HCB Appreciation

[Milpool]

And I’m pretty sure Nikos was referring mostly to the image/subject matter first, which is why I think all the arguments that came back at him are just the usual stretches / defensive posturing you get whenever someone compares photography with other artforms (painting is usually the trigger).

Printing is my favourite part of the photographic process but give me a break.

Your comment about books comparing poorly with real prints interests me. I’m not arguing there is a right/wrong answer, but having “grown up” on good quality photo books of the work of photographers who were known to be into printing (and having become accustomed to these reproductions) I was disappointed when I finally saw these things live. Maybe disappointed is too strong a word for what I felt but anyway it was actually somewhat liberating.

I had to back/track quite a long way, but I think all of this was because @nikos79 said “In photography you don’t create anything”, to which @MattKing replied (in effect) that if he did any printing (or alternative processes) he would know that this isn’t true.

 

[GregY]

And I’m pretty sure Nikos was referring mostly to the image/subject matter first, which is why I think all the arguments that came back at him are just the usual stretches / defensive posturing you get whenever someone compares photography with other artforms (painting is usually the trigger).

Printing is my favourite part of the photographic process but give me a break.

Your comment about books comparing poorly with real prints interests me. I’m not arguing there is a right/wrong answer, but having “grown up” on good quality photo books of the work of photographers who were known to be into printing (and having become accustomed to these reproductions) I was disappointed when I finally saw these things live. Maybe disappointed is too strong a word for what I felt but anyway it was actually somewhat liberating.

I've seen & own some fine quality photo books. I have a friend who is an artist...& a poster/giclé reproduction (which she also sells @ $50 compared to multiple thousands for the original)....is a pale imitation of her painting.
The only real life comparison i have to offer. I have the book "The American Cowboy: A Portrait" (Jay Dusard's 1983 masterwork). It is a finely printed volume of beautiful LF portraits. I also have a silver gelatin print of the cover photo printed by Jay. They are both 'good' in their mediums....but the print viewed live has something you don't get from the book image.
As to your point about disappointment/liberation.....I also think there is a difference between seeing something (albeit in a book)....and seeing something for the very first time. The brain just processes them differently. After spending an entire day at the Louvre, a handful of things i'd never seen (Winged Victory for example), remain vividly, in my memory, while paintings like the Mona are just ticked off on the i've seen it" list

 

[snusmumriken]

And I’m pretty sure Nikos was referring mostly to the image/subject matter first, which is why I think all the arguments that came back at him are just the usual stretches / defensive posturing you get whenever someone compares photography with other artforms (painting is usually the trigger).

Printing is my favourite part of the photographic process but give me a break.

Your comment about books comparing poorly with real prints interests me. I’m not arguing there is a right/wrong answer, but having “grown up” on good quality photo books of the work of photographers who were known to be into printing (and having become accustomed to these reproductions) I was disappointed when I finally saw these things live. Maybe disappointed is too strong a word for what I felt but anyway it was actually somewhat liberating.

My own experience of exhibitions is that some famous photographers were disappointing printers, but that the best prints of the best printers were stunningly beautiful. Top of the list for me were large platinum prints by Irving Penn.

Reproduction in books is worlds better nowadays than it was in HCBs day/my youth. I had a first (1952) edition of The Decisive Moment on loan when I was still a schoolboy, and compared with an exhibition of his photos in the 1960s, it seemed quite sooty and dull. Today, photobooks can be really satisfying. But they never have either the tonal range or the physical flatness of a print. And although you can typically spend more time with a book than you can in a gallery, you can’t really hang it on the wall and gaze at it.

 

[nikos79]

And I’m pretty sure Nikos was referring mostly to the image/subject matter first, which is why I think all the arguments that came back at him are just the usual stretches / defensive posturing you get whenever someone compares photography with other artforms (painting is usually the trigger).

Printing is my favourite part of the photographic process but give me a break.

