My thoughts exactly. I was going to post something similar but you beat me too it.
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.
I think there is plenty of room to be pleased by how good he was at getting what he did want.
I couldn’t agree more about appreciating what we have … except that understanding what he wasn’t is key to understanding what he was. You describe it perfectly.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.
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.
it helps explain why some photographs feel that they work and some others not
why some photographs feel
Photographs don't feel. You feel about a photograph. That's a very different thing, it's also very obvious, but apparently it's still easily overlooked.
A photograph isn't an objective, universal truth in itself. It's open to interpretation. Thank god for that; it makes the art a whole lot more interesting, too.
When I say a photograph doesn’t work for me, I’m not claiming a universal truth
If all it amounts to is "I don't really like it", then there's nothing more to say. An actual critical commentary would be to claim that a photo doesn't "work" since it doesn't quite do what it seems to be trying to do - that it fails in some way. Even that ends up bringing in a lot of presuppositions.
To claim a photo "doesn't work" because it doesn't do what the photographer never even tried to do makes no sense.
I agree that photographs don’t feel, it is us that we do as a result of them. And yes, they’re open to interpretation, thankfully, others it would be boring. But interpretation doesn’t exist in a vacuum. When certain responses happen across different viewers, they form a shared ground (maybe a subjective objectivity?) that allows discussion and disagreement to be meaningful.
When I say a photograph doesn’t work for me, I’m not claiming a universal truth, I think we discussed it a lot in the past too, but I am placing my response in relation to others. If our readings are close, dialogue is easy, if they’re far apart, it becomes harder — but still quite informative. And the reader can gain from that friction on either side.
And since this is an HCB appreciation thread among very knowledgeable people, I’m already assuming a shared admiration (hopefully) as a common ground. My comments are meant as a closer, more critical look at specific images and HCB artistic signature and not a departure from that appreciation.
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.
About the two boys in the photo above, I would say that it doesn't imply an easy relationship of photographer and subject. I am possibly one of the most socially awkward people you could meet, yet I too have a photo of gypsy boys being brash towards the camera. To me, HCB's photos with direct engagement are generally a bit uncomfortable. The Berlin taxi drivers, for example, where it looks as though he has just shoved the camera in their faces. There are several eye-witness accounts of how he would vanish after taking a shot, rather than sticking around to explain.
View attachment 413720
Isn't this originally a black and white photo?To lighten up the atmosphere:
I was not my intention to correct you but to offer one exception to the rule. I think it is sometimes overlooked how diverse HCB's photos actually are. They take in Surrealism, symbolism, photo journalism, abstractions, still lifes, portraits, landscapes etc. The convenient catch all phrases or descriptions that he seems to have been lumbered with over time tend to do a disservice to his varied oeuvre.
Isn't this originally a black and white photo?
If all it amounts to is "I don't really like it", then there's nothing more to say. An actual critical commentary would be to claim that a photo doesn't "work" since it doesn't quite do what it seems to be trying to do - that it fails in some way. Even that ends up bringing in a lot of presuppositions.
To claim a photo "doesn't work" because it doesn't do what the photographer never even tried to do makes no sense.
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.
Indeed. His comments are not really about the photos IMO. They're about the inner workings of his own psyche.
nikos, please don't debase his work like that.
Honestly, I don't think you need to worry. When Bach stole a Vivaldi violin concerto to play on the organ, nothing really suffered. Likewise when Manet imitated Titian's Venus d'Urbino to make his Olympia. Great work endures regardless. Mind you, I'd draw the line at putting any HCB photo on a china mugnikos, please don't debase his work like that
Actually, I was thinking how I always knew the doors would have been blue, like the sky, and the shadows. And how this travesty raises the interesting issue that HCB stuck with b/w when decent colour film was available.Thank you cliveh, for saying what others have been thinking
When Bach stole a Vivaldi violin concerto to play on the organ, nothing really suffered.
Thank you cliveh, for saying what others have been thinking
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?