HCB Appreciation

[snusmumriken]

If you look at the pair upside-down, the compositions look remarkably similar.

 

[Don_ih]

Look how...

And what, though? You could also look at how obscured the people on the right are, how crooked everything is, how the rear end of the car is cut off.

Incidentally, the hats are not round in the photo - they're mostly rectangles.

 

[koraks]

@cliveh I see all the things you mentioned, but looking at the whole thing, it feels awkwardly balanced and limping to me. Sorry, the image doesn't work for me, compositionally, despite the minor perks you pointed out. They're kind of humorous, but for me, they don't fix the overall scorliosis the composition suffers from.

I think we saw something similar with an Atget picture a few months ago. As I recall, that composition worked for some people, but made me feel slightly queasy. This one does the same thing. Different strokes for different folks.

It's interesting though, since observations like these refer to that twilight zone of what kind of composition 'works' and the extent to which that (1) can be understood as a more or less universal thing and (2) can effectively be put into words. I think this image illustrates that (1) not always and (2) not insofar as you've tried (although I appreciate the attempt).

Btw, the image has other merits that I find interesting; the cultural connotation mentioned earlier, and of course the historical aspect. But in terms of composition - nope, doesn't float my boat. And personally, I don't think it even comes close to the HCB it was juxtaposed to (for whatever reason; apparently it's somehow relevant to plant roses next to peonies and then compare the colors or something, IDK).

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Both are about being Black and poor in the American South. They were taken 30 years apart abut they might as well have been taken a week apart. Composition, here, is irrelevant. They "work" the same way to tell — to document — a similar story, to speak of a same (and unchanged) tragedy.

 

[cliveh]

Both are about being Black and poor in the American South. They were taken 30 years apart abut they might as well have been taken a week apart. Composition, here, is irrelevant. They "work" the same way to tell — to document — a similar story, to speak of a same (and unchanged) tragedy.

Excuse me Benjamin, but as a photographer I don't regard composition as irrelevant.

 

[snusmumriken]

Composition, here, is irrelevant.

Respectfully, I disagree. HCB has spotted the one place (probably) in Mississippi where a cocksure white guy, who appears to have been blasted through the wall behind, and whom HCB has made the main focus, sprawls over an entire large bench, while two black guys - whom HCB has somehow marginalised - share a much smaller bench. I think it’s brilliantly spotted and framed.

I believe I read or heard somewhere that he took it from a car and moved on very quickly before any trouble could erupt.

 

[koraks]

Respectfully, I disagree.

Understandably, although I interpret @Alex Benjamin's comment more along the lines of "we can discuss whether or not the profusely bleeding wound is framed in a pleasing manner, but maybe it's a little less relevant than considering the utility of a tourniquet."

Then again, there's the notion that if it's not framed in a pleasing manner, people might simply wander off because there's nothing interesting to see anyway, and that might not bode all too well for the odds of addressing the problem.

And that, of course, invariably leads to the Salgado dilemma: if you make a pretty picture, people will be angry for beautifying the mess, and if you make a messy picture, the risk is that nobody will be angry at all.

Maybe it's possible to discuss composition while acknowledging that there's more to a photograph than that, but that composition is an important visual aspect that carries meaning in itself and moreover is a determinant of the effectiveness of the image. I think your comments are interesting in that respect, so thanks for that.

 

[snusmumriken]

Understandably, although I interpret @Alex Benjamin's comment more along the lines of "we can discuss whether or not the profusely bleeding wound is framed in a pleasing manner, but maybe it's a little less relevant than considering the utility of a tourniquet."

Then again, there's the notion that if it's not framed in a pleasing manner, people might simply wander off because there's nothing interesting to see anyway, and that might not bode all too well for the odds of addressing the problem.

And that, of course, invariably leads to the Salgado dilemma: if you make a pretty picture, people will be angry for beautifying the mess, and if you make a messy picture, the risk is that nobody will be angry at all.

Maybe it's possible to discuss composition while acknowledging that there's more to a photograph than that, but that composition is an important visual aspect that carries meaning in itself and moreover is a determinant of the effectiveness of the image. I think your comments are interesting in that respect, so thanks for that.

I think you are slightly misreading my post. I didn’t suggest that the composition is geometrically ‘pleasing’. Rather, I pointed out the brilliant choice of subject and framing (which I take to be parts of composition). It’s not just a historical document, it’s a photo with a message.

 

[koraks]

I think you are slightly misreading my post.

I didn't interpret what you said about the composition in terms of an aesthetic, normative assessment, but thanks for clarifying nonetheless.
Personally, I do find the composition in that specific image pleasing, but that's just a comment at the visual level exclusively. Including the subject matter and the (potential) meaning of the image, I'd find it problematic to speak in terms of 'pleasing' etc. That's probably what prompted your clarification?