Your comment about books comparing poorly with real prints interests me. I’m not arguing there is a right/wrong answer, but having “grown up” on good quality photo books of the work of photographers who were known to be into printing (and having become accustomed to these reproductions) I was disappointed when I finally saw these things live. Maybe disappointed is too strong a word for what I felt but anyway it was actually somewhat liberating.

"The importance that printing has in photography is, although undeniable, very small compared to the taking and selection after it. The instructions a photographer can give to the print technician are enough to support his work. These instructions can even vary from time to time, causing slight aesthetic shifts in the work, but not radical upheavals. I fear that those who claim that the quality and style of the prints have a decisive weight in the importance of photography do so out of distrust in the value of the rest of the photographic process. They think that this way, photography comes closer to its heterologous and unrelated sister, painting, with which, as happens in many families, more separates than unites them."

Platon Rivellis - My Photograph*

Ο επίσημος ιστότοπος του Πλάτωνα Ριβέλλη, Φωτογράφου και Δασκάλου Φωτογραφίας

www.rivellis.gr

 

[nikos79]

My own experience of exhibitions is that some famous photographers were disappointing printers, but that the best prints of the best printers were stunningly beautiful. Top of the list for me were large platinum prints by Irving Penn.

Reproduction in books is worlds better nowadays than it was in HCBs day/my youth. I had a first (1952) edition of The Decisive Moment on loan when I was still a schoolboy, and compared with an exhibition of his photos in the 1960s, it seemed quite sooty and dull. Today, photobooks can be really satisfying. But they never have either the tonal range or the physical flatness of a print. And although you can typically spend more time with a book than you can in a gallery, you can’t really hang it on the wall and gaze at it.

There are some book editors that work in very small batches and do tremendous work in books and their quality of reproduction. Michael Torosian and Lumiere Press is one of them

 

[Don_ih]

I fear that those who claim that the quality and style of the prints have a decisive weight in the importance of photography do so out of distrust in the value of the rest of the photographic process.

That's just not correct.

People who actually make prints (enlargements, alt prints, whatever) also want the best composition they can get and the best negative (or digital photo). Wanting a good print is an end in itself. It's also the result of creative and skilled work that is distinct from taking a photo with a camera (even if it is all part of the same process).

 

[koraks]

That's just not correct.

Well, that's a bit of a systematic problem with Rivellis' writings. A couple of weeks ago there was a discussion about his website and we were invited to peruse it, to which I didn't respond very positively. In this thread I've also expressed my disapproval of how he treats the subject matter. The problem in my view is that literally every sentence on that man's website should be preceded by "I assume that" and suffixed with "...but there are several contrasting explanation as well and I have no way of determining whether what I just said makes sense." This brings two secondary problems: (1) the man himself doesn't seem to realize this (best case) or he does, but he believes his opinion is so valuable that it should be appreciated more so than reality, and (2) he presents his assumptions and haphazard reasoning as factual as well as sometimes normative. This effectively excludes, or at least builds substantial hurdles for a constructive debate or exchange on the subject matter.

@nikos79 I mentioned this issue of being normative before and evidently failed at bringing the point across. Maybe you misunderstood the meaning of 'being normative'; in any case, you responded that you find yourself stuck between opposing views of photography and you become normative in response. In my view, it's not a logical nor a very useful response; if anything, I'd expect the opposite. If you're confronted with opposing views, and you have no way to figure out which is correct (several answers possible, plus nuances!), isn't the sensible thing to do to approach the subject matter with a more open view? My recommendation would be to treat Rivellis' writings the way I outlined above: by placing gigantic question marks all across them and treat every single word he writes with a healthy dose of skepticism. You're a smart guy, no doubt, and I suspect you have the capacity to approach a topic critically - i.e. to take stock of multiple possibilities, find arguments and evidence to support as well as falsify them, and then make up your own mind about the matter. Idolatry is a very poor starting point and ultimately gives little satisfaction. It's also kind of embarrassing if someone keeps responding to criticism on his own views by regurgitating the problematic writings of another person. Surely, you have a brain. Kick it into gear; it's really worth it.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

They think that this way, photography comes closer to its heterologous and unrelated sister, painting, with which, as happens in many families, more separates than unites them.

