HCB Appreciation

[cliveh]

I didn't read Henry Cartier-Bresson in Mississippi as a racist statement. I read it as the white guy being Johny no mates.

 

[nikos79]

It doesn't, though.

But what else can it do than describe it? Don’t think symbolically or transformative yet but as a first step let’s think of just what the lens shows us. A piece of time and space as Winogrand said.

 

[nikos79]

The picture usually tells a story.

I agree to that a good picture can tell many stories. But these stories it is you and me and the other viewers that create them. You might remember your time in Atlanta, I might remember the heat of the south, we can make stories about these two black men and their families or what interplay and scenario made them share these two benches.

But a picture cannot tell a single story. Same as poetry

Cinema or writing on the other hand can

 

[koraks]

But a picture cannot tell a single story. Same as poetry

Do you mean to say that a picture or poetry remain open to interpretation? Isn't that true for anything else? Cinema etc - same thing. Even if you spell everything out, it's still open to interpretation. Why is it spelled out in this detail? Are all those details correct? What is left out? Etc.
A movie or a book may be more explicit, but that doesn't mean they can be entirely unambiguous.

 

[Don_ih]

But what else can it do than describe it? Don’t think symbolically or transformative yet but as a first step let’s think of just what the lens shows us.

You said:

it merely describes the reality

But even transcribing that description is an interpretation of what the photo presents. There is no reality behind the photo beyond what is said to be depicted in the photo - which is subject to verification. There's no verifying the situation depicted in that Cartier-Bresson photo. There's no view to the left or right. The context is omitted. Your identifying those people in any manner relies on your presumptions. All the photo actually shows is marks on paper. It describes nothing at all. You are the one providing a description through your own recognition and imagination.

 

[Don_ih]

But these stories it is you and me and the other viewers that create them.

If you'd continued my quote, you would have seen you're agreeing with me:

The story is something that you understand from the photo. Once that story moves out of the more "factual" aspects of the photo ... to more abstract levels of interpretation ... it becomes more close to fiction than fact. [edited for clarity]

But a picture cannot tell a single story. Same as poetry

Cinema or writing on the other hand can

I'd say that's naive. Everything is subject to multiple interpretations. That's why legal documents seek to disambiguate as much as possible - and why it turns the language of those documents into such an unreadable mess. Turns out, those legal documents are almost always still capable of being reinterpreted in a potentially unintended manner.

If they can't get a law to "tell a single story", no one can get a novel or movie to do it, either.

 

[koraks]

no one can get a novel or movie to do it, either.

Not to mention that much of the time, the makers of movies and books willingly exploit or at least embrace a certain level of ambiguity, to varying degrees. It can be argued that the degree to which this happens is the dividing line between 'art house' and mainstream Hollywood movies, but even the latter are often intentionally ambiguous in one way or another.

 

[nikos79]

Ok I am getting your points to both @Don_ih and @koraks and I agree to them.

But you have to agree that a single image is by default is a poorer medium to tell a story than a complete film or book.

The old saying an image is a thousand words gets me very much into disagreement.

 

[koraks]

But you have to agree that a single image is by default is a poorer medium to tell a story than a complete film or book.

Nope. "Poor" or "good" or any other normative judgement depends on the criteria. They're not fixed.

I think the main issue we keep running into is your tendency to project a positivist view onto everything, including things for which it doesn't work well.

 

[nikos79]

Nope. "Poor" or "good" or any other normative judgement depends on the criteria. They're not fixed.

I think the main issue we keep running into is your tendency to project a positivist view onto everything, including things for which it doesn't work well.

I had to google “positivist”
But wait I remember you telling me in the Atget thread to look exactly at an image and tell what I see or what it describes without any prejudices.

I used poor not to describe photography in general but as a tool to tell a story.

 

[koraks]

I remember you telling me in the Atget thread to look exactly at an image and tell what I see or what it describes without any prejudices.

I used poor not to describe photography in general but as a tool to tell a story.

Neither of these statements change anything about what I said above.

Here's part of what you said about the HCB image:

the HCB image contains what is so characteristic of his work: a dialogue, or tension between the two figures on the left and the man on the right. Their placement creates a strong sense of balance, almost symmetrical and all the other things in the image have a definite role, they tend to create the space "in-between" and they are also very well placed. Also as so often with HCB there is a sense of time being "frozen" at a precise moment.

I've marked in bold everything that's not an objective observation, but an interpretation on your behalf. The unmarked passages are in some case arguably also interpretative. Even so, it's clear that what's left after removing any subjective interpretation is very little indeed. It shows how difficult it is to observe in a clinical sense, without jumping to conclusions. It can be practiced, though.

 

[nikos79]

I can also use the word “limited” if you want since “poor” seems to strike a chord with you.

If you want to speak about a person and write their biography do you take a photo or you make a film or a book? How much can a photo say?

 

[koraks]

I can also use the word “limited” if you want since “poor” seems to strike a chord with you.

It's not about striking chords or what have you. The issue I'm highlighting is that you apply a norm to your statement and that norm is personal, subjective and arguably unique to your perspective.
I will even go so far as to state with confidence that you're unaware of your own application of this norm. I.e. you do it automatically, without realizing it, and therefore it's something you can't control (yet).

