HCB Appreciation

[GregY]

In that HCB was not working alone in some cases.
In this case he was being assisted to find certain locations.

Very common for photojournalists to have infrastructure in place....contacts in foreign places

 

[Arthurwg]

Very common for photojournalists to have infrastructure in place....

I think they called that a "fixer."

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

That’s not the issue under discussion. The issue is rather whether those with an art degree (or better credentials), but no experience as photographers, have anything valid to say.

Something's wrong if you have to check with an art critic to determine whether you should like a picture or not.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

yes, but he wasn't his assistant. An assistant implies he works like a fashion photographer with lots of people. Also the photograph is not that good.

Well, HCB didn't shoot it. His friend was not as good a photographer as he was.

 

[snusmumriken]

Something's wrong if you have to check with an art critic to determine whether you should like a picture or not.

I agree, but no one is suggesting that. Having something valid to say is not the same as power of veto.

 

[RezaLoghme]

Everything has already been said, but not by everyone.

 

[Don_ih]

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."

It's noteworthy that photography is probably more than any other form of art one that regularly defies being pure presentation (in that sense). Most photography not only seems to be but demands us to think of it as a photo of something - that something is not itself the photo. And photography can be both art and documentary at the same time. Some painting is that way, also. A painting of Queen Elizabeth is instantly recognizable as a likeness and as a work of art. A painting can depict a known event or moment in history and also be seen as a work of art. There is nothing contradictory about a photo being both a representation and a presentation at the same time. While it's sensible to restrict criticism of abstract art as a presentation (and not criticize its failure to represent anything), it can be difficult to approach a photo obviously of something and not address that in your critical understanding.

 

[Milpool]

Shore’s work is like literally a billion times better than HCB’s.

Anytime.



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



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.

 

[Milpool]

Incidentally there’s a nice print of a photograph of Giacometti by HCB available at Afterimage Gallery for a decent price if anyone is interested.

 

[Arthurwg]

It's noteworthy that photography is probably more than any other form of art one that regularly defies being pure presentation (in that sense). Most photography not only seems to be but demands us to think of it as a photo of something - that something is not itself the photo. And photography can be both art and documentary at the same time. Some painting is that way, also. A painting of Queen Elizabeth is instantly recognizable as a likeness and as a work of art. A painting can depict a known event or moment in history and also be seen as a work of art. There is nothing contradictory about a photo being both a representation and a presentation at the same time. While it's sensible to restrict criticism of abstract art as a presentation (and not criticize its failure to represent anything), it can be difficult to approach a photo obviously of something and not address that in your critical understanding.

Good points. Photography strides the gap between art and journalism (documentation), but the aesthetic impact is dependent on that flash of recognition, as described by Walter Benjamin, and perhaps Oscar Wilde. Anyway, HCB is no de Kooning.

 

[Arthurwg]

Shore’s work is like literally a billion times better than HCB’s.

Only billions? Why not trillions, like the US economy and Elon Musk's paycheck.

 

[Milpool]

Only billions? Why not trillions, like the US economy and Elon Musk's paycheck.

Well let's not be silly now. A trillion would have been hyperbole

 

[nikos79]

Shore’s work is like literally a billion times better than HCB’s.

I don't think it makes sense to say which photographer is better or not. Important is which one resonates for each one of us and which one we hold a very special place for them in our "Imaginary Museum" that we build with the works of art we love and admire.

For example in my own "imaginary museum" HCB has a prominent place and Stephen Shore is not there at all

 

[Milpool]

I don't think it makes sense to say which photographer is better or not. Important is which one resonates for each one of us and which one we hold a very special place for them in our "Imaginary Museum" that we build with the works of art we love and admire.

For example in my own "imaginary museum" HCB has a prominent place and Stephen Shore is not there at all

Obviously. As long as your museum is filled with what honestly "resonates" with you vs what you have been told should be there.

 

[nikos79]

Obviously. As long as your museum is filled with what honestly "resonates" with you vs what you have been told should be there.

This is true. Stephen Shore is good and I have been told is also great. But as you said I don't find him resonating with me.

 

[Don_ih]

aesthetic impact is dependent on that flash of recognition

While that's a nice sentiment, the reality is there will almost always be an expectation that is met or thwarted by first viewing an artwork - and that expectation is generally prior knowledge of the artist, the content, the genre, the style, the significance, etc. You will look for something when you are given a photo by Cartier-Bresson - and in a way you will not look for something in a random photo from the Photrio gallery (or some random person on Instagram).

