn`t invented yet so maybe... but maybe HCB didn`t like jazz.

I am not a jazz fan, there are some tunes i like, but some are just too chaotic for me - therefore i can understand why there are people not liking this picture. You either like the tune or you don`t. I don`t consider this picture groundbreaking, but pretty interesting - at a second glance.

Also it is the opposite of a decisive moment. There is no fast moving object or person, no fraction of a second to catch, it doesn`t matter if you take this picture now or in five minutes. Also when trying to catch a decisive moment you usually don`t compose a lot. Whether the picture does create an illusion of depth etc. doesn`t matter much - it is important that the man jumping over the puddle has both feet in the air.
Therefore this picture is the opposite of what you would expect from HCB (as far as i know HCB and i only know his decisive moment), so maybe he also put this picture into the book to give the audience what they don`t expect. To break the pattern, so to say.
 

Besk

Member
Joined
Jul 30, 2005
Messages
584
Location
Southern USA
Format
Multi Format
I never was good at interpreting poetry in English class.

And would have just passed over this print if we were not having a discussion about it. But while not a "pretty picture" it is interesting to study it.

Cartier-Bresson was an artist at heart and I will venture to say that the picture meant something to him personally
and that he saw things in it that were personal to him.

Upon reflection, metaphorically, I can see that the confusion and softness at the bottom of the photo changes into sharply defined but not rigid organization as depicted in the tree limbs/twigs at the top. This could be the world coming out of the destruction of WW2. But again only HCB appears to know why it was important to him.
 

BrianShaw

Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2005
Messages
16,531
Location
La-la-land
Format
Multi Format
Seems like it’s a bit of a photographic Rorschach test.
 
Joined
Nov 15, 2017
Messages
501
Location
?
Format
Analog
Yes, the problem is that this picture is out of context and not self-explanatory. We don`t know much about it - therefore we're forced to guess. If there was a note in the book why he took this picture, what it meant to him and why he put it into the book this topic wouldn`t had been started.
At least it does not look like a butterfly - and it hasn`t anything to do with traumatic experiences in our childhood (oh, wait... 😉 ).
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,932
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Furthermore, for an artist creating a work, there is an idealized "the viewer" who has a certain idealized capacity for appreciation.

Once again I'm left out, being "another viewer" who happens to appreciate this photograph. Which is evidently all wrong, wrong, wrong, because the work is "lacking", as is evidently my sophistication as a viewer. Dear me, dare I ever set foot in a gallery or museum again? Apart from THE art, I may be confronted with THE viewer. The horror!

maybe he also put this picture into the book to give the audience what they don`t expect. To break the pattern, so to say.

He threw a turd at us so a bunch of amateur darkroom enthusiasts with a collection of moldy cameras could debate whether it's good or not, and in the process unmask the charlatan. HCB is chuckling in his grave.
 
OP
OP
snusmumriken

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,495
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
Once again I'm left out, being "another viewer" who happens to appreciate this photograph. Which is evidently all wrong, wrong, wrong, because the work is "lacking", as is evidently my sophistication as a viewer. Dear me, dare I ever set foot in a gallery or museum again? Apart from THE art, I may be confronted with THE viewer. The horror!



He threw a turd at us so a bunch of amateur darkroom enthusiasts with a collection of moldy cameras could debate whether it's good or not, and in the process unmask the charlatan. HCB is chuckling in his grave.
That seems an unfortunately sour place in which to leave this thread for posterity, so let me return to the subject. Here’s another landscape from the collection referenced in post #1. The notes just say “Hungary 1965“, so I assume it has nothing to do with his wife or imprisonment. It doesn’t impress me, but evidently HCB wanted us to see it, so I want to understand why.
IMG_4281.jpeg

I see a composition of blocks and lines, and I could believe that we are intended to recognise that as an abstract composition. There's also a sprinkling of 'neige blanc' for those who like that kind of thing. Any other thoughts?
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,932
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
(1) You like it.
(2) You don't.

(A) Spend more time with it.
(B) Move on, spend time elsewhere.

1A and 2B are generally problem-free combinations. 2A tends to leave threads ending on a sour note, but it's the fabric much of forums are made of. 1B may not make the most of joys discovered, but at least holds the promise of other joys.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,759
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
Once again I'm left out, being "another viewer" who happens to appreciate this photograph. Which is evidently all wrong, wrong, wrong, because the work is "lacking", as is evidently my sophistication as a viewer.

There's no reason a viewer can't appreciate and actually find some meaning in the photo. But there are commonalities in the appreciation and understanding of the majority of people (particularly within a given culture, at a given time) that are fairly predictable. Nothing stops you from having a more sophisticated understanding that leads to a different appreciation of something.

Also -
Aesthetics is only a part of one's rapport with artistic works

is completely correct.
 
OP
OP
snusmumriken

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,495
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
(1) You like it.
(2) You don't.