If you want to speak about a person and write their biography do you take a photo or you make a film or a book? How much can a photo say?

Again: it depends on what you want to convey, to whom and for what reasons.

 

[nikos79]

It's not about striking chords or what have you. The issue I'm highlighting is that you apply a norm to your statement and that norm is personal, subjective and arguably unique to your perspective.
I will even go so far as to state with confidence that you're unaware of your own application of this norm. I.e. you do it automatically, without realizing it, and therefore it's something you can't control (yet).


Again: it depends on what you want to convey, to whom and for what reasons.

Of course there is a norm: The norm is narrative depth over time. Under that norm, a single photograph is necessarily constrained.

And this is not personal opinion but common sense, otherwise people would take photos instead of shooting documentaries for someone’s biography.

That doesn’t make it inferior, just different. I think we can both agree here.

 

[koraks]

And this is not personal opinion

Yes, it is. Very much so.

people would take photos instead of shooting documentaries

Why do you think the genre "documentary photography" exists? Why do portraits exist? If a book or a movie would be superior, why are there still photographs in the first place? Apparently, the norm isn't fixed, despite your saying so.

I think we can both agree here.

I suspect that we both like being in agreement, but I'd be careful not to 'push' this desire onto someone. I don't think we agree because I don't feel you truly understand what I say. That's OK and we can still be friends - we don't need to agree on everything. I'd rather respectfully disagree than be forced into an imposed 'agreement'.
If it offers any consolation - I do believe photos, movies, books, poetry etc. are all different. But that might be a bit of a very narrow basis of consensus in this exchange.

 

[Don_ih]

Marseilles, France​

 

[nikos79]

Yes, it is. Very much so.


Why do you think the genre "documentary photography" exists? Why do portraits exist? If a book or a movie would be superior, why are there still photographs in the first place? Apparently, the norm isn't fixed, despite your saying so.


I suspect that we both like being in agreement, but I'd be careful not to 'push' this desire onto someone. I don't think we agree because I don't feel you truly understand what I say. That's OK and we can still be friends - we don't need to agree on everything. I'd rather respectfully disagree than be forced into an imposed 'agreement'.
If it offers any consolation - I do believe photos, movies, books, poetry etc. are all different. But that might be a bit of a very narrow basis of consensus in this exchange.

I also had the feeling that this wasn’t so much about photography or other forms of art but about how comfortable we are with generalizations that tend to slide into subjectivity.

I appreciate your perspective, and yes I agree too that different media offer different ways of expressing meaning.

We don’t have to agree on everything, and I appreciate that we can still have this discussion as friends.

 

[nikos79]

View attachment 414670

Marseilles, France​

Really like this one

 

[snusmumriken]

I remember you telling me in the Atget thread to look exactly at an image and tell what I see or what it describes without any prejudices.

Everything is subject to multiple interpretations.

Just going back to the ‘naïve’ reading vs the ‘informed interpretation’…

The photographer is not an innocent party in all this. Photography is a means of communication. The photographer - even a documentary photographer - determines where, what and how. The viewer could take the image at face value as if it was a pretty seashell; or they can ask ‘Why is he/she showing me this?’ Even with Atget that question is reasonable.

In the case of a sophisticated personality like HCB, it’s clearly appropriate to ask the ‘Why’ question. In a few cases, the answer may well be simply ‘Because it’s visually satisfying’, and no alternative interpretations suggest themselves. In other cases, there could be several alternative interpretations. We may never know the photographer’s intention, but if they have done their job well, one interpretation should seem more likely than others. Maybe one does need to share an amount of cultural knowledge with the photographer in order to ‘get it’; but we are not so far removed from HCB’s time, and there is plenty of material we can draw on.

Having said that, HCB’s own largely uncaptioned selections from his thousands of negatives do seem to suggest several reasons for sharing. A photo may have been taken as a document for the press, but later selected because it was also visually gratifying, long after its newsworthiness had faded. The photo just posted by @Don_ih is possibly a case in point.

 

[koraks]

@nikos79 out of interest, have you gone back to generative AI to respond to posts? Not to be flippant, just curious.

 

[nikos79]

@nikos79 out of interest, have you gone back to generative AI to respond to posts? Not to be flippant, just curious.

Not at all The “inconsistency” you might have noticed comes from the fact that when I’m in a hurry, I just write as usual. But when I’m replying to someone sharp like you, I take the time to craft something concise, nice, and grammatically sound.

 

[koraks]

Please don't take this wrong, but you'd do a great ChatGPT impersonation.

Sorry, that was a lame joke. I think you're very polite and courteous.

 

[Arthurwg]

Everything is subject to multiple interpretations.

I believe that what makes a photo artistically valuable is its perception without interpretation. That's also why I think the Evans picture needs interpretation, and why it's a failure.

 

[koraks]

perception without interpretation

How do you manage that, though?

 

[Arthurwg]

View attachment 414670

Marseilles, France​

Love this, and I don't need any explanation or "interpretation" to appreciate it. How about, "Wow"!