Yada yada yada. The usual trope. Again, comes from a vision that stipulates that there is one way to define photography and one way to define painting, and doent't allow photography, not painting, to be the many things they can be. And of course, this way, they're bound never to meet.

 

[nikos79]

Well, that's a bit of a systematic problem with Rivellis' writings. A couple of weeks ago there was a discussion about his website and we were invited to peruse it, to which I didn't respond very positively. In this thread I've also expressed my disapproval of how he treats the subject matter. The problem in my view is that literally every sentence on that man's website should be preceded by "I assume that" and suffixed with "...but there are several contrasting explanation as well and I have no way of determining whether what I just said makes sense." This brings two secondary problems: (1) the man himself doesn't seem to realize this (best case) or he does, but he believes his opinion is so valuable that it should be appreciated more so than reality, and (2) he presents his assumptions and haphazard reasoning as factual as well as sometimes normative. This effectively excludes, or at least builds substantial hurdles for a constructive debate or exchange on the subject matter.

@nikos79 I mentioned this issue of being normative before and evidently failed at bringing the point across. Maybe you misunderstood the meaning of 'being normative'; in any case, you responded that you find yourself stuck between opposing views of photography and you become normative in response. In my view, it's not a logical nor a very useful response; if anything, I'd expect the opposite. If you're confronted with opposing views, and you have no way to figure out which is correct (several answers possible, plus nuances!), isn't the sensible thing to do to approach the subject matter with a more open view? My recommendation would be to treat Rivellis' writings the way I outlined above: by placing gigantic question marks all across them and treat every single word he writes with a healthy dose of skepticism. You're a smart guy, no doubt, and I suspect you have the capacity to approach a topic critically - i.e. to take stock of multiple possibilities, find arguments and evidence to support as well as falsify them, and then make up your own mind about the matter. Idolatry is a very poor starting point and ultimately gives little satisfaction. It's also kind of embarrassing if someone keeps responding to criticism on his own views by regurgitating the problematic writings of another person. Surely, you have a brain. Kick it into gear; it's really worth it.

I read your reply carefully and honestly thank you for your interest and trying to help. Having such a profound influence of a teacher can indeed be hard to make yourself open to other ideas and trends especially when you are in the process of searching as I am. I am in that forum because I respect the views and knowledge of the people here and I enjoy getting triggered by their thoughts and sometimes different opinions, they have all made their own paths.

That said, I reference Platon Rivellis and specifically this writing above on his own photography style (so there you can imagine he can be as objective as he wants) not because I think his views are beyond criticism, but because mosts of his observations resonate with me and help me think through certain questions. I’m not following him blindly or trying to build my views entirely on his, otherwise I would be very close to criticism.

But I also think it cuts both ways. You urge me to be critical and open, but at times your own stance feels quite rigid. You seem to dismiss Platon Rivellis outright without really making any effort to understand his point of view. Something really resonated badly with you from the scratch but trust me you are missing a lot of good stuff under the surface. Heck, even Bruce Davidson should have seen something worth it when asked him to review his photos and seeked his approval.

I think it helps if both sides are willing to consider where the other is coming from, even if we don’t agree. Therefore I really appreciate your thoughts and our discussions and sure they provoke a lot of thought inside me.

 

[Milpool]

For me, seeing some things live was a helpful recalibration of sorts. I had been chasing a “look” which had more to do with the reproduction process than the photographic print so after a lot of frustration and hair pulling if was kind of a relief.

