HCB Appreciation

[albireo]

Cartier-Bresson reminds me a lot of Glenn Gould. Like Gould in music, HCB's photographic brain is wired a certain soecific, unique way. Makes him see things in a way nobody else sees them, the way Gould heard things the way nobody else heard them.

I seem to remember reading there is some evidence for neurodivergence (in this case autism spectrum disorder) for Gould - he was never formally diagnosed because he died well before Asperger's Syndrome was added to the DCM.

Were any similar cues available for HCB?

 

[koraks]

some evidence for neurodivergence (in this case autism spectrum disorder) for Gould

"some evidence", indeed. Carefully formulated, but I think it's pretty obvious that he was firmly 'on the spectrum'. Of course, something like that is always a bit of a haphazard comment to make due to the diagnostic and ethical problems associated with applying labels to people.

Asperger's Syndrome was added to the DCM.

Asperger's is no longer in the DSM; it was removed in V. It was still there in DSMIV but I think this was deemed problematic for two reasons:
1: It suggested conceptually distinctness between autism as such and Asperger's, whereas in reality the criteria and phenomenology overlap considerably.
2: In relation to the above, having Asperger's as a distinct category implies a certain homogeneity within the broader autism spectrum that in reality turns out to be difficult to uphold.
As a result, this was all replaced by a single 'autism spectrum'.

Were any similar cues available for HCB?

I wouldn't know, but based on what I do know about HCB, it's not something that comes to mind.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I wouldn't know, but based on what I do know about HCB, it's not something that comes to mind.

I agree. My comparison wasn't based on any medical diagnosis (that ain't my field), but on certain parallels in behaviour.

It's clear to me that Gould had his brain wired in a very peculiar, unique way, making him unable to hear music (and the world, I may add) in any other way than through counterpoint. He never adapts. Things are dealt with his way or dismissed.

Cartier-Bresson shares some of these traits. In both cases, it's what makes their work unique and brilliant.

But HCB was certainly more than capable to deal with the world, which wasn't the case with Gould.

 

[nikos79]

The artist sometimes needs or poses themselves the constraints in their work. Some of them come direct from their own idiosyncrasy. A plethoric Winogrand would find his way more expressive with an 28mm while a more restraint and phlegmatic HCB would find that a 50mm would suit him best.

I am pretty sure that if HCB wanted to try it, after some adaptive period, he would also have been very good photographing with a wide lens. I also think that he could be very good in cropping or in color - if we wanted.

The point is that he didn't want to. And after reading all of his interviews I get the feeling that his whole life wasn't all about photography. Photography was a secondary thing for him. He mostly enjoyed life and he didn't live for the purpose to photograph (as someone might say about Winogrand)

 

[snusmumriken]

Just thinking aloud… Does it really help to label these people, or to place them on a spectrum? It’s obvious from the very fact that we are discussing them that they were different, gifted. Do we need a medical explanation? Do we need to know precisely which genes make someone favour a 50mm lens, or play Bach at extraordinary tempos? I have seen it suggested elsewhere that all artists are in fact neurodivergent. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is the case, but we already knew they were special. It doesn’t change my sense of wonder and delight.

 

[koraks]

Does it really help to label these people, or to place them on a spectrum?

Not in my mind, but I guess it can make us feel nice if we can find an explanation for something. Mind you, I think that's not necessarily a very rational process as in the end, what really does it explain if we accept that Gould was neurodivergent? What specifically does it tell us? Not a whole lot. But there's probably at least some comfort in realizing that someone who did something utterly brilliant was also a flawed human just like myself.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Does it really help to label these people, or to place them on a spectrum? It’s obvious from the very fact that we are discussing them that they were different, gifted. Do we need a medical explanation?

No, we don't need it. It's more a question of gathering information — information which may or may not depend our understanding of the person, the work, or the relationship between both.

And the "may or may not" depends, in turn, on whether the relationship is one of causation or one of causality. And that's what's most difficult to establish.