HCB Appreciation

[cliveh]

Exactly, something very difficult that very few of us might have and it takes years to develop. I am only starting to touch the surface personally to be able to look at photographs.
But do you really believe you can do it without even practicing it? I am afraid that you would only look at them through cultural context, while being part of the art (as a photographer) you will come to appreciate them by admiring the language of photography (e.g. the form, the nuances, the play of light, the juxtapositions, the frame, the visual dialogue, etc.)
I am not saying to admire the technical aspects of a photo but the aspects that are part of the medium and its art that can't be described unless you somehow know about them through your experience with photography

Well said.

 

[Milpool]

My two cents is you’ve perhaps been taken in by the photographers overcompensation complex defence condition tactic.

For a movie no I don't believe it, it works in other levels.
I indeed think that a photograph should be able to speak for itself but then it needs a very sensitive and "trained" viewer someone like Alex says that knows "how to look"
Me I am not even there yet this is something very difficult and frankly if I haven't practiced photography I don't think I would have stood a chance

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I am not saying to admire the technical aspects of a photo but the aspects that are part of the medium and its art that can't be described unless you somehow know about them through your experience with photography

I don't know how old you are, Nikos, but if, as I suspect, you came of age at the turn of the millenium, there is something that is beyond your knowledge and that may be clouding your judgement. There was a time, before advent of digital photography and, even more importantly, of the iPhone, when everybody—or just about—had some experience with photography, that is, with using a film camera. They were everywhere.

So if you had a family, you had a film camera. If you traveled, you had a film camera. That's how people recorded memories. And people actually looked at them—looked at, not scrolled through—alone, with the family, with friends.

This means many, many people had experience with photography. They knew the basics of the craft of photography. Meaning they knew how to focus (until autofocus arrived, of course, but even afterwards they still knew what that meant), they knew about overexposure and underexposure, they knew about f-stops and often also about sunny 16, and knew that if your speed was too low people would be blurred.

And those who wanted to know a little more could get a magazine sur as Popular Photography, or the equivalent in whichever country you lived in, or take a darkroom class in college.

All this to say that there was a photographic culture, and a culture about photography, that was immensely different than it is today. And also about photographers, because you had magazines like Life or Harper's Bazaar that made household names out of photographers that most people today don't have a cue about.

To think that Susan Sontag did not have hands-on and frequent experience with a camera is absurd—it would be a statistical aberration. Susan Sontag grew up in that culture, was part of that culture, understood that culture. In fact, if you don't understand how different the photographic culture was back then, you lose part of what About Photography is about, because it was written within a photographic culture—a culture about photography and about making photographs—that is wildly different than the culture of the iPhone, Facebook and Instagram.

 

[RezaLoghme]

I don't know how old you are, Nikos, but if, as I suspect, you came of age at the turn of the millenium, there is something that is beyond your knowledge and that may be clouding your judgement. There was a time, before advent of digital photography and, even more importantly, of the iPhone, when everybody—or just about—had some experience with photography, that is, with using a film camera. They were everywhere.

So if you had a family, you had a film camera. If you traveled, you had a film camera. That's how people recorded memories. And people actually looked at them—looked at, not scrolled through—alone, with the family, with friends.

This means many, many people had experience with photography. They knew the basics of the craft of photography. Meaning they knew how to focus (until autofocus arrived, of course, but even afterwards they still knew what that meant), they knew about overexposure and underexposure, they knew about f-stops and often also about sunny 16, and knew that if your speed was too low people would be blurred.

And those who wanted to know a little more could get a magazine sur as Popular Photography, or the equivalent in whichever country you lived in, or take a darkroom class in college.

All this to say that there was a photographic culture, and a culture about photography, that was immensely different than it is today. And also about photographers, because you had magazines like Life or Harper's Bazaar that made household names out of photographers that most people today don't have a cue about.