As to your point about disappointment/liberation.....I also think there is a difference between seeing something (albeit in a book)....and seeing something for the very first time. The brain just processes them differently. After spending an entire day at the Louvre, a handful of things i'd never seen (Winged Victory for example), remain vividly, in my memory, while paintings like the Mona are just ticked off on the i've seen it" list

 

[jeffreyg]

No comment on the pluses or minuses of HCB photography. If someone is or plans to visit Paris and is interested there is the Fondation Henri Cartier Bresson. A small but interesting “gallery/museum “ worth visiting. Many years ago we happened on it. Several years later we visited it again. We happened to be the only people visiting at the time and the director noticed I had come in and checked a camera bag. We struck up a conversation and he asked if we would like to visit Mr Bresson. He called him but he was unable to visit that day but we could come over the next day. Unfortunately we were leaving to come home and missed the opportunity.
If you are in Paris check it out.

 

[cliveh]

No comment on the pluses or minuses of HCB photography. If someone is or plans to visit Paris and is interested there is the Fondation Henri Cartier Bresson. A small but interesting “gallery/museum “ worth visiting. Many years ago we happened on it. Several years later we visited it again. We happened to be the only people visiting at the time and the director noticed I had come in and checked a camera bag. We struck up a conversation and he asked if we would like to visit Mr Bresson. He called him but he was unable to visit that day but we could come over the next day. Unfortunately we were leaving to come home and missed the opportunity.
If you are in Paris check it out.

Your story doesn't quite add up, as the gallery was founded in 2003 and Bresson died in 2004.

 

[koraks]

I reference Platon Rivellis and specifically this writing above on his own photography style

The bit @Don_ih quoted certainly wasn't about himself and was a typical (for him) instance of making generalizations based on his own assumptions. Sorry, but the man is just a very sloppy thinker.

I don't doubt that his writings resonate with you; I challenge you to figure out why that is. Hopefully, there's more going on inside your mind than just resonance. If we interpret resonance as two things vibrating in unison, then we've got Rivellis' ideas on one hand and, I have to assume, yours on the other. I'd like to see more of that, less of Rivellis. If I'd like to talk to Rivellis, I'd go to one of his lectures, send him a message through is website etc. Fact of the matter is, we have you here on the forum, so I'd like to interact with you. Not with a Rivellis-by-proxy. I have zero interest in that. Zero.

You seem to dismiss Platon Rivellis outright without really making any effort to understand his point of view.

That's your assumption. 'm a critical reader; it's what much of my work has revolved around. And yes, I'm quite rigid on calling bull**** when I see it. Also, I'm not saying that Rivellis has nothing useful to say. I can see how some of what he has said might appeal to you. There's a sense of poetry to what he writes; he has a way with words. It's just that (1) I take issue with what he says, even if he says it well and (2) your admiration of him currently seems to stand in the way of your own development as an autonomous thinker. I'd wish for you that you would pursue that route, and I firmly believe you need to distance yourself from Rivellis' ideas before you can start to think for yourself. Everyone is influenced by others; there's no problem in that per se. But in your case, you seem to respond as, again, a proxy of this one guy. I think that's a pity because I'm hella sure you have more to offer - not in the least to yourself.

 

[jeffreyg]

cliveh
Sorry it was the first visit. It had just opened. I confused it with a different gallery and artist which was the second visit. The chance of visiting him was true but we have been to Paris several times and my wife has family in France so some of our trips get blurred.

 

[Don_ih]

@nikos79 - I've read several of the articles posted on Rivellis' website and don't consider it to be on par with rigorous academic writing. I consider it colloquial and anecdotal - reflections based more on personal experience and speculation than on logic and evidence. As such, it's fine. It tells how he thinks of things and how he pursues his own goals. I don't see much that applies universally, though.

The fact is, with a creative practice, very little does apply universally. Values impinge on every aspect of a creative activity - giving it meaning and significance, providing justification - and those values range from highly personal to societally and culturally bound to (what some would consider) laws of nature. Depending on perspective, all of that can be questioned.

 

[Sirius Glass]

I had to back/track quite a long way, but I think all of this was because @nikos79 said “In photography you don’t create anything”, to which @MattKing replied (in effect) that if he did any printing (or alternative processes) he would know that this isn’t true.