 

[Don_ih]

From V&A:

Wallace Westerfeldt, the author for the chapter in which this image appeared, wrote, 'The Negro's plight is symbolised in this picture: at Hinds County, Mississippi, outside a grocery store, a white citizen complacently lounges on a large comfortable bench while two negroes huddle on a small rickety one. Southern whites insist facilities are "separate but equal".'​

​

'Cartier-Bresson remembers taking this picture, recalling in a recent conversation that he saw the scene from the car in which he and Westerfeldt were travelling. He was about to get out when Westerfeldt intervened, telling him to stay in the car. Feelings were running high and HCB made the exposure through the car window before they quickly drove away.'​

 

[nikos79]

And that, of course, invariably leads to the Salgado dilemma: if you make a pretty picture, people will be angry for beautifying the mess, and if you make a messy picture, the risk is that nobody will be angry at all

Personally, I tend to feel that the more intense or emotionally loaded the subject is, the more neutral and restrained the form needs to be.

For me, that distance in form leaves more room for the subject itself to speak, without the aesthetics competing too strongly with it. But that’s a personal stance rather than a rule.

If your goal is to make people “angry” or aware this is then another story

 

[koraks]

If your goal is to make people “angry” or aware this is then another story

Well, there you have it. It depends on your agenda, personal style and what you feel is called for. I think there are plenty of examples in photographic history where a contentious topic is deliberately presented in a direct or even confrontational manner. Arguably, it's those images in particular that leave a permanent mark on society. Cf. Mapplethorpe, although there are plenty much more blunt examples since Mapplethorpe was in the end still an aesthete.

 

[nikos79]

There is a beggar in Lausanne (yes unfortunately there are even in Switzerland) that has an almost biblical face. I usually take some portraits of him, I print them, and give them back to him. He is very happy to have them especially if it happens to come along with a small help.

But I never managed to take a “good” photo of him something that would “transcend” the subject and make people not feel just sorry for the old man. I know this is super difficult and rarely happens.

But in the end I am glad I did photograph him and we had a small bond

 

[nikos79]

It now also comes to mind the greatest (in my opinion) Greek photographer Voula Papaioannou.

She also photographed starving children in post civil-war Greece

They were photographs mobilized for a very specific purpose: to denounce the scandal of hunger in Athens to the world and to sensitize international public opinion.

So there again @koraks photos serving a purpose

 

[Don_ih]

There's no question photos such as the Mississippi one by Cartier-Bresson serve a social purpose and are, at least understood as, a commentary. But the photo does not depict a necessary reality. The white guy sprawled on the bench is otherwise doing just what the black guys are doing: sitting and drinking a soda. The social structure of the time and place makes the assumption that the white guy has the "better" place valid - at least as commentary. But his bench is not under the awning, it's not secured to the wall like the other appears to be, and it's no less "rickety" than theirs - possibly, it's more rickety. He's alone and they're together. They all got their drinks at the same store (they're sitting outside the store entrance). There are as many reasons to think the three of them are mostly equals as there are to think otherwise - but we are informed by something extraneous to the photo itself. The white guy is an appropriate symbol for racial segregation but he himself personally may not have agreed with it. His personality and personal history is unknown. He's reduced to a symbol when we contextualize the photo.

Somewhere, he had a family, and they'd likely look at the photo differently.

 

[snusmumriken]

There's no question photos such as the Mississippi one by Cartier-Bresson serve a social purpose and are, at least understood as, a commentary. But the photo does not depict a necessary reality. The white guy sprawled on the bench is otherwise doing just what the black guys are doing: sitting and drinking a soda. The social structure of the time and place makes the assumption that the white guy has the "better" place valid - at least as commentary. But his bench is not under the awning, it's not secured to the wall like the other appears to be, and it's no less "rickety" than theirs - possibly, it's more rickety. He's alone and they're together. They all got their drinks at the same store (they're sitting outside the store entrance). There are as many reasons to think the three of them are mostly equals as there are to think otherwise - but we are informed by something extraneous to the photo itself. The white guy is an appropriate symbol for racial segregation but he himself personally may not have agreed with it. His personality and personal history is unknown. He's reduced to a symbol when we contextualize the photo.

Somewhere, he had a family, and they'd likely look at the photo differently.

That’s true, but out of context it becomes another puzzling unexplained artefact, like the mummified alligators of the ancient Egyptians, or the carved stone balls of the Neolithic peoples in Europe. Why take a thing at face value if we don’t have to?

 

[Don_ih]

Why take a thing at face value if we don’t have to?