To think that Susan Sontag did not have hands-on and frequent experience with a camera is absurd—it would be a statistical aberration. Susan Sontag grew up in that culture, was part of that culture, understood that culture. In fact, if you don't understand how different the photographic culture was back then, you lose part of what About Photography is about, because it was written within a photographic culture—a culture about photography and about making photographs—that is wildly different than the culture of the iPhone, Facebook and Instagram.

With respect, this reads like the very biased view of someone whose hobby or profession is photography.

Yes, pre-smartphone, people used film cameras to capture memories. But how widespread was photography beyond point-and-shoots or disposable cameras? Beyond Agfamatic, Kodak, and disc cameras, Polaroids, and the like?

It’s risky to romanticize the past. The typical forum “I’ve been doing this longer than you” is usually just status-seeking and turf-defending, thinly veiled as expertise.

I cannot paint, yet I can appreciate and critique paintings. I cannot cook a proper steak, yet I can enjoy and analyze (and eat!) one. In fact, in most creative arts, I’m a poor practitioner—but as a consumer, or perhaps “connaisseur,” I can engage thoughtfully.

 

[warden]

You don’t have to be a photographer to write well about photography. You have to be a writer.

 

[GregY]

I don't know how old you are, Nikos, but if, as I suspect, you came of age at the turn of the millenium, there is something that is beyond your knowledge and that may be clouding your judgement. There was a time, before advent of digital photography and, even more importantly, of the iPhone, when everybody—or just about—had some experience with photography, that is, with using a film camera. They were everywhere.

So if you had a family, you had a film camera. If you traveled, you had a film camera. That's how people recorded memories. And people actually looked at them—looked at, not scrolled through—alone, with the family, with friends.

This means many, many people had experience with photography. They knew the basics of the craft of photography. Meaning they knew how to focus (until autofocus arrived, of course, but even afterwards they still knew what that meant), they knew about overexposure and underexposure, they knew about f-stops and often also about sunny 16, and knew that if your speed was too low people would be blurred.

And those who wanted to know a little more could get a magazine sur as Popular Photography, or the equivalent in whichever country you lived in, or take a darkroom class in college.

All this to say that there was a photographic culture, and a culture about photography, that was immensely different than it is today. And also about photographers, because you had magazines like Life or Harper's Bazaar that made household names out of photographers that most people today don't have a cue about.

To think that Susan Sontag did not have hands-on and frequent experience with a camera is absurd—it would be a statistical aberration. Susan Sontag grew up in that culture, was part of that culture, understood that culture. In fact, if you don't understand how different the photographic culture was back then, you lose part of what About Photography is about, because it was written within a photographic culture—a culture about photography and about making photographs—that is wildly different than the culture of the iPhone, Facebook and Instagram.

Thank you Alex

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

If you need an art degree to appreciate a photograph, then it's not a very good picture.

 

[cliveh]

I don't know how old you are, Nikos, but if, as I suspect, you came of age at the turn of the millenium, there is something that is beyond your knowledge and that may be clouding your judgement. There was a time, before advent of digital photography and, even more importantly, of the iPhone, when everybody—or just about—had some experience with photography, that is, with using a film camera. They were everywhere.

So if you had a family, you had a film camera. If you traveled, you had a film camera. That's how people recorded memories. And people actually looked at them—looked at, not scrolled through—alone, with the family, with friends.

This means many, many people had experience with photography. They knew the basics of the craft of photography. Meaning they knew how to focus (until autofocus arrived, of course, but even afterwards they still knew what that meant), they knew about overexposure and underexposure, they knew about f-stops and often also about sunny 16, and knew that if your speed was too low people would be blurred.

And those who wanted to know a little more could get a magazine sur as Popular Photography, or the equivalent in whichever country you lived in, or take a darkroom class in college.

All this to say that there was a photographic culture, and a culture about photography, that was immensely different than it is today. And also about photographers, because you had magazines like Life or Harper's Bazaar that made household names out of photographers that most people today don't have a cue about.