In a thread about HCB, this seems quite by-the-way, because while HCB appreciated the skill of the printer, his own creativity did not take place in the darkroom.

Note that I am not arguing against the supreme beauty of a physical print, against which books and screens compare poorly.

I agree. HCB has an amazing ability to find great compositions that others would never find on their own.

 

[nikos79]

I had to back/track quite a long way, but I think all of this was because @nikos79 said “In photography you don’t create anything”, to which @MattKing replied (in effect) that if he did any printing (or alternative processes) he would know that this isn’t true.

In a thread about HCB, this seems quite by-the-way, because while HCB appreciated the skill of the printer, his own creativity did not take place in the darkroom.

Note that I am not arguing against the supreme beauty of a physical print, against which books and screens compare poorly.

Although this might come into contradictory to some of the stuff I said before, I couldn't help but express the opinion of some photographers and critics who wondered what marvels would HCB have done if he was a skilled printer like Bill Brandt for example. I kind of agree.

 

[GregY]

Although this might come into contradictory to some of the stuff I said before, I couldn't help but express the opinion of some photographers and critics who wondered what marvels would HCB have done if he was a skilled printer like Bill Brandt for example. I kind of agree.

Many famous photographers are/were not great printers (nor did their own printing). I'd bet HCB approved the version of prints that came out of the darkroom & it goes without saying that Pierre Gassman and his crew at Picto were top notch printers.
As far a Bill Brandt, that he printed his own negatives doesn't change my impression of overly dark sombre images with no detail in the shadows (& yes I've seen the prints at the V&A in London....not in a book or on a screen).

 

[nikos79]

Many famous photographers are/were not great printers. I'd bet HCB approved the version of prints that came out of the darkroom & it goes without saying that Pierre Gassman and his crew at Picto were top notch printers.
As far a Bill Brandt, that he printed his own negatives doesn't change my impression of overly dark sombre images with no detail in the shadows (& yes I've seen the prints at the V&A in London....not in a book or on a screen).

But exactly that was what Bill Brandt wanted to show to us. Perhaps HCB would have presented us differently a photo if he cared more about the darkroom creative process.

The early Bill Brandt had very soft contrasts. Later he did his signature prints but there are many versions of them over the years, some have more detail in the shadows than others.

 

[GregY]

But exactly that was what Bill Brandt wanted to show to us. Perhaps HCB would have presented us differently a photo if he cared more about the darkroom creative process.

The early Bill Brandt had very soft contrasts. Later he did his signature prints but there are many versions of them over the years, some have more detail in the shadows than others.

You're making assumptions about what HCB would have done differently. Who knows how much he "cared" about the darkroom process?....but it's certain that as an artist & photographer he cared about the image... and it is well known that Picto had a great reputation for working with the photographers whose work they printed. They weren't your corner drugstore one hour lab.

 

[nikos79]

I also cannot check the validity of the following but according to George Favres, HCB printer, HCB's negatives were routinely bad, result of HCB using an unmetered Leica. The beauty of his prints is largely a function of darkroom skill.

 

[nikos79]

Needless to say I dont really care. I see the images of HCB and I enjoy and appreciate them as they are. Just for the sake of conversation and the what ifs..

 

[GregY]

I also cannot check the validity of the following but according to George Favres, HCB printer, HCB's negatives were routinely bad, result of HCB using an unmetered Leica. The beauty of his prints is largely a function of darkroom skill.

....you're underlining my point that he used superb printers. To assume he would have adopted a different style, had he printed himself.... is a stretch you're making.

 

[cliveh]

Printing is a technical and artistic skill that can be done at leisure, but still may take many years to achieve at a level of excellence. But taking at HCB level is a different skill set that requires an innate mental and physical ability.

 

[Pieter12]

HCB was essentially a photojournalist. Film was sent to the agency or publication's lab for processing and proofing, prints were made for reproduction, not exhibition. His later prints may have reflected that. Magnum makes a big show of how their darkroom master marks up and prints, but I don't recall ever seeing one of HCB's images annotated like that.