HCB Appreciation

And some very interesting quotes about Henri-Cartier Bresson's work:
Would be interesting to hear your counter-argument thoughts

"Despite his love for painting and especially drawing, which he devoted to in his old age, photography was the medium that highlighted him early on and gave him the opportunity to leave a profoundly significant personal work. His few journalistic-style photos simply reflect the post-war photographic fashion and do not organically integrate into the main body of his work, which he described as surrealistic. Cartier-Bresson's interest lay more in the area where the elements of the world generated peculiar coincidences. His images convey the photographer's restrained character, with his subterranean explosions and carefully concealed tenderness.

Cartier-Bresson convinced us that he positioned himself opposite the world to capture its inner order and derive a complex (organic, sensual, and intellectual) joy that the actual world does not provide him. Cartier-Bresson is not a photographer of events. His moments do not stop time; instead, they extend it or generate their own time. Through the few photographs that represent his most robust artistic proposition, one can discover a new world and not merely recognize, as happens in any photography, a world already known. Cartier-Bresson reacts to stimuli from the outside world to convey his inner balance. His and the world's.

In most of his photographs, the subjects are treated with phlegmatic respect and are used as elements of the whole rather than emotional burdens. Perhaps in this way, the photographer respects the photographed even more, rejecting the dubious sincerity role of the sympathizer and adopting that of the observer-orchestrator, the only one ultimately capable of eliciting genuine emotion. Cartier-Bresson uses form to give each event its significance, thus altering the hierarchy of values of everyday life and revealing the hidden and possibly spiritual meaning of things."

Plato Rivellis in his section "Important photographers and their work"

Don_ih said:

It's his tagline whether he liked it or not.

Click to expand...

But did he ever really say it?

nikos79 said:

But did he ever really say it?

Click to expand...

We're going in circles. This has been discussed before. Here are excerpts from two interviews that have been quoted elsewhere on this site:

— What exactly to you mean by The Decisive Moment, the American title of Images à la sauvette?
— You want to know more about the title? Well, I had nothing to do with it. I found a line in the memoirs of Cardinal de Retz, in which he said: "There is nothing in this world which does not have a decisive moment." I used the quote as an inscription in the French edition, and when we were thinking of titles for the American edition, we had a whole page of possibilities. Suddenly, Dick Simon said: "Why not use 'The Decisive Moment'?"

*

— The concept of the "decisive moment" has become essential for the aesthetics of a whole generation of photographers. Others, such as Robert Frank, have defined themselves againts what this notion implies about the organization of visualy space and of the world, and have characterized you work with the limited term of "classic space".
— ... It was Dick Simon who found the title for the book, The Decisive Moment, after I had simply used an excerpted quote by Cardinal de Retz as an epigraph in the book... In the end, all moments are equal. But all moments are indecisive within the stream of reality. However, for me, as for any artist, there is recognition of a life-saving formal order, countering disintegration through banality, chaos, and oblivion. And that can be found in Robert Frank's work too, though our visual solutions diverge, in accordance with our visions of the world.

*

Original line is:

« Il n’y a rien en ce monde qui n’ait un moment décisif. »

Don_ih said:

It's his tagline whether he liked it or not.

Click to expand...

But does it mean, simplified, that he caught these moments with one photo?
To me, it does not sound like that.
To me it sounds that he is very much in favour of curating, throwing away any snaps which did not capture that decisive moment.

nikos79 said:

But did he ever really say it?

Click to expand...

At this point, when you talk about the phrase "decisive moment", it's far more relevant to think of it as something people constantly apply to Cartier-Bresson (because they do) than whether or not he actually said. People routinely interpret his photos as exemplifying the "decisive moment" as a guiding principle - whether he had any such idea or not.

When talking about him, it makes far more sense to focus on how he arranged his compositions - the ones he got printed - instead of focusing on how many photos he took and rejected as some kind of slight against a mythology that's applied rather than inherent (namely, the decisive moment).

So, what I was talking about it I think it's better to not adopt any mystical viewpoint about the working methods of Cartier-Bresson (or anyone who utilizes visualization/pre-visualization, for that matter) and just assume he wanted to get the elements of the composition right, when confronted by a dynamic situation. Anyone who has tried it knows it's difficult to do even once, let alone how many times he did it.

Don_ih said:

Probably a lot. What does that matter? Is there something wrong with trying to get the best possible photo?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter. I;m just trying to show he;s human just like the rest of us and wastes a lot of film as well.

Alan Edward Klein said:

It doesn't matter. I;m just trying to show he;s human just like the rest of us and wastes a lot of film as well.

Click to expand...

Ah now I get it. Totally agree with you, I even highlighted this fact earlier in my posts in this thread.
But looking at the contact we also see something else, not only he knows how to "see" photograph but also knows how to "look" at photographs later (as his choices were always spot on)

Alan Edward Klein said:

It doesn't matter. I;m just trying to show he;s human just like the rest of us and wastes a lot of film as well.