(A) Spend more time with it.
(B) Move on, spend time elsewhere.

1A and 2B are generally problem-free combinations. 2A tends to leave threads ending on a sour note, but it's the fabric much of forums are made of. 1B may not make the most of joys discovered, but at least holds the promise of other joys.
Well, since 2A was my starting position for this thread, I could feel quite offended! I disagree, anyway. What would be the point of discussing only works that one likes/understands?
 

Dustin McAmera

Subscriber
Joined
Feb 15, 2023
Messages
601
Location
UK
Format
Multi Format
Abstract shapes in the composition are only one aspect of a photograph. One might take a photograph of a scene to try to record and share the impression it made. I like that last photo with the three polled trees much more than the first one. It reminds me a little of the views in a snowy walk I went myself. I like the way the wind has left the snow in scrubbed patches on the slope opposite. It chimes with the attacked but resilient look of the polled trees. I like the fringe of just the tops of the row of trees showing where there must be a road along the next ridge. In the snow and the wind, it would be quite a walk to get to that road. For me, this isn't an abstract; it's a photo of what was there and how it felt to be there.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,932
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
Well, since 2A was my starting position for this thread, I could feel quite offended!

Why would you? I don't see it as a particularly productive starting point, but that's not an offense. We do lots of stuff that's objectively speaking unproductive. It's probably an inherent part of the human condition.
Besides, I think your initial question made good sense and isn't quite a '2A'. It's more of a '1.5A'. You stated you weren't sure what the image was about and asked if someone could enlighten you. That's different from starting with "I don't like it and I'm going to do a nice bit of complaining & flailing about over it". Your starting point is much more constructive, in my view.

What would be the point of discussing only works that one likes/understands?
There's at least as much a point to it as to discussing things we don't like or understand, I think. Moreover, there's a big difference between 'like' and 'understand' especially in this context.

The problem with the 'pure 2A' in my mind is that it always results in something that doesn't add all that much to the party. It tends to come to a tautological conclusion, often doesn't progress past the point of tropes, or merely results in the selling of opinions as if they were axioms. One of the most sensible tropes in this context is "there's no accounting for taste". It gets us exactly nowhere to remark it, but at the same time, it's about as far as we'll ever get.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,759
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
I would not consider liking or not liking to be very relevant to discussing an art object. "Like" and "dislike" are about you - not about the art. For the most part, I don't care if anyone likes or dislikes anything. It really has nothing to do with whether or not the thing in question is worthwhile.
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,932
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
And, in this instance, many viewers (each of which is a "the viewer") find the work .... lacking.

For the most part, I don't care if anyone likes or dislikes anything.

So, 'we' find the work 'lacking', but that doesn't say anything about anyone liking anything.

I'll drop back in once the philosophical atom has been a bit more thoroughly split.
 
OP
OP
snusmumriken

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,495
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
For the most part, I don't care if anyone likes or dislikes anything. It really has nothing to do with whether or not the thing in question is worthwhile.
This baffles me. I can see that a worthwhile artefact doesn’t have to be likeable (it could be shocking, for instance); but if someone - anyone - does like the piece, then it is surely worthwhile?

Anyway, to reassure @koraks, it seems to me that this thread has identified several ways to understand the photo(s) in question, including the visceral ‘like’.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,471
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
I'm not stopping now!

Found the actual location. It's called Chouzy-sur-Cissé. And Chouzy-sur-Cissé is the village where his wife, Ratna Mohini, hid during the war and where he reunited with her after escaping the German camp.

In the MoMA book titled The Modern Century, the photo is dated 1944, not 1946, so this photo might actually have been taken at that moment when he finally reached the place in wich she was hiding, wich, if the case, makes it very moving.

Will try to confirm if I find another source.

Since his wife hid there during the war it must have a lot of emotional appeal to him, so he selected it on those grounds.
 
Joined
Aug 29, 2017
Messages
9,471
Location
New Jersey formerly NYC
Format
Multi Format
Matt, you have just reminded me, how in my younger days when I use to smoke, how after consuming a beautiful meal in Paris, how wonderful it was to smoke a Galoise with a rich glass of red wine.

I didn't get to Paris for the first time until last year with my wife. I had dreamt all my life of sitting on one of those small tables in a street cafe smoking and drinking with all the other Frenchmen watching humanity walk by. Unfortunately, I gave up smoking by then. So when we finally got there and sat down, the smoke from the other patrons was killing me. We had to leave and sit indoors where no smoking was allowed. So much for lifetime dreams.
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,759
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
So, 'we' find the work 'lacking', but that doesn't say anything about anyone liking anything.

"Lacking" has to do with value. Like/dislike is not really assigning a value to something beyond your own personal preference, and makes no claim about the object itself. "Lacking" implies a failure of some sort on the part of the object. You can still like something that is in some way lacking or even otherwise worthless.

if someone - anyone - does like the piece, then it is surely worthwhile?

