Can you explain why HCB chose this photo?

[Alan Edward Klein]

I wish I had this level of certainty about everything in life, even when I’m utterly clueless about something.

I'd like to see HCB's rejects, the ones he never showed to anyone else.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Like his Man Jumping Puddle.

Sometimes it appears that it was the only picture he ever shot. Oh, and the staircase shot with the guy on a bike. He must have saved a lot on film.

 

[Arthurwg]

That HCB was a friend of Atget I find hard to believe. HCB was only 19 when Atget died.

I'm glad you pointed that out.

 

[snusmumriken]

I'd like to see HCB's rejects, the ones he never showed to anyone else.

If you buy the Magnum contact prints book, you can see a few examples. He took full advantage of the small format camera. You can see that HCB was actually human and that his successes were at least sometimes the best of several attempts … which is no more than what he professed.

However, selection of what he chose to share or to conceal is also part of that process, and his privilege. One should respect that, since - unlike Vivian Maier, for instance - HCB did have the opportunity to exercise it. And this thread is about a photo that he evidently did want to share.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you buy the Magnum contact prints book, you can see a few examples. He took full advantage of the small format camera. You can see that HCB was actually human and that his successes were at least sometimes the best of several attempts … which is no more than what he professed.

However, selection of what he chose to share or to conceal is also part of that process, and his privilege. One should respect that, since - unlike Vivian Maier, for instance - HCB did have the opportunity to exercise it. And this thread is about a photo that he evidently did want to share.

It's nice to know he was human and made mistakes unlike most of us here.

 

[Pieter12]

It's nice to know he was human and made mistakes unlike most of us here.

I don't put HCB on a pedestal. He made major contributions to the field and was quite talented. But I am unsure of your assertion that the originally posted image is somehow a mistake.

 

[Harry Callahan]

The picture as shown in the more recent post is considerably better than in the first.

View attachment 386341 View attachment 386342

It's also from a different negative. It's not the same photo.

View attachment 386343 View attachment 386344

Just like the Time Warp, it's just a jump to the left...

I did not notice that these are two different negs - i assumed cropping to differ. But yes, on the more recent picture the fence post no longer is exactly where the black wall ends and the garden house begins.
Because of that, but also because of selected image section i consider the first picture to be better in composition.

 

[Pieter12]

If you buy the Magnum contact prints book, you can see a few examples. He took full advantage of the small format camera. You can see that HCB was actually human and that his successes were at least sometimes the best of several attempts … which is no more than what he professed.

Most of the contact prints I have seen of HCB's work have the individual frames cut out, leading one to think that those are his initial selection and he omitted frames from the roll. So he probably had a lot more misses than what is shown in the book and elsewhere.

 

[snusmumriken]

I don’t have heroes, because everyone turns out to be flawed when you dig into their lives. And of course I acknowledge that people’s tastes differ. Nevertheless, I am amazed by the grudging acknowledgment of HCB by some in this thread. I had thought that scores of his photos would be welcomed on any wall. Is it a Europe/N America taste difference?

 

[Don_ih]

i consider the first picture to be better in composition.

I think, in a competition between two flavours of mud, mud is ultimately chosen.

I'd like to see HCB's rejects, the ones he never showed to anyone else.

Why? The rejects don't diminish the successes. And there were many successes.

I don’t have heroes, because everyone turns out to be flawed

Human's are naturally flawed. You acknowledge that and respect or admire them in spite of it. That said, "hero" is a bit much.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

'Hero' is a bit much; but some posts here have questioned any criticism of the photo, essentially because he's Cartier-Bresson, which is hero-worship. Unquestioning praise doesn't do him any credit. It seems to me the original post says 'I know Cartier-Bresson to be a great photographer, but I can't see the quality in this one' - if you still rate him highly overall, that's true admiration. If instead you pretend to like everything he ever exposed and persuade yourself to see qualities in this photo, because you know it's his, that's just brown-nosing.


On another tack, I'm interested in the idea that the photo may have been of importance to Cartier-Bresson because it reflected a time in his life; not art but personal reportage if you like, but he or some editor detached that information from the photo. My photos rarely go anywhere but Flickr, and I have one account, which contains photos of something weird I saw on the street, photos I took on days out exercising one of my old cameras, photos taken as a tourist, and some which are as near as I get to photographic art. Mixed in among those are diagrams and screenshots which serve my contributions to a wiki. The captions, tags, grouping into albums, and even web-links help anyone know which kind of image I think they're looking at; so for me, Cartier-Bresson's exhibitions and books should have as much of that as possible. I really dislike captions like 'Untitled, 1952' (the Flickr equivalent is often 'IMG0012345').

