No, there is no more information in the book, just the place and date for each photo. In fact, the book contains another riddle over its division into numbered sections, which I raised in a previous thread.So why he took it is now solved but why he included it in a book unless viewers are told the context is that doesn't make sense to me. Maybe by the time you get to the picture in the book there is enough information there so that the viewer can make a connection?
PS - In case anyone is concerned, I don’t obsess about this all the time. I have a full and varied life!
HCB consulted his plumber, who chose the photo
I believe the book was based on a show at ICP in 1979, an exhibition of prints personally selected by Henri Cartier-Bresson representing his most significant works. Maybe it was more impactful on the wall in relation to other works. But the plumber theory is still valid.No, there is no more information in the book, just the place and date for each photo. In fact, the book contains another riddle over its division into numbered sections, which I raised in a previous thread.
PS - In case anyone is concerned, I don’t obsess about this all the time. I have a full and varied life!
You rock!OK. Dug a little deeper. Can confirm that it's a photo of the kitchen garden of the farm where his wife Ratna Mohini took shelter during the war, taken in 1944.
Awesome article. Thank you for sharing!Found something which might help:
"He re-joined French military as a photographer at the outbreak of World War II. He was captured and taken prisoner in a German labor camp, where he was held for three years. He escaped on his third attempt and if his devotion to the camera was ever in question, one of his first actions was to return to the hiding spot where he buried his 35 mm Leica camera prior to capture, and retrieved it."
Henri Cartier-Bresson and His Most Famous Photos
Henri Cartier-Bresson’s photographs are a time machine to exact moments in history, making him a pioneer of street photography.www.invaluable.com
Back in these days it was rather normal for people to grow their own vegetables, potatoes, fruits etc. in their garden.
But for me it doesn’t satisfactorily explain (c) why he took the photo
But for me it doesn’t satisfactorily explain... (d) why he considered it good enough for this retrospective selection
I was just thinking about this too...@snusmumriken : can we ask you to post the photos that accompany this one, before and after? The problem is that we might end up needing to see the photos before and after those, and well, whole book!Another interesting one is can a "just so-so", but meaningful, photograph, while lacking enough interest to stand alone, make perfect sense within the larger narrative of a book—regardless, I may add, whether or not the viewer is able to make total sense of the narrative in question?
On reflection, the superb sleuthing by @Alex Benjamin has explained (a) why HCB was at that location, and (b) one reason why he may have been fond of the image. But for me it doesn’t satisfactorily explain (c) why he took the photo, or (d) why he considered it good enough for this retrospective selection.
BTW, I found that if you view all HCB photos on the MoMa website, the thumbnails are arranged in date order, which is very helpful.
For the same reason people take selfies. Ego. We all love ourselves.
Of course, but unless the photo might mean something to others, I would keep it to myself.But haven't we all taken photographs of a place just because it meant something to us? Just to have a "perfect" memory of it at that particular time?
It must be a difficult task for someone of that stature to select a retrospective collection. How many photos to select? Who decides how many? If the target is too big, there will be more packing pieces. Does the fact that it is a retrospective license the photographer to include some of those secretly autobiographical shots? Is creating a satisfying sequence of images more important than which photos to include? To what extent do you argue with the publisher/curator? Is there a minimum technical quality, for the sake of consistency? Etc, etc.Another interesting one is can a "just so-so", but meaningful, photograph, while lacking enough interest to stand alone, make perfect sense within the larger narrative of a book—regardless, I may add, whether or not the viewer is able to make total sense of the narrative in question?
doesn't it also imply a certain arrogance?
I doubt that ego had anything do with the photo in question. It had some significance to HCB, possibly the circumstances under which it was taken or a personal resonance. The image was important enough to him to include in his retrospective, As far as the technical aspects, HCB was never a stickler for technical perfection.
Did HCB presume that viewers would dig deeper if they wanted to understand; or that they'd be content with the answer "Personal: none of your business"?
'Zat a joke? No explanation, evidence or reasoning?
t seems HCB liked to be enigmatic, an almost un-photographed photographer who gave almost no information about his images. It adds to his intrigue, but doesn't it also imply a certain arrogance?
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?