Agreed. He has also cut off the feet of the girl on the right. It was surely anticipation and quick reaction, rather than millimetre composition, that made this one a keeper.
I will try to "read" or "evaluate" this photo (please understand very personal evaluation following):
This photo is interesting. The two women tell a story. Especially the woman with the suitcase that looks at something which we don't know what it is and seems skeptical. The other woman's face is also perfect, it wouldn't be the same if she looked at the first woman. Instead she is looking at something else.
The photos is already pretty interesting to me. And now comes the part which I like to call "HCB showing off".
The two soldiers looking at the women. Totally spoil the mystery. Throws some self-evident associations to the photo (the contrast between the two men and the two women) all these kind of "tricks" that sometimes HCB resorts to. Totally unnecessary in my opinion.
I would personally like the photo more without the soldiers.
I know that the audience will like the photo more like that as it offers some easy "reading" in the form: "Aha two nice women and two soldiers, oh look how they look at them I guess they miss women in the camp, now I get it".
But the power of the photo imo resists easy interpretations and always flirt with the realm of the abstract
P.S. Please be kind in your replies as this is totally personal and very arbitrary evaluation full of leaps and possible prejudices. Just an opinion.
Ask Life Magazine
View attachment 409838
They clearly thought it was worthy of being on the cover. That you don't like the photo is a-ok, though.
Ask Life Magazine
View attachment 409838
They clearly thought it was worthy of being on the cover. That you don't like the photo is a-ok, though.
There is a reason I referred to it as a "trick". HCB had the obsession of photographing these kind of dualities that to me is simply a funny image or a joke and nothing more.
For me it was his "geometric" way of creating the so much interesting elements of contrast and dialogue in the photography, alas too apparent (at least for my taste)
There is nothing that requires you to like the photos. So what is the point you are trying to make?
Isn't it clear so far?
HCB had the obsession of photographing these kind of dualities that to me is simply a funny image or a joke and nothing more.
Except that you don't like the photos, no.
Is there something wrong with having a smattering of humour in your portfolio/personality?
I think I see what you mean, but you are very unforgiving, and once again you are comparing photographers as though judging a competition. Humour changes through the decades, in literature and on the street, as well as in photography. HCB was one of the first to make any kind of visual joke with a camera. Joking with a camera has evolved hugely since then (not always in admirable ways), and those early ones can seem only mildly amusing with today's eyes. Still fun, though.No, not at all. But I prefer the hidden humour (see Garry Winogrand for example or Charles Traub) than the very evident one
P.S. BTW from all the inteviews I have seen HCB was a very rigid character with a very calculated sense of humour
all photographers has some weaker photos which don't deserve de facto appraisal
Who says photography needs a value system? Who says photographs need to be evaluated, or appraised? Why should that value system be determined by you, or me, or Larry, Curly and Moe?
Appraising photos and photogaphers — essentially ranking them — has nothing to do with criticism. Cheap psychology would state that it has often more to do with the ego, or insecurities, of the person insisting on the value of their own judgement. Thank goodness there aren't no cheap psychologists here.
But art also needs comparisons.
Otherwise we couldn't understand what makes HCB so great
No it doesn't. Art doesn't "need" anything. Honestly, it barely needs us.
And what you are doing is not comparison. This is good, this is bad, this is better, this is worse — all this is not comparison, it's evaluation, and serves no other purpose than establishing an arbitrary hierarchy between works (and sometimes artists).
If you want to compare, take value out of it. Don't compare Cartier-Bresson and Winogrand and Friedlander, ask yourself why Cartier-Bresson does this and why Winogrand does that and why Friedlander does something unlike Cartier-Bresson and Winogrand.
Ask without value, without judgement.
Understanding what makes HCB so great is unimportant and uninteresting. Greatness is unimportant, irrelevant, uninteresting. What's interesting is why did Cartier-Bresson take this photo? What did it mean for him? What did it mean for those who looked at it then? What does it, or can it mean for us today?
The only path to understanding is asking questions.
The tough part is learning to ask the right questions.
Take the aforementioned photograph of the two soldiers eyeing the two ladies at the tram station. Photos from that essay were taken in Russia in 1954. These were the very first images coming out of post-WWII Russia in the West — remember that Cartier-Bresson was the first Western photographer to be admitted in the USSR after the death of Stalin. He was there to document the daily lifes of Russans under communism. In France, any information that came out of the USSR was immensely significant, as the French intellectual left, starting with Sartre, was internally conflicted about its allegeance to communism and couldn't accept the idea of the inhumanity and cruelty of Stalinism. This photo essay by Cartier-Bresson is both part of Russian—I should say USSR — and of French history (even if published in Life Magazine).
Talking about the composition of an individual photo within it is totally irrelevant to the meaning of the photo. Whether or not it's a "great", "good", "poor", "bad" Cartier-Bresson photograph is totally irrelevant to any meaning the photograph may have had or may still have. And even should one decide to play that game and consider that from a compositional point of view that photo isn't one of Cartier-Bresson's "best" work. Shouldn't one start by asking why? (again, asking the right question). Shouldn't one consider the possibility that in post-Stalinist Russia — this was the Cold War, after all — a reporter openly taking photographs might be seen as a spy by a couple of Russian soldiers, even if only in the mind of said photographer? If so, then it's entirely plausible that, just to be on the safe side, Cartier-Bresson felt he had to work swiftly and unnoticed, and that capturing for his audience this tranche de vie was more important to him in this case than coming up with a nicely composed photographed.
Comparison is futile. This photo, as others in this essay, is incomparable.
Why should that value system be determined by you, or me, or Larry, Curly and Moe?
for one would like to learn more about the value system determined by Larry, Curly and Moe.
View attachment 409933
Yes it’s became a cliché. Or a trick as you call it. Does it mean that we have to go to the Louvre to remove the painting from the wall and burn it?
"I enjoy taking pictures, to be present. It's a way to say: yes, yes, yes! And there's no maybe. All the maybes should be thrown in the trash. Because it's a moment. It's a presence. It's there. And it's respect and joy, tremendous joy to say: yes! Even if it's something you hate: yes!. It's an affirmation: yes!"
HCB
p.s. he is referencing James Joyce book ending...
Ulysses, in fact.
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?