HCB Appreciation

[MattKing]

Yes they were friends.
And Weegee was the stills photographer on Dr. Strangelove.
One of my favorite photography exhibitions/shows experiences:
https://www.nsnews.com/local-arts/c...ographs-on-view-at-presentation-house-2929334

 

[Don_ih]

His often attributed arrogance and noble heritage can be traced in his photos through position and distance to the subject, choice of the moment, and refusal to engage.

I don't think you understand how close he was to a great many of his subjects. You need to look at the photos and think how close you need to be with a 50 or 35mm lens.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Most probably terrible as many great directors who tried to do photography too (Tarkovsky, Wenders, etc.)

 

[Alex Benjamin]

His often attributed arrogance and noble heritage can be traced in his photos through position and distance to the subject, choice of the moment, and refusal to engage.

This is about as wrong an assessment one can have about Cartier-Bresson as is possible.

I don't see where you get the "often attributed arrogance and noble heritage." Never read that. From anybody serious. On the contrary, he was quite appreciated by other photographers—he was extremely friendly and generous, Koudelka, for one, attested to that—, and it is well documented that when doing portrait sessions, he spent a long time talking—i.e., engaging—with the subject, and very little time actually photographing.

 

[Ulrich Drolshagen]

I read an interview with Isabelle Huppert who told exactly this about a shooting with HCB she once had.

 

[nikos79]

This is about as wrong an assessment one can have about Cartier-Bresson as is possible.

I don't see where you get the "often attributed arrogance and noble heritage." Never read that. From anybody serious. On the contrary, he was quite appreciated by other photographers—he was extremely friendly and generous, Koudelka, for one, attested to that—, and it is well documented that when doing portrait sessions, he spent a long time talking—i.e., engaging—with the subject, and very little time actually photographing.

Not necessarily people close to him but art critics, other photographers, etc.
For example Robert Frank:
"Henri Cartier-Bresson’s work often seems more about composition and beauty than about the lived experience of the subjects"
"He traveled all over the goddamned world, and you never felt that he was moved by something that was happening other than the beauty of it, or just the composition"

New Yorker: "a humanitarian indifferent to people"

Some early critics described him also as "ironic" and "self-aware"
If you look at Brassai for example he was totally immersed in the environment and his surroundings.
Kertesz was more playful.
HCB I get the impression that it was only about form and geometry, he was just a strict observer orchestrating the world.
It is not coincidence that my own very favorite pictures of HCB that I love are the ones that show some emotion and empathy.

 

[nikos79]

I don't think you understand how close he was to a great many of his subjects. You need to look at the photos and think how close you need to be with a 50 or 35mm lens.

You are right but the "distance" was more metaphorical

 

[Don_ih]

You are right but the "distance" was more metaphorical

Yet the fact is the choice of camera and lens put him in the immediacy of his subjects. He was there with them. Certainly, his compositional considerations influenced what made it onto film - as did his personality and interests. He had a way of seeing and wanted that reflected in the photos. You can't say that Robert Frank did anything any different.

Anyway, you can't validly criticize Cartier-Bresson's photos because they are not Brassai's photos. Go look at Brassai's photos if that's what you want to see. Whatever treatment of the world or subject you infer from looking at the photos, you still need to remember that all you actually have access