I wasn't implying anyone should - or even that it's possible. The problem comes when an interpretation gets reversed onto what's been interpreted and becomes defining.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

It now also comes to mind the greatest (in my opinion) Greek photographer Voula Papaioannou.

She also photographed starving children in post civil-war Greece

They were photographs mobilized for a very specific purpose: to denounce the scandal of hunger in Athens to the world and to sensitize international public opinion.

So there again @koraks photos serving a purpose

I just checked her photgraphy which is very good. But most of the pictures seemed rather happy, with people and children having a good time living. I:m not dismissing hunger. Its; just that it didn;t come through with pictures on this link.

Voula Papaioannou - Yahoo Image Search Results

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

There's no question photos such as the Mississippi one by Cartier-Bresson serve a social purpose and are, at least understood as, a commentary. But the photo does not depict a necessary reality. The white guy sprawled on the bench is otherwise doing just what the black guys are doing: sitting and drinking a soda. The social structure of the time and place makes the assumption that the white guy has the "better" place valid - at least as commentary. But his bench is not under the awning, it's not secured to the wall like the other appears to be, and it's no less "rickety" than theirs - possibly, it's more rickety. He's alone and they're together. They all got their drinks at the same store (they're sitting outside the store entrance). There are as many reasons to think the three of them are mostly equals as there are to think otherwise - but we are informed by something extraneous to the photo itself. The white guy is an appropriate symbol for racial segregation but he himself personally may not have agreed with it. His personality and personal history is unknown. He's reduced to a symbol when we contextualize the photo.

Somewhere, he had a family, and they'd likely look at the photo differently.

Maybe he bought the sodas for the two black guys?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I wasn't implying anyone should - or even that it's possible. The problem comes when an interpretation gets reversed onto what's been interpreted and becomes defining.

I agree. Reminds me of the blind men and the elephant, the folk tale from India that teaches intercultural awareness by illustrating how different perspectives lead to distinct points of view. What part did you touch?

Blind Men and the Elephant: Poem | Story | Moral of the Story |

Blind Men and the Elephant: Poem | Story | Moral of the Story | - A poem by John Godfrey Saxe based on an Indian fable about 6 blind men and the elephant. Each of the blind men has a different view when they touch the elephant. The earliest parable of this story is found in Buddhist, Jain and...

mythgyaan.com

 

[nikos79]

I just checked her photgraphy which is very good. But most of the pictures seemed rather happy, with people and children having a good time living. I:m not dismissing hunger. Its; just that it didn;t come through with pictures on this link.

Voula Papaioannou - Yahoo Image Search Results

Then she must have a been a very good photograph if she can transmit joy out of it
I have to check which pictures are about these children, will come back to you

 

[nikos79]

Maybe he bought the sodas for the two black guys?

The reality is that a picture never tells a story. It always communicates a false truth. As Alan said it could very well be that story of friendship for me who is ignorant about the story of US and how they struggled with racial issues in the early century.

That is why I like to approach a photo without a label or a caption first. Then the caption might fill the gaps or enhance my experience with different associations. I might imagine the time being passed and how these people were at that time. But a good photo might not actually need it. It might work on a very abstract and universal level free of any captions or explanations

 

[Don_ih]

The reality is that a picture never tells a story.

The picture usually tells a story. The story is something that you understand from the photo. Once that story moves out of the more "factual" aspects of the photo (Hey, that's a guy on a bench) to more abstract levels of interpretation, including sociological relevance, it becomes more close to fiction than fact. Now, fiction isn't necessarily false, even if not totally factual. But it does depart from whatever reality spawned the photo and, essentially, starts talking about something else. In this instance, that something else might be "racial segregation". Would the photo be just as much about racial segregation if it was exactly the same but actually a still from a movie - completely posed and directed? It is if you say it as and the image supports that claim, even if you don't know that the plot of the movie is not about that at all.

 

[nikos79]

The picture usually tells a story. The story is something that you understand from the photo. Once that story moves out of the more "factual" aspects of the photo (Hey, that's a guy on a bench) to more abstract levels of interpretation, including sociological relevance, it becomes more close to fiction than fact. Now, fiction isn't necessarily false, even if not totally factual. But it does depart from whatever reality spawned the photo and, essentially, starts talking about something else. In this instance, that something else might be "racial segregation". Would the photo be just as much about racial segregation if it was exactly the same but actually a still from a movie - completely posed and directed? It is if you say it as and the image supports that claim, even if you don't know that the plot of the movie is not about that at all.

What I meant to say is that it merely describes the reality it doesn't give more information than that. Unless it flirts with conceptualism

 

[Don_ih]

it merely describes the reality

It doesn't, though.