To think that Susan Sontag did not have hands-on and frequent experience with a camera is absurd—it would be a statistical aberration. Susan Sontag grew up in that culture, was part of that culture, understood that culture. In fact, if you don't understand how different the photographic culture was back then, you lose part of what About Photography is about, because it was written within a photographic culture—a culture about photography and about making photographs—that is wildly different than the culture of the iPhone, Facebook and Instagram.

Alex, I think you misunderstand my comment about Susan Sontag. I’m not saying her comments are not valid, but it is different to be present during a photographic age than having a deep understanding of the subject. I could write a critique about Thomas Chippendale and say his design concepts don’t fit with my idea of fashion and ergonomics. But the fact that he spent his whole life carving and creating cabinets unsurpassed to this day make my critique diminish in relation to his experience with carving wood. I could stand up before a class of students and say why I think a Cartier Bresson image is pretentious and irrelevant. But could I go out and create an image on par with his talent? No.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I’m not saying her comments are not valid, but it is different to be present during a photographic age than having a deep understanding of the subject.

Clive, I think you might be misunderstanding what her subject actually was. Susan Sontag was first and foremost a cultural critic. Culture—in the widest sense of the word—was her main subject of investigation. On Photography is not about making photographs. It's (mostly) about the role and meaning of photographs within the culture—how photographs are viewed, how they are received, etc. And of that, culture, she had a deep understanding.

In On Photography, photography is another means of asking questions about some aspects of who we are—just as its "sequel", Regarding the Pain of Others, is.

 

[cliveh]

But with a title of on photography, where many university lecturers are insisting their students read it, is not about making photographs and misleading if they want to learn the art of photography.

 

[Pioneer]

Wow! How interesting. How did this thread go from an appreciation of HCB to Susan Sontag? Photrio is a marvelous place.

 

[cliveh]

Wow! How interesting. How did this thread go from an appreciation of HCB to Susan Sontag? Photrio is a marvelous place.

Sorry, back to HCB

 

[Pioneer]

Oh think nothing of it Clive.

I can wander off topic faster than most.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

With respect, this reads like the very biased view of someone whose hobby or profession is photography.

Yes, pre-smartphone, people used film cameras to capture memories. But how widespread was photography beyond point-and-shoots or disposable cameras? Beyond Agfamatic, Kodak, and disc cameras, Polaroids, and the like?

It’s risky to romanticize the past. The typical forum “I’ve been doing this longer than you” is usually just status-seeking and turf-defending, thinly veiled as expertise.

I cannot paint, yet I can appreciate and critique paintings. I cannot cook a proper steak, yet I can enjoy and analyze (and eat!) one. In fact, in most creative arts, I’m a poor practitioner—but as a consumer, or perhaps “connaisseur,” I can engage thoughtfully.

Well, I could reply that your post is the typical biased view of a younger person hating it when an older person states that things were different back then.

To be clear, I'm not romanticizing the past. I'm just saying it was very different than the present, which is perhaps the most banal and obvious thing you can say about the past. Now if one cannot state the obvious without being told that he's status-seeking and turf-defending, there's nothing much that can be said.

More specifically, I was talking about the culture Susan Sontag belonged to, and in which she wrote the essays that made up the book On Photography. Personally, I don't think you can fully understand this type of work without understanding when it was written—its historical, social, cultural context—, but I may be just me.

Even more specifically, I was responding to Nikos' assertion that Susan Sontag did not have experience with a camera, and showing how very doubtful that was. Of course, there were losts of disposable cameras and Polaroids, but if you could look at the number of cameras made and sold say between 1960 and 1975, as well as the number of used cameras resold during that time, you'll probably find the number pretty staggering. There were lots of cameras around.

All I was stating—"thinly veiled as expertise" is a pretty lame insult, but I've heard worse—is that changes in technology brings changes in culture. Again, stating the obvious. You don't think about photography or experience it the same way whether you grew up in a world of film cameras and printed photographs or in a world of iPhones and Instagram. Same way you don't experience intellectual work if you do your writing and research on a computer or on a typewriter and with library cards. Not saying one is "better" than the other, or expressing a nostalgia for "the good old days". Just stating the obvious.