Click to expand...

I donot think he was-human, more of a giant-demi-god-titan

Alex Benjamin said:

...
...

Click to expand...

Perfect thanks, exactly what I was looking for!

Alan Edward Klein said:

I;m just trying to show he;s human just like the rest of us

Click to expand...

Being better at something—or at any part of something—than just about everybody else is an intrinsic part of being human. There's nothing more human than the exceptional.

Don_ih said:

When talking about him, it makes far more sense to focus on how he arranged his compositions - the ones he got printed - instead of focusing on how many photos he took and rejected as some kind of slight against a mythology that's applied rather than inherent (namely, the decisive moment).

Click to expand...

As Diane Arbus said (or maybe someone else not sure) you need the bad photos they are very useful. They are the ones that get you out of your comfort zone. HCB knew very well that searching for the one photo that will stand out many need to be rejected. It is natural. Otherwise all your photos would look the same like ... (put any photographer you want here)

snusmumriken said:

I’m still unsure whether HCB coined the ‘decisive moment’ phrase, or whether it was dumped on him by his publisher, perhaps by over-distilling elements of HCB’s mercurial conversation. It generates misconceptions, and HCB clearly wearied of trying to explain the way he saw things.

What I understand of his beliefs, from various interviews, is that there may be (but isn’t necessarily) a ‘decisive moment’ when all the elements come together to form a perfect image. Those elements include not only components of the subject, but also the camera position and where it is pointing. About the latter, HCB pointed out that the difference between an exquisite composition and something ‘meh’ (as you would say) may be a movement of millimetres. Sometimes (often? usually?) it isn’t possible, or the subject has changed or vanished, and there is no decisive moment.

Sometimes the photographer can both recognise the moment and be able to nail it in one shot. HCB’s portrait of the Joliot-Curies is a famous example, where he took the photo as soon as they opened the door, then spent the rest of the visit taking photos out of politeness. But sometimes in the heat of the moment the photographer can only make several attempts and hope he has nailed it. In other words, recognising and selecting the moment can happen either before or after pressing the button. Discarding failures that fail to meet the artist’s standards is a valid aspect of photography or painting or pottery or bow-making or most other creative practices.

Click to expand...

The wall never moves, so it's easier to get its decisive moment. It;s the kids that are a problem when you have so many and you;re trying to get all to show something emotional, which his final selection did wonderfully. That requires lots of shots, which he took.

Ever shoot three shots of friends standing there smiling for a picture. Why? Well, one of them is always blinking so you take three to eliminate that issue and catch the decisive moment. Hopefully. That's what HCB did, and does.

Alan Edward Klein said:

The wall never moves, so it's easier to get its decisive moment. It;s the kids that are a problem when you have so many and you;re trying to get all to show something emotional, which his final selection did wonderfully. That requires lots of shots, which he took.

Ever shoot three shots of friends standing there smiling for a picture. Why? Well, one of them is always blinking so you take three to eliminate that issue and catch the decisive moment. Hopefully. That's what HCB did, and does.

Click to expand...

You cannot extrapolate an entire career from one shot, one contact sheet. Sometimes Cartier-Bresson took many shots before getting the right one, sometimes he only took a couple, sometimes he got the perfect photograph in only one shot.

Alex Benjamin said:

Being better at something—or at any part of something—than just about everybody else is an intrinsic part of being human. There's nothing more human than the exceptional.

Click to expand...

I was pointing out that he wasn't a mystic who only needed one shot to get the perfect picture. He had to work at it just like the rest of us. His contact sheets show that. That's important for us because it shows that we can get better also by working at it. If we think you have to be a mystic to be a good photographer, you might give up, throw your hands up and say that's the best I can do. Of course he was very talented. But let;s not make him into a God.

Alan Edward Klein said:

I was pointing out that he wasn't a mystic who only needed one shot to get the perfect picture.

Click to expand...

IIRC, you were the one who brought that old chestnut into the thread!

Alan Edward Klein said:

I was pointing out that he wasn't a mystic who only needed one shot to get the perfect picture.

Click to expand...

Pretty sure that matter has been settled ages ago. As I said: sometimes he did, sometimes he didn't. Doesn't really matter, since its the end result that counts, no?

Alan Edward Klein said:

He had to work at it just like the rest of us. His contact sheets show that.

Click to expand...

We only have one or two. Can't deduce anything from that.

Alan Edward Klein said:

If we think you have to be a mystic to be a good photographer, you might give up, throw your hands up and say that's the best I can do.

Click to expand...

Well, he wasn't just a "good" photographer. Just like Mario Lemieux wasn't just a "good" hockey player, Bach a "good" composer, Proust a "good" writer, Einstein a "good" scientist. And neither was HCB merely "very talented". He was exceptional. Which has nothing to do with being a "mystic"—a word for which you and I obviously don't have the same definition.