 

[snusmumriken]

the aesthetic impact is dependent on that flash of recognition

I genuinely don’t understand what is meant by this. Could you explain it further? What is one recognising, if not the scene photographed?

 

[Arthurwg]

I genuinely don’t understand what is meant by this. Could you explain it further? What is one recognising, if not the scene photographed?

It's an experience, relying on many factors that seem to coalesce. It might be something like Roland Barthes" concept of "Punctum," or a psychic event that profoundly resonates for the viewer.
It is possible that not everyone is capable of this experience. It's sort of like, "I'll believe it when I see it," and I'm sure it varies from person to person. For a non-photographic example in my case, one look at the de Kooning in the Frick Museum in NYC "knocks my socks off." Put another way, "it's a painting to die for."

 

[snusmumriken]

It's an experience, relying on many factors that seem to coalesce. It might be something like Roland Barthes" concept of "Punctum," or a psychic event that profoundly resonates for the viewer.
It is possible that not everyone is capable of this experience. It's sort of like, "I'll believe it when I see it," and I'm sure it varies from person to person. For a non-photographic example in my case, one look at the de Kooning in the Frick Museum in NYC "knocks my socks off." Put another way, "it's a painting to die for."

OK, I see! Thanks for explaining.

At the start of the process, the artist (HCB) recognises the picture he wants to capture with “yes!…yes!…yes!” (as he put it). Would you say that artist and viewer are recognising the same thing, that there is in fact something independent of both that each recognises? I can believe in there being a visual form that appeals to both parties, it’s the recognition bit that bothers me. It seems to imply that this something exists before the photo is taken - in which case, what is it? A bundle of shared cultural references?

 

[nikos79]

While that's a nice sentiment, the reality is there will almost always be an expectation that is met or thwarted by first viewing an artwork - and that expectation is generally prior knowledge of the artist, the content, the genre, the style, the significance, etc. You will look for something when you are given a photo by Cartier-Bresson - and in a way you will not look for something in a random photo from the Photrio gallery (or some random person on Instagram).

Be prepared that you might look for something and you never find anything.
Meaning that HCB had some lowlights too that even his name wouldn't save them

 

[nikos79]

At the start of the process, the artist (HCB) recognises the picture he wants to capture with “yes!…yes!…yes!” (as he put it).

Well that yes!..., yes!..., yes!... probably applies only to 50-100 photos of him. The rest I would rather say are maybe.. maybe .. maybe ...
But these yes photos are masterpieces to be remembered

 

[cliveh]

Most people look at an image for about 2 or 3 seconds. However, when you look at an image by HCB you need to look at it for at least a minute to appreciate its artistic quality.

 

[nikos79]

I will put some HCB quotes that might be helpful to reply in many subject that came up so far. I underlined with bold the relevant parts

"The issue is not in collecting events, because events by themselves do not present any interest"

" We are forced to part with those photos that, although correct, are less powerful."

"Thought must exist before and after, not during, the photography."

"I was never interested in the documentary aspect of photography, only as a poetic expression."

"Photos that interest me are those that you can look at for more than two minutes. And that's a lot. But being able to look at a photo again and again? There aren't many."

"When you photograph, you're not trying to explain something or prove something. You're not proving anything."

"I enjoy taking pictures, to be present. It's a way to say: yes, yes, yes! And there's no maybe. All the maybes should be thrown in the trash. Because it's a moment. It's a presence. It's there. And it's respect and joy, tremendous joy to say: yes!"

"But that rarely happens, and you cannot search for it. It’s like searching for inspiration. No, the thing comes when you live and enrich yourself. They say they hunt for great photographs. Rarely do you make a great photograph"

 

[Arthurwg]

Most people look at an image for about 2 or 3 seconds. However, when you look at an image by HCB you need to look at it for at least a minute to appreciate its artistic quality.

Maybe, but with HCB that 2 or 3 seconds is all it takes to get the Punctum, and see the perfection. The rest of the looking is pleasure.

 

[nikos79]

Perfect.
Form and joy at the same time.
The girl will be in that light square forever in our memories. The photo was taken in 1955 in Trastevere so probably the girl might be in its 80-90 years old now if alive but she will look at the time and know that in her mind, in the photographer's eye, and to us the time stopped there within that fragment of light. Maybe she was happy to go out and play on a sunny day, maybe she saw someone and running towards them, you can make endless stories. And the shadow is almost surrounding her like a fortress imposing the severity of a strong form to highlight a trivial event that suddenly gains the uttermost importance