I don't think you understand how close he was to a great many of his subjects. You need to look at the photos and think how close you need to be with a 50 or 35mm lens.
His often attributed arrogance and noble heritage can be traced in his photos through position and distance to the subject, choice of the moment, and refusal to engage.
Most probably terrible as many great directors who tried to do photography too (Tarkovsky, Wenders, etc.)
His often attributed arrogance and noble heritage can be traced in his photos through position and distance to the subject, choice of the moment, and refusal to engage.
This is about as wrong an assessment one can have about Cartier-Bresson as is possible.
I don't see where you get the "often attributed arrogance and noble heritage." Never read that. From anybody serious. On the contrary, he was quite appreciated by other photographers—he was extremely friendly and generous, Koudelka, for one, attested to that—, and it is well documented that when doing portrait sessions, he spent a long time talking—i.e., engaging—with the subject, and very little time actually photographing.
I don't think you understand how close he was to a great many of his subjects. You need to look at the photos and think how close you need to be with a 50 or 35mm lens.
You are right but the "distance" was more metaphorical
I get what @nikos79 is saying. Except in the portraits, there is rarely any interaction of HCB’s subjects with the camera. He was interested in people, but he preferred to capture them doing whatever they did unawares. In interviews he even described it being like hunting.
One might contrast that style with, for example, Bert Hardy, who seems to have charmed his way into every situation he photographed.
We don’t have to take one style and damn the other, but it’s reasonable to find that one appeals more than the other, and to explain that.
An obvious advantage of HCBs un-engaged style - fitting his sense of artistic integrity - is that he couldn’t be accused of engineering the scene.
An obvious advantage of HCBs un-engaged style - fitting his sense of artistic integrity - is that he couldn’t be accused of engineering the scene.
I can think of quite a few examples where he is engaged with the subject. This being one of my favourites: View attachment 413663
Am I alone in feeling that this photograph still conveys a form of distance or more precisely, a "controlled" engagement?
Despite the obvious physical proximity to the subjects, this image feels unmistakably Cartier-Bressonian in the way it preserves a social distance. The photographer is present, acknowledged, even welcomed, yet he remains outside the situation.
Even the smiles play a role to that. These are smiles of acknowledgment not of understanding or compassion.
Also I don't find that photo that good especially the thing that the bottom right man is doing with this mouth (is it a straw?) I find very annoying, it draws attention without adding meaning, and slightly disrupts the image’s emotional coherence, feels more like a snapshot that HCB more powerful images
How true.
Am I alone in feeling that this photograph still conveys a form of distance or more precisely, a "controlled" engagement?
You'll invariably find what you're looking for.
Am I alone in feeling that this photograph still conveys a form of distance or more precisely, a "controlled" engagement?
Despite the obvious physical proximity to the subjects, this image feels unmistakably Cartier-Bressonian in the way it preserves a social distance. The photographer is present, acknowledged, even welcomed, yet he remains outside the situation.
Even the smiles play a role to that. These are smiles of acknowledgment not of understanding or compassion.
Also I don't find that photo that good especially the thing that the bottom right man is doing with this mouth (is it a straw?) I find very annoying, it draws attention without adding meaning, and slightly disrupts the image’s emotional coherence, feels more like a snapshot that HCB more powerful images
One of my favourites 'for engagement'.
I don't think that the two boys would be so animated if they were in the presence of somebody who was disengaged or detached do you?
Do you recognise the relationship between the two boys?
How one is more confident while the other is more reserved?
I enjoy this juxtaposition of both characters and I think it makes the photo.
Not everything has to be about lines and form.
Here is the full sequence. Apologies for the poor quality snap shot. Taken from the HCB scrapbook.
View attachment 413686
Indeed. His comments are not really about the photos IMO. They're about the inner workings of his own psyche. That's fine, but let's recognize that as a separate and largely unrelated topic from HCB's photographs.Nikos you read a lot of your personal stuff into these photos......
Of course there are several. I regret using the word 'rarely' in post #834. I should have said 'less commonly' or something similar. At a rough count in the books I have, direct engagement accounts for about 5% of the photos, excluding portraits. Arguably I should also have excluded landscapes-without-people from the total, but someone else can do that if bothered.I can think of quite a few examples where he is engaged with the subject.
The question remains: does it matter? If he did or did not "engage" with his subjects, it's largely irrelevant to what we have. He didn't get his friends to pose for photos. He didn't get subjects to jump for a "fun" photo. He wasn't after the standard gawping grin from people. He didn't demand attention from his subjects. Those aren't the things he wanted when he pointed a camera. But it doesn't matter what he didn't want - I think there is plenty of room to be pleased by how good he was at getting what he did want.
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?