There are people who like all kinds of things that the majority of people would consider deviant or perverse or completely immoral. That someone likes to stick needles into mice, for example, is not enough to make the activity be considered worthwhile to anyone other than the person who likes it.

Consider that the subject of the sentence "I like X" is not X but is the speaker. It's not about X, it's about I. X is a passive object and is not described or in any way informed by the word "like" (a verb that indicates the action of the subject.)
 

Arthurwg

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
2,684
Location
Taos NM
Format
Medium Format
Something else comes to mind: How do you feel about HCB's drawings? They may be excellent, but perhaps don't show the genius of his photographs?
 

koraks

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Nov 29, 2018
Messages
22,932
Location
Europe
Format
Multi Format
I find it all very odd. Here we are, a couple of (mostly) amateur photographers with (mostly) no particular feats to our names in terms of artistry or an art-related field, arguing with an apparent matter-of-factness that a certain piece lacks value, and even extending that judgement with a certain finality to a larger population. What can I say....I just hope that whenever I find myself in the vicinity of artefacts that may or may not be art, I will also be in the presence of one of the enlightened souls that can guide my appreciation and dictate to me which works I should value, and which ones I'm allowed to like.
 

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council
Subscriber
Joined
Jan 9, 2005
Messages
5,481
Location
North Coast BC Canada
Format
Hybrid
Fine art leaning photography is a lot like poetry, in that meaning is condensed/distilled through the selection of a few elements which represent more than the sum of its parts.

Poets don't provide descriptions of what their poems mean, and neither should photographers. Each person/reader/viewer brings their life experience through which they interpret works of art. The work should stand alone, on its own, speaking for itself. One should also consider it in its historical context and its context if shown with other works.

The piece in question was in a retrospective and chosen by the photographer. To dismiss it without questioning why it might have importance to the artist is ______. (Finding it hard to find the right word. Insensitive? Lazy? Uninquisitive?)
 
Last edited:

Arthurwg

Member
Joined
Dec 16, 2005
Messages
2,684
Location
Taos NM
Format
Medium Format
I find it all very odd. Here we are, a couple of (mostly) amateur photographers with (mostly) no particular feats to our names in terms of artistry or an art-related field, arguing with an apparent matter-of-factness that a certain piece lacks value,
I questioned the value of a photograph posted by a member here and was criticized harshly for doing it. I guess it's only fair when it's HCB. And BTW, I'm having a gallery show at the moment. Does that count as a "particular feat"?
 
OP
OP
snusmumriken

snusmumriken

Subscriber
Joined
Jul 22, 2021
Messages
2,495
Location
Salisbury, UK
Format
35mm
I find it all very odd. Here we are, a couple of (mostly) amateur photographers with (mostly) no particular feats to our names in terms of artistry or an art-related field, arguing with an apparent matter-of-factness that a certain piece lacks value, and even extending that judgement with a certain finality to a larger population. What can I say....I just hope that whenever I find myself in the vicinity of artefacts that may or may not be art, I will also be in the presence of one of the enlightened souls that can guide my appreciation and dictate to me which works I should value, and which ones I'm allowed to like.

Have to say, I don’t understand you. Nobody is telling you what to like or dislike. But it’s perfectly reasonable to say, “I don’t really appreciate this particular photo, yet the photographer - whom I greatly admire - wanted to show it. Maybe if others can tell me what they see in it, I will appreciate it more. Or maybe, given more information, I may understand why the photographer wanted to show it.”
 

Don_ih

Member
Joined
Jan 24, 2021
Messages
7,759
Location
Ontario
Format
35mm RF
Have to say, I don’t understand you. Nobody is telling you what to like or dislike. But it’s perfectly reasonable to say, “I don’t really appreciate this particular photo, yet the photographer - whom I greatly admire - wanted to show it. Maybe if others can tell me what they see in it, I will appreciate it more. Or maybe, given more information, I may understand why the photographer wanted to show it.”

I agree. The fact is, this photo is being discussed because it appears to be a dud. Alex has told some very enlightening things about it - all of which can make one consider that it is worthwhile (at least to learn the associated history) even if the photo itself seems not-special.

But that it was special to Cartier Bresson doesn't mean it should be special to everyone.

Here we are, a couple of (mostly) amateur photographers with (mostly) no particular feats to our names in terms of artistry or an art-related field, arguing with an apparent matter-of-factness that a certain piece lacks value, and even extending that judgement with a certain finality to a larger population.

So, only those with the proper credentials should have anything to say? And what constitutes a "feat"? An artist's work is generally worthwhile long before he or she ever gets promoted or accepted. Or are you saying that the acceptance and promotion (the success) is what makes someone an artist? Or are those things only required when you want to make an argument about art?
 
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom