HCB Appreciation

[nikos79]

And thus has never been introduced to our good and creative friend potassium ferricyanide...

Good old Eugene Smith
I can still emulate the potassium effect in Lightroom

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I came late into photography so I never had the joy of using an analog and learning to print.

I was 42 years old when I started photography. Went straight to the darkroom. Rarely touched a digital camera, rarely scan my negs.

But you see that is painting-a different language though

So ? If I say the same thing in French, in English, in Danish, in Italian, in Hindi, in Yoruba or in Mandarin, the meaning will still be the same.

 

[nikos79]

I was 42 years old when I started photography. Went straight to the darkroom. Rarely touched a digital camera, rarely scan my negs.

So, there is still hope
I actually just ordered a manual camera - a Nikon F100 and will start shooting with it as well. I want the element of surprise when I see the photos afterwards. I think the worst thing about digital is that you can immediately look at the result on the LCD screen, which completely gets you out of the flow and makes every next photo be a "correction" of the previous one, thus eliminating at all the element of experiencing life. Let's see how it goes, first I will just send some rolls to a local shop for printing.

 

[Milpool]

Whose work do. you like?

Lots of stuff but that's probably best for a different thread not specifically about HCB. Just to be clear I'm not saying I don't think he was a good photographer, and there are a few HCB pictures I think are terrific, but the pictures he is usually most associated with do little for me. I think they lend themselves very well to the kind of post-hoc/hindsight analysis or imagined precision people like to apply/attribute to them, but really the way people describe what they think makes them so good (see cliveh's most recent example above) leaves me cold. I look at these things and my reaction is along the lines of "right, he chose to position himself so that this is there and that is there and waited until someone came into the frame so he could snap when the person is mid-stride..." The first time it seems clever, I suppose, but then it's boring to me, like an academic exercise.

I also think everyone knows very well what nikos79 meant and I don't think the counterexamples provided make the argument against what nikos79 meant.

I know this is inflammatory but it is not intentional trolling.

Edit: I probably should have instead just wrote that to me genius is a strong word.

 

[koraks]

I don't think the counterexamples provided make the argument against what nikos79 meant.

So what did @nikos79 mean? This is also not to troll, but I can't make a clear point out of what he has said so far. At first glance, it may seem to make sense but then if I think about it, it ends up being contradictory or he simply retracts the statement when confronted about it.

 

[nikos79]

I look at these things and my reaction is along the lines of "right, he chose to position himself so that this is there and that is there and waited until someone came into the frame so he could snap when the person is mid-stride..." The first time it seems clever, I suppose, but then it's boring to me, like an academic exercise.

This is exactly what I thought thanks for elaborating it.
Here is another high-regarded photo of HCB which frankly is just a clever-trick which is boring as well. It doesn't help that it is in my home town of Athens or that people love this photo (because they can easily identify the "trick")

 

[nikos79]

So what did @nikos79 mean? This is also not to troll, but I can't make a clear point out of what he has said so far. At first glance, it may seem to make sense but then if I think about it, it ends up being contradictory or he simply retracts the statement when confronted about it.

My initial statement was that because HCB knows a lot about photography, as every good photographer has some shortcomings. His most apparent to me is that he repeats himself, he is too rigid in his rules, and sometimes he falls for "easy" or "clever" photograph.
Then I made a point about photographing more instinctively which was hammered through some counter-examples. I still don't believe that the more you think about a photograph while you take it the better will be. I think HCB said it much better than what I am trying to explain, so in his own words:

“You have to forget, to surpass yourself. You have to be yourself and at the same time forget yourself, so the image comes out stronger. And you must not think. Ideas are very dangerous. You have to think constantly. But when you photograph, you don’t try to explain something or prove something. You prove nothing. It comes out on its own... The first impression is essential. The first glance, the shock, the surprise. Bam! It jumps at you. You nurture it with your life, your tastes, the intellectual baggage you carry, your experiences, your loves and hatreds. This means that you must live fully... And poetry is the essence of everything. It is two elements that suddenly collide. A spark is created between two elements. But that rarely happens, and you cannot search for it. It’s like searching for inspiration. No, the thing comes when you live and enrich yourself. They say they hunt for great photographs. Rarely do you make a great photograph. You have to milk the cow a lot to get a little cheese... I don’t know what it means for something to be dramatically new. There are no new ideas in the world. There is a new arrangement of things. Everything is new, every minute is new. That means reexamining. Life changes every minute. The world is created every minute, and the world falls apart every minute. Death is present everywhere from the moment we are born. And this tragic dimension of life is something very beautiful. Because there are always two poles and one cannot exist without the other. These tensions are what move me...”