Saying that he was exceptional is quite all right. It's normal to have exceptions; it's normal that there are exceptional people in different fields. Contrary to what you think, it is what inspires us to keep going, to keep working. All the time knowing that no matter how much and how hard we work, we will never reach the level of those who are exceptional.

Wanting to be good is fine. But the danger is once you've decided you're good enough, you'll stop wanting to get better. Exceptional people show us that the quest to get better is endless. That's what's inspiring about it.

Alan Edward Klein said:

It doesn't matter. I;m just trying to show he;s human just like the rest of us and wastes a lot of film as well.

Click to expand...

The shots you don't end up using are never wasted.
And I include the film that those shots end up on when I say that.
When I do anything like the photography that we know HCB for, the shots that don't end up being shared aren't failures, they are part of the process.
And it is my involvement in the process that leads to the result.
I expect HCB would have refused a commission that required him to take only one shot.
In comparison, someone like Karsh worked in an environment where more of the variables were controlled by him, so there was an expectation that the number of shots would be limited. But anyone who has ever seen the two versions he shot of his famous Churchill portrait would know that even he shot more than one.
I acknowledge, of course, that when I use bigger/more expensive film, I feel more constrained in what experiments I undertake. But I still undertake them, because the process of taking the unchosen ones is part of what leads to the chosen result.

In a decisionmaking tree you need "no"s to get to a "yes".
So you need bad snaps to identify the good ones.

THIS POST WAS ASSISTED BY AI, INACCURACIES MIGHT PREVAUL

nikos79 said:

As Diane Arbus said (or maybe someone else not sure) you need the bad photos they are very useful. They are the ones that get you out of your comfort zone. HCB knew very well that searching for the one photo that will stand out many need to be rejected. It is natural. Otherwise all your photos would look the same like ... (put any photographer you want here)

Click to expand...

one-of-the ways-we-learn and "evolve" is by making-mistakes and learning-from-them. It is-doing-something new that is-not-in-the comfort-zone that pushes-us. like-yousaid, all the photos look-the-same, and-eventually we-ll lose interest. a mistake from a-frame exposed in a 35mm-camera is inexpensive.

Bruh you’re in the wrong thread.

Alan Edward Klein said:

I was pointing out that he wasn't a mystic who only needed one shot to get the perfect picture. He had to work at it just like the rest of us. His contact sheets show that. That's important for us because it shows that we can get better also by working at it. If we think you have to be a mystic to be a good photographer, you might give up, throw your hands up and say that's the best I can do. Of course he was very talented. But let;s not make him into a God.

Click to expand...

I can safely say that he was a damned good photographer. The excellency of his results over time mean more than how many times he shot some kids through a hole in a wall.

But...just out of curiosity...

I wonder how many shots he took of the gentleman jumping across the puddle?

Pioneer said:

I can safely say that he was a damned good photographer. The excellency of his results over time mean more than how many times he shot some kids through a hole in a wall.

But...just out of curiosity...

I wonder how many shots he took the picture of the gentleman jumping across the puddle?

Click to expand...

That one has its own dirty secret though. It's quite heavily cropped, despite him saying he never cropped his images. I've read that he didn't use any viewfinder at all for that is the view was blocked. Definitely one for the luck pile (though those talented folk do seem to get more lucky than the rest of us)

Pioneer said:

I can safely say that he was a damned good photographer. The excellency of his results over time mean more than how many times he shot some kids through a hole in a wall.

But...just out of curiosity...

I wonder how many shots he took of the gentleman jumping across the puddle?

Click to expand...

The Magnum contact sheet shows he did about a whole film on people jumping that puddle and the famous iconic picture of the 20th century is the one where the foot is just about to touch the puddle. However, we don't know if he was aiming for the foot to touch the surface. We will never know. He was only 24 when he took that shot.

cliveh said:

The Magnum contact sheet shows he did about a whole film on people jumping that puddle and the famous iconic picture of the 20th century is the one where the foot is just about to touch the puddle. However, we don't know if he was aiming for the foot to touch the surface. We will never know.

Click to expand...

Thanks. That is so cool. Jumping that puddle is such a human thing to do.

That to me is the real value of his work. He recognized people doing things that people naturally do and then spent the time to get the shot he wanted.

And recognizing that single exposure out of a dozen or more on a contact sheet takes a lot of intuition as well. I have tried it many times myself. Of course I am sure he was visualizing what he wanted while we was watching people jump so choosing the right exposure may have been easier than it appears.

Alex Benjamin said:

Well, he wasn't just a "good" photographer. Just like Mario Lemieux wasn't just a "good" hockey player, Bach a "good" composer, ...

Click to expand...

If Henri Cartier-Bresson was photography’s Bach with the power, discipline, and strictness of form, then André Kertész was its Mozart, where form becomes effortless, playful, and inseparable from the joy of content.