 

[nikos79]

I don't know how old you are, Nikos, but if, as I suspect, you came of age at the turn of the millenium, there is something that is beyond your knowledge and that may be clouding your judgement. There was a time, before advent of digital photography and, even more importantly, of the iPhone, when everybody—or just about—had some experience with photography, that is, with using a film camera. They were everywhere.

So if you had a family, you had a film camera. If you traveled, you had a film camera. That's how people recorded memories. And people actually looked at them—looked at, not scrolled through—alone, with the family, with friends.

This means many, many people had experience with photography. They knew the basics of the craft of photography. Meaning they knew how to focus (until autofocus arrived, of course, but even afterwards they still knew what that meant), they knew about overexposure and underexposure, they knew about f-stops and often also about sunny 16, and knew that if your speed was too low people would be blurred.

And those who wanted to know a little more could get a magazine sur as Popular Photography, or the equivalent in whichever country you lived in, or take a darkroom class in college.

All this to say that there was a photographic culture, and a culture about photography, that was immensely different than it is today. And also about photographers, because you had magazines like Life or Harper's Bazaar that made household names out of photographers that most people today don't have a cue about.

To think that Susan Sontag did not have hands-on and frequent experience with a camera is absurd—it would be a statistical aberration. Susan Sontag grew up in that culture, was part of that culture, understood that culture. In fact, if you don't understand how different the photographic culture was back then, you lose part of what About Photography is about, because it was written within a photographic culture—a culture about photography and about making photographs—that is wildly different than the culture of the iPhone, Facebook and Instagram.

I am in my mid 40's but somehow I still remember how "important" photography used to be in every day culture.

I remember my parents dressing me up to get on Sunday to the local photographer studio, this was already a "sacred" and important thing, more than the snapshots of today.

I also remember toying with the film camera in our family holidays and my parents telling me not to "waste" photos without subjects because film costs, imagine saying that to a modern kid that can literally take hundreds of photos in less than 2 minutes.
And of course I remember the anticipation of printing them and then filling up photo albums with memories (although I never learn myself how to print).

Perhaps this is why the old school photography is that good. Because the early and enthusiastic practitioners loved it and the world loved looking at photographs too.

You mentioned LIFE magazine. It never tried to pretend it is an art photography magazine but looking at these photos by today's standards they are so damn good. Even when they did not intend to produce art photography they did produce very nice, honest, and tender photos!
The culture of today is very different. The plurality of the photos everywhere is overwhelming. The connection with time and memory seems to fade. Who looks at photos anymore? Who buys Photo Books? Most take photos and keep them in their folders for never to be viewed again. Even the view has changed, it is instantaneous, you consume them, and then it is gone. While photography needs to be looked at again and again, and come back to them, like a good poem.

You are right about what you wrote. And we all need to reassess I think what photography means to us nowadays.

 

[snusmumriken]

I am in my mid 40's but somehow I still remember how "important" photography used to be in every day culture.

I remember my parents dressing me up to get on Sunday to the local photographer studio, this was already a "sacred" and important thing, more than the snapshots of today.

I also remember toying with the film camera in our family holidays and my parents telling me not to "waste" photos without subjects because film costs, imagine saying that to a modern kid that can literally take hundreds of photos in less than 2 minutes.
And of course I remember the anticipation of printing them and then filling up photo albums with memories (although I never learn myself how to print).

Perhaps this is why the old school photography is that good. Because the early and enthusiastic practitioners loved it and the world loved looking at photographs too.

You mentioned LIFE magazine. It never tried to pretend it is an art photography magazine but looking at these photos by today's standards they are so damn good. Even when they did not intend to produce art photography they did produce very nice, honest, and tender photos!
The culture of today is very different. The plurality of the photos everywhere is overwhelming. The connection with time and memory seems to fade. Who looks at photos anymore? Who buys Photo Books? Most take photos and keep them in their folders for never to be viewed again. Even the view has changed, it is instantaneous, you consume them, and then it is gone. While photography needs to be looked at again and again, and come back to them, like a good poem.