 

[koraks]

just a clever-trick

That's pretty good for a street snapshot. I think many of us would love to produce clever tricks like this from time to time. Not saying I believe it's the greatest photo in the world, but neither do I see much wrong with it.

How it doesn't help that it was shot in Athens is beyond me in terms of offering a sensible critique on a photograph. Irrelevant.

Besides, when speaking of cliches (I'd call this a cliche instead of a trick - i.e. a simple concept that we see repeated over and over throughout the history of image-making) - keep in mind Cartier-Bresson photographed this in 1954. It wasn't as much a cliche back then as it is today. You have to see this within the context in which it was made. Evidently, through today's eyes, none of CB's photography is particularly novel or original.

he falls for "easy" or "clever" photograph.

Subjective qualifications with no clear meaning.

I still don't believe that the more you think about a photograph while you take it the better will be.

If that's what you took from HCB's writings, then I think you fundamentally misunderstood what he has said. After all, in the quote you just gave, he says the exact opposite.

Anyway, we've been through these motions before. I don't think you and I can have a meaningful conversation on photography.

 

[nikos79]

If that's what you took from HCB's writings, then I think you fundamentally misunderstood what he has said. After all, in the quote you just gave, he says the exact opposite.

Maybe read again here what he said:

...And you must not think...The first impression is essential. The first glance, the shock, the surprise. Bam! It jumps at you...They say they hunt for great photographs. Rarely do you make a great photograph....

 

[nikos79]

How it doesn't help that it was shot in Athens is beyond me in terms of offering a sensible critique on a photograph. Irrelevant.

That was a bit ironic in the sense that it would make me love the photo more

 

[nikos79]

Anyway, we've been through these motions before. I don't think you and I can have a meaningful conversation on photography.

I think we are doing great in spite of our differences we have common ground and we listen to each other carefully

 

[Milpool]

So what did @nikos79 mean? This is also not to troll, but I can't make a clear point out of what he has said so far. At first glance, it may seem to make sense but then if I think about it, it ends up being contradictory or he simply retracts the statement when confronted about it.

I should have been clearer since nikos79 has expressed a number of opinions. My comment is in reference to what he said about photographers not creating. I could of course be misinterpreting what was written but otherwise I think it was fairly clear, and I think whenever someone makes that statement about photography there is a tendency for other photographers to get defensive.

 

[Milpool]

On the other hand since this thread is about HCB appreciation I should have just stayed out of it. Hopefully cliveh is not too annoyed.

 

[nikos79]

photographers not creating.

Exactly in my opinion the primarily role for a photographer is to "see" not to create.
In the end it is just a photo a single photo how much can you manipulate or create something out of it?
A painting, sculpture, even a movie takes years to create.
And as much editing you might put into your photograph or dark room manipulation it cannot change the fact that your primarily material was and will ever be the real world, and you crop it and frame it (well unless AI will change that too...)

 

[nikos79]

On the other hand since this thread is about HCB appreciation I should have just stayed out of it. Hopefully cliveh is not too annoyed.

Appreciation yes but also criticism

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Besides, when speaking of cliches (I'd call this a cliche instead of a trick - i.e. a simple concept that we see repeated over and over throughout the history of image-making) - keep in mind Cartier-Bresson photographed this in 1954. It wasn't as much a cliche back then as it is today. You have to see this within the context in which it was made. Evidently, through today's eyes, none of CB's photography is particularly novel or original.

This is spot on.

The difficulty in assessing Cartier-Breton's work is that there's been countless Cartier-Bresson disciples and countless Cartier-Bresson imitators since. He's the most misquoted and misunderstood photographer in history, as well as the most influencial, at least for what is known, for better or worse, as "street photography."

I think whenever someone makes that statement about photography there is a tendency for other photographers to get defensive.

Maybe some, at times, but you can't assume that it's always the case. It's implying that people are somehow dishonest.

I don't agree with Nikos79's statement not because I'm being defensive about it — i.e., thinking of myself somehow as being a "creator," which I don't — but because I think he's making a generalization that simply doesn't hold up to the fact.

Which he himself agreed with, by the way, in one of his answers to my posts.

On the other hand since this thread is about HCB appreciation I should have just stayed out of it.

Yes. The HCB depreciation thread is two threads further on your right.

I still don't believe that the more you think about a photograph while you take it the better will be. I think HCB said it much better than what I am trying to explain, so in his own words:

“You have to forget, to surpass yourself. You have to be yourself and at the same time forget yourself, so the image comes out stronger. And you must not think. Ideas are very dangerous. You have to think constantly. But when you photograph, you don’t try to explain something or prove something. You prove nothing. It comes out on its own... The first impression is essential. The first glance, the shock, the surprise. Bam! It jumps at you. You nurture it with your life, your tastes, the intellectual baggage you carry, your experiences, your loves and hatreds. This means that you must live fully... And poetry is the essence of everything. It is two elements that suddenly collide. A spark is created between two elements. But that rarely happens, and you cannot search for it. It’s like searching for inspiration. No, the thing comes when you live and enrich yourself. They say they hunt for great photographs. Rarely do you make a great photograph. You have to milk the cow a lot to get a little cheese... I don’t know what it means for something to be dramatically new. There are no new ideas in the world. There is a new arrangement of things. Everything is new, every minute is new. That means reexamining. Life changes every minute. The world is created every minute, and the world falls apart every minute. Death is present everywhere from the moment we are born. And this tragic dimension of life is something very beautiful. Because there are always two poles and one cannot exist without the other. These tensions are what move me...”

Your admiration for HCB is letting you fall into a trap. Not that he laid it purposefully, but HCB was a master at hiding himself behind what seemed to be very simple statements about his approach and masking his contradictions.

He had three main influences, the French painter André Lhote, surrealism and zen bouddhism (the essence of which he mainly absorbed from reading Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery. He wasn't a practitioner). In the passage you quoted, you can read the influence of both zen and surrealism, and they do seem to lead to the idea that things should be purely instinctive. Problem is when you add André Lhote's teaching to all that. It was a very intellectual approach to painting, which HCB transposed into photography.

It's the sum of these contradictions that make HCB. You can't leave out one part and just take the other.

 

[nikos79]

Your admiration for HCB is letting you fall into a trap. Not that he laid it purposefully, but HCB was a master at hiding himself behind what seemed to be very simple statements about his approach and masking his contradictions.

He had three main influences, the French painter André Lhote, surrealism and zen bouddhism (the essence of which he mainly absorbed from reading Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery. He wasn't a practitioner). In the passage you quoted, you can read the influence of both zen and surrealism, and they do seem to lead to the idea that things should be purely instinctive. Problem is when you add André Lhote's teaching to all that. It was a very intellectual approach to painting, which HCB transposed into photography.

It's the sum of these contradictions that make HCB. You can't leave out one part and just take the other.

Interesting analysis never thought of it.
And it might come out that I dont like HCB but on the contrary I do admire him for his (great) photographs and he is one of my favourites of all time. Well not for all of his photographs

 

[koraks]

I think we are doing great in spite of our differences we have common ground and we listen to each other carefully

Huh!??? No, we don't have common ground. That's the whole problem. What you seem to believe is ground (putting aside the question whether it's common) is nothing but quicksand.

The problem I have with how you approach photography is that this approach is strongly and fundamentally normative, but at the same time lacks any articulated normative framework. The results it that your arguments are all over the place and never become concrete or consistent. Part of this is probably personal preference, upbringing or just 'personality', but part of it I can also imagine is the influence of people you appear to admire, such as Rivellis. His writings, specifically also those on HCB that you linked earlier, don't provide much solid footing for someone trying to find their way in articulating how and what they appreciate in photography. In your own comments I see the echoes of Rivellis quite strongly and the same assumptions-presented-as-fact and linear interpretations that are never subjected to an attempt at falsification or even nuancing. From a philosophical and academic viewpoint, it's an utter mess. What I do have to grant Rivellis is that he seems less normative in his writings. Perhaps take an example in that.

A couple of months ago I did an attempt at inviting you to make your critiques more structured by more clearly defining both the basic assumptions and the argumentation. Evidently, this hasn't produced any effect. Which is OK, but then we must conclude that really, there is no common ground between us, and that's why I don't think we can meaningfully discuss this. You're entirely free to say whatever about photographs, but to me, it's clear that you'll find yourself running into one conflict after another as a result of the confused nature of your comments.

My comment is in reference to what he said about photographers not creating.

