• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

HCB Appreciation

albireo said:
some evidence for neurodivergence (in this case autism spectrum disorder) for Gould
Click to expand...
"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.

albireo said:
Asperger's Syndrome was added to the DCM.
Click to expand...
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'.

albireo said:
Were any similar cues available for HCB?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't know, but based on what I do know about HCB, it's not something that comes to mind.
 
koraks said:
I wouldn't know, but based on what I do know about HCB, it's not something that comes to mind.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
 
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.
 
snusmumriken said:
Does it really help to label these people, or to place them on a spectrum?
Click to expand...
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.
 
snusmumriken said:
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?
Click to expand...

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 [edit: correlation]. And that's what's most difficult to establish.
 
Last edited:
Alex Benjamin said:
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.
Click to expand...
I’m not sure I understand. Do you mean the dilemma of whether Vincent van Gogh/Robert Schumann/Hans Rott went nuts as a result of making beautiful art, versus whether the art was a consequence of that predisposition? Because if so, I’d vote for the latter hypothesis in every case.

Not that we’re suggesting HCB was nuts, of course.
 
It helps a little bit if you have been beating yourself up because no matter how hard you practice you just can't seem to play like Glenn Gould or photograph like HCB.
Understanding leads to "Appreciation", which last time I checked was the theme of this thread.
 

Thank you Alex.

The medical diagnosis angle (if/when available) interests me from a professional point of view and I find your reflections on a potential Gould/HCB link really quite intriguing. Keep them coming!
 
Last edited:
snusmumriken said:
I’m not sure I understand.
Click to expand...

Normal you don't, as I made a mistake . I meant causation vs correlation. I edited my original post.

Schumann is a fascinating example. He did have mental health problems, long thought to be attributed to what would be diagnosed today as bipolar disorder, but, in actuality, probably due to cerebral atrophy, itself caused by syphilis. The mental health is a known fact, but is the quirkiness—some would say craziness—of the music due to the mental health problem or, more plausibly, a reflection of his attempt to musically transpose the literary fantasy and imagination at work in the early Romantic authors he loved and admired such as E.T.A. Hoffmann and Jean Paul Richter ?

In the first case, we would talk about causation, in the second, about correlation. Impossible to answer which is which.

Late in life, before he committed himself in an asylum, Schumann reworked some passages in some of his piano works, in the process, making them slighly tamer, so to speak. He may have just felt that the youthful him went a bit overboard at times, we don't know. What's interesting is that after his death, his widow Clara, aided by her friend Johannes Brahms, only published the later, "tamer"—one is tempted to say "more normal"—versions of the work. Pianist and musicologist Charles Rosen's theory was that Clara was trying to hide any sign that Schumann was insane. Only a hypothesis, but if this is true, it would mean that even in Schumann's time there was ambiguity between causation and correlation. Which shouldn't be surprising: the idea that there is a link between genius and insanity is a pure 19th-Century invention.
 
Last edited:
MattKing said:
to play like Glenn Gould or photograph like HCB
Click to expand...

I worked hard for about 40 years to fail at the former, I'm nevertheless a bit sad that I don't have another 40 years in front of me to fail at the latter...
 
Arthurwg said:
Damn! Now I'm going to have to listen to Gould.
Click to expand...

No idea whether this is a good place to start, but his work with the Goldberg Variations is considered iconic.
 
You have to think out of the box to be creative and do innovative things. So many are bound to conflict with the rest of society, who think they're strange. The rest of us just keep making the same snapshots.
 
Alan Edward Klein said:
You have to think out of the box to be creative
Click to expand...

That part is a given: if you're thinking the same things in the same way as everybody else—in the box, so to speak—, you're not being creative.

More interesting is the question being asked in the past few comments : what makes one able to think out of the box?

And it gets even more interesting when you come face with the fact that the person thinking out of the box doesn't see his thinking as "out of the box", but just, for him, normal thinking.

So when you say "You have to think out of the box", in a way, the "have to" doesn't make sense. You can't "have to", since it's not a question of will.
 

I think most out of the box creative thinkers do it naturally, while the rest of us ordinary folk can teach ourselves to be creative and experimental to a certain extent but probably will continue to be blockheads.
 

I knew some of that, but I hadn’t realised that RS committed himself, nor did I know about the posthumous editing.

Insanity (ie incompatibility with the rest of society) is obviously an extreme situation, but I wouldn’t say the 19th century linkage of genius and insanity was completely wrong. We just have a much more nuanced view these days.

Changing the subject slightly, does anyone know why 50mm became a standard, rather than the more logical 43mm or 40mm? Like @cliveh, I find 50mm matches my view of the world much better than 40mm, but as we know, that is not universal. I’m just interested in how 50mm was even available to HCB at the start.
 

This is a really interesting subject. Wondering if it shouldn't deserve it's own thread.
 
50mm was a common movie lens. The Leica was first designed as a test-exposure device for shooting movies. Barnack made the ur-Leica with a 50mm lens. That camera (and the Leicas that followed) set the 35mm still film standard.
 
I suspect it was purely a technical issue that made an 50mm easier for optics to produce
 

Scientifically 43mm or 40mm is closer to the human vision as a 50mm.
But looking at photos later a 50mm is closer to how the brain "remembers" them
 
I’ve always thought my eyes see similar to a 21mm lens or wider, but it’s awfully difficult to take pictures with a lens like that so 45 or 50 mm lenses work better for me.
 
warden said:
I’ve always thought my eyes see similar to a 21mm lens or wider, but it’s awfully difficult to take pictures with a lens like that so 45 or 50 mm lenses work better for me.
Click to expand...
There is what our eyes see and what our brains do with that information. I have always been amazed what our brains can do with the optical data it receives… or cannot do. ‘Optical illusions’ are better described as brain failures…
 
OK for focal lens I think we agreed it is somewhere between 40-50mm and probably 50mm for most photographers, what about the aperture closest to human vision?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register