You are right about what you wrote. And we all need to reassess I think what photography means to us nowadays.

Sure, photos are taken and used for many different purposes, and those purposes evolve and expand continuously. But the human appetite for art to contemplate is persistent, and photographs that truly satisfy in that respect - whether or not the photographer had ‘artistic’ pretensions - are a special set.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I am in my mid 40's but somehow I still remember how "important" photography used to be in every day culture.

I remember my parents dressing me up to get on Sunday to the local photographer studio, this was already a "sacred" and important thing, more than the snapshots of today.

I also remember toying with the film camera in our family holidays and my parents telling me not to "waste" photos without subjects because film costs, imagine saying that to a modern kid that can literally take hundreds of photos in less than 2 minutes.
And of course I remember the anticipation of printing them and then filling up photo albums with memories (although I never learn myself how to print).

Perhaps this is why the old school photography is that good. Because the early and enthusiastic practitioners loved it and the world loved looking at photographs too.

You mentioned LIFE magazine. It never tried to pretend it is an art photography magazine but looking at these photos by today's standards they are so damn good. Even when they did not intend to produce art photography they did produce very nice, honest, and tender photos!
The culture of today is very different. The plurality of the photos everywhere is overwhelming. The connection with time and memory seems to fade. Who looks at photos anymore? Who buys Photo Books? Most take photos and keep them in their folders for never to be viewed again. Even the view has changed, it is instantaneous, you consume them, and then it is gone. While photography needs to be looked at again and again, and come back to them, like a good poem.

You are right about what you wrote. And we all need to reassess I think what photography means to us nowadays.

Just to be clear: photography is still important in every day culture. By "photography", I mean "images". It's the meaning of images within the culture that has changed. Not saying for the better or the worse. Just changed.

To caricature, you could say that we used to make images of what we saw, while most today make images of themselves seeing, and themselves living. Nothing illustrates more a change in culture than the development of new vocabulary, and we only need to point to the creation in 2002 of the word "selfie" to show how things have evolved.

That we are not always looking at the world but loften looking at ourselves looking at the world makes for an interesting chock of idea within a thread devoted to Henri Cartier-Bresson, who essentially invented the profession of looking at others living.

And dying.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Well, I could reply that your post is the typical biased view of a younger person hating it when an older person states that things were different back then.

To be clear, I'm not romanticizing the past. I'm just saying it was very different than the present, which is perhaps the most banal and obvious thing you can say about the past. Now if one cannot state the obvious without being told that he's status-seeking and turf-defending, there's nothing much that can be said.

More specifically, I was talking about the culture Susan Sontag belonged to, and in which she wrote the essays that made up the book On Photography. Personally, I don't think you can fully understand this type of work without understanding when it was written—its historical, social, cultural context—, but I may be just me.

Even more specifically, I was responding to Nikos' assertion that Susan Sontag did not have experience with a camera, and showing how very doubtful that was. Of course, there were losts of disposable cameras and Polaroids, but if you could look at the number of cameras made and sold say between 1960 and 1975, as well as the number of used cameras resold during that time, you'll probably find the number pretty staggering. There were lots of cameras around.

All I was stating—"thinly veiled as expertise" is a pretty lame insult, but I've heard worse—is that changes in technology brings changes in culture. Again, stating the obvious. You don't think about photography or experience it the same way whether you grew up in a world of film cameras and printed photographs or in a world of iPhones and Instagram. Same way you don't experience intellectual work if you do your writing and research on a computer or on a typewriter and with library cards. Not saying one is "better" than the other, or expressing a nostalgia for "the good old days". Just stating the obvious.

Wait, Alex.