I think that's addressed in the also referenced thread about creating vs. making. I think it's obvious and beyond any debate that either approach is possible, regardless of the medium, and that you can only conclude that a work exists on a continuum between these two archetypical extremes. The medium doesn't dictate; it depends on how it's used. Apparently this was a misunderstanding back in 1855, and it still is today.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Yes in painting you work by adding in photography by removing great point

Same with sculpture. You start with a big block; then chip away everything that doesn't look like the subject.

 

[MattKing]

I have to shamefully admit I don't know how to print. Although I love to edit and print my photos in Lightroom. I came late into photography so I never had the joy of using an analog and learning to print. Kind of miss it and wish I had done it when I was young. It is very interesting that among the students of my teacher the most skilled ones (even now in digital) are the ones who learned in the 80s all the details of analog cameras and printing.

This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding, I'm afraid.
While I am a great proponent of darkroom prints, along with the prints made through the other traditional processes, it is the print or other similar physical artifact that I am emphasizing in the post you created.
Presentation on a digital screen is fine, but it is fundamentally different than creating an artifact that one can pick up in one's hands, or place in an album, or frame and put on the wall.
And prints that originate from a digital file are equally different from those screen images.

 

[nikos79]

Same with sculpture. You start with a big block; then chip away everything that doesn't look like the subject.

Photography has more in common with sculpture than with painting

 

[nikos79]

Huh!??? No, we don't have common ground. That's the whole problem. What you seem to believe is ground (putting aside the question whether it's common) is nothing but quicksand.

The problem I have with how you approach photography is that this approach is strongly and fundamentally normative, but at the same time lacks any articulated normative framework. The results it that your arguments are all over the place and never become concrete or consistent. Part of this is probably personal preference, upbringing or just 'personality', but part of it I can also imagine is the influence of people you appear to admire, such as Rivellis. His writings, specifically also those on HCB that you linked earlier, don't provide much solid footing for someone trying to find their way in articulating how and what they appreciate in photography. In your own comments I see the echoes of Rivellis quite strongly and the same assumptions-presented-as-fact and linear interpretations that are never subjected to an attempt at falsification or even nuancing. From a philosophical and academic viewpoint, it's an utter mess. What I do have to grant Rivellis is that he seems less normative in his writings. Perhaps take an example in that.

A couple of months ago I did an attempt at inviting you to make your critiques more structured by more clearly defining both the basic assumptions and the argumentation. Evidently, this hasn't produced any effect. Which is OK, but then we must conclude that really, there is no common ground between us, and that's why I don't think we can meaningfully discuss this. You're entirely free to say whatever about photographs, but to me, it's clear that you'll find yourself running into one conflict after another as a result of the confused nature of your comments.

Thanks for taking the time to write it.
I understand your frustration. Yes my comments may appear inconsistent but that is mainly because I am in a process of searching and absorbing new things, I do not present a finished theory. Of course my teacher Platon Rivellis is more assertive and consistent he spent 45 years teaching photography and me on the other hand just a couple.

If I sound normative is just because I am working between tensions and different ideas. What is wrong with that?

I also want to say that I’m not convinced photography or art necessarily benefits from the kind of structured, rational approach you’re asking for. Much of what draws me to photography resists explanation, and I don't believe that absence of a "normative system" makes a viewpoint invalid. Some things are better approached by intuition, resonance, or even contradiction, especially in the arts!

If that is what separates us i am afraid yes we have to then admit we dont have a common ground, which is sadly because i generally enjoy your comments and thoughts

 

[nikos79]

This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding, I'm afraid.
While I am a great proponent of darkroom prints, along with the prints made through the other traditional processes, it is the print or other similar physical artifact that I am emphasizing in the post you created.
Presentation on a digital screen is fine, but it is fundamentally different than creating an artifact that one can pick up in one's hands, or place in an album, or frame and put on the wall.
And prints that originate from a digital file are equally different from those screen images.

Sorry I didn't understand you, we both talk about real prints right? Or you mean the process?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Photography has more in common with sculpture than with painting

No.

Find me a sculptor that has had more influence on photography than Hopper. Or Caravaggio, for that matter.

HCB started as a painter, ended as a painter, and acknowledged André Lhote's painting lessons as the major influence on his photography.

Heck, even music has more in common with photography than sculpture.

 

[koraks]

i generally enjoy your comments and thoughts

I appreciate that. I might be encouraged to proceed if I had the feeling you not only appreciated, but also understood what I said. Mind you, we could still disagree, that's fine.