 

[Don_ih]

Often, captions such as "Untitled, 1952" are the result of a curator/editor/whoever-not-the-photographer knowing the date but having no actual title. Those people tend to not be comfortable titling images. However, that doesn't stop some further bit of description from being added to the caption. Anyone can add that, as long as it's accurate.

 

[snusmumriken]

I like photos to be self-contained. For instance, the caption “Tug boat pilots on the Rhine” allows you to find that wonderful HCB photo, but adds absolutely zero to it artistically.

 

[Dustin McAmera]

It stops anyone making a 'what was going on here?' post about it at Photrio.

 

[cliveh]

A photograph that asks questions stimulates interest.

 

[Don_ih]

The photo in question has been around for 80 years, and I doubt anyone has had anything to say about it until this thread was made.

 

[Daniela]

Most of the contact prints I have seen of HCB's work have the individual frames cut out, leading one to think that those are his initial selection and he omitted frames from the roll. So he probably had a lot more misses than what is shown in the book and elsewhere.

I think you're right. Didn't he say something like "showing your contact prints is akin to inviting guests for dinner and showing them the potato peels in the trashcan"?

 

[Mike Lopez]

I think, in a competition between two flavours of mud, mud is ultimately chosen.



Why? The rejects don't diminish the successes. And there were many successes.



Human's are naturally flawed. You acknowledge that and respect or admire them in spite of it. That said, "hero" is a bit much.

You mean you don’t go to museums and art galleries and demand to see the rejects? Hmm. Weird.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I don't put HCB on a pedestal. He made major contributions to the field and was quite talented. But I am unsure of your assertion that the originally posted image is somehow a mistake.

The original picture posted by the OP was a terrible version that should never be included in a book. The actual picture someone posted taken from his book is better.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

'Hero' is a bit much; but some posts here have questioned any criticism of the photo, essentially because he's Cartier-Bresson, which is hero-worship. Unquestioning praise doesn't do him any credit. It seems to me the original post says 'I know Cartier-Bresson to be a great photographer, but I can't see the quality in this one' - if you still rate him highly overall, that's true admiration. If instead you pretend to like everything he ever exposed and persuade yourself to see qualities in this photo, because you know it's his, that's just brown-nosing.


On another tack, I'm interested in the idea that the photo may have been of importance to Cartier-Bresson because it reflected a time in his life; not art but personal reportage if you like, but he or some editor detached that information from the photo. My photos rarely go anywhere but Flickr, and I have one account, which contains photos of something weird I saw on the street, photos I took on days out exercising one of my old cameras, photos taken as a tourist, and some which are as near as I get to photographic art. Mixed in among those are diagrams and screenshots which serve my contributions to a wiki. The captions, tags, grouping into albums, and even web-links help anyone know which kind of image I think they're looking at; so for me, Cartier-Bresson's exhibitions and books should have as much of that as possible. I really dislike captions like 'Untitled, 1952' (the Flickr equivalent is often 'IMG0012345').

We seem to agree about heroes, Dustin. What's your Flickr link? You ought to put it in your signature block here so we can see your work. I'd like to see it.

 

[Pieter12]

The original picture posted by the OP was a terrible version that should never be included in a book. The actual picture someone posted taken from his book is better.

It’s a crappy smartphone shot. Can’t you see beyond that? Or are you stating that the OP made a mistake by posting it in the first place? Maybe before making such statements and judgmeets you could do some research on you own.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It’s a crappy smartphone shot. Can’t you see beyond that? Or are you stating that the OP made a mistake by posting it in the first place? Maybe before making such statements and judgmeets you could do some research on you own.

Calm down Pieter. I wasn't criticizing the OP. I was comparing two versions of a photo.

 

[snusmumriken]

Calm down Pieter. I wasn't criticizing the OP. I was comparing two versions of a photo.

For the record, I wasn’t sure about the copyright situation. I don’t want a nasty letter from the lawyers acting for Magnum. I reasoned that a photo of a page from the book might be forgivable. Reproduction quality varies hugely between the 1980 book, the 1997 re-issued The Europeans and the various versions viewable online, but there’s no getting away from the fact that technically both negatives lack that “bourgeois thing”, sharpness.

 

[MattKing]

For the record, I wasn’t sure about the copyright situation. I don’t want a nasty letter from the lawyers acting for Magnum.

I wouldn't be concerned about copyright and how the image is used in this thread.
If you were to enlarge it into a poster and try to sell it at the village fete you might get that letter.

 

[Pieter12]

Calm down Pieter. I wasn't criticizing the OP. I was comparing two versions of a photo.

You specifically said "shouldn't be included in a book." That does not sound like you're talking about the posted photo, but the original.