You wrote:

"There was a time, before advent of digital photography and, even more importantly, of the iPhone, when everybody—or just about—had some experience with photography, that is, with using a film camera. They were everywhere."

And I questioned that "everybody".
From how I remember the world, the silver (later: black) SLR was in the firm hands of the father, while mom maybe had some Agfamatic (if at all). Unlike today, these things were usually quite expensive.


P.S.: "typical biased view of a younger person"...flattering. I generally consider myself as an old fart, and my ecosystem at home wholeheartedly agrees. Thank you for the compliment.

 

[snusmumriken]

Henri Cartier-Bresson, who essentially invented the profession of looking at others living.

Hmm, not at all sure about that. If you add the words “by photography” then just maybe; but there were plenty of painters before him who illustrated how others lived, and not a few photographers.

What I find impressive is that HCB made several leaps at the same time: miniature photography, artistic compositions, surreptitious capture, world travel, image sales, ownership, etc, etc.

I take your point about people documenting their own lives, but while that is now so easy and commonplace, it did happen previously with the good old timer or cable release or friend. One has to wonder who looks at that stuff anyway. Is it material that future generations will hang on their walls, or write ‘Appreciation’ threads about?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Thank you for the compliment.

Anytime.

Hmm, not at all sure about that. If you add the words “by photography” then just maybe; but there were plenty of painters before him who illustrated how others lived, and not a few photographers.

Right you are. I did mean "through photography," but should have added it for clarity's sake.

take your point about people documenting their own lives, but while that is now so easy and commonplace, it did happen previously

I agree. When Stephen Shore put a photo of his breakfast in Uncommon Places, he was making a statement—or rather, statements—about photography, about the use and meaning of photography in everyday life, about looking, about photobooks, about photography as art vs photography as witness to everyday life, etc. It was a pretty radical statement back then. Not that much because nobody took photos of their breakfast in those days, but because those photos of their breakfast were only seen by a very small number of people—poor family and friends who had to sit through the slide show in the living room—not by hundreds or thousands or millions of people, as is the case today.

So it's not only that you are now looking at yourself looking at the world, it's also that you're asking—"expecting" might be a better word, and a sadder reality—hundreds of people to look at yourself looking at the world.

It's not only the use and meaning of photography that has changed, but, even more fundamentally, the view of the self within the world.

But that's for a philosophy thread.

P.S. To keep this within a Cartier-Bresson-themed thread, lets call this type of photo The Uneaten Moment.

 

[snusmumriken]

P.S. To keep this within a Cartier-Bresson-themed thread, lets call this type of photo The Uneaten Moment.

Or Images à la Serviette ?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Or Images à la Serviette ?

 

[Arthurwg]

For all you Sontag haters out there I suggest you have a look at the actual text of "Against Interpretation", which is available for free on-line. Essentially, her argument was (1966) that art should be viewed as a "presentation," rather than a "representation" that requires further explanation and explication. This comes up in the context of HCB as a counter to the idea that his pictures require a critique of their "content."

Put another way, the point of the aesthetic experience is a brief flash of recognition.

She quotes Oscar Wilde: "It is only shallow people who do not judge by appearances. The mystery of the world is visible."

 

[Arthurwg]

Yes, pre-smartphone, people used film cameras to capture memories. But how widespread was photography beyond point-and-shoots or disposable cameras? Beyond Agfamatic, Kodak, and disc cameras, Polaroids, and the like?

I

I guess you don't remember the 1970s, when just about everybody went out and bought a DSLR. The millions of pro and semi-pro film cameras out there for cheap these days is testimony to their abundant use. Half of those people wanted to be HCB, the other half wanted to be David Hemmings.

 

[GregY]

I guess you don't remember the 1970s, when just about everybody went out and bought a DSLR. The millions of pro and semi-pro film cameras out there for cheap these days is testimony to their abundant use. Half of those people wanted to be HCB, the other half wanted to be David Hemmings.

That would have been an SLR when Blow Up came out in 1966.
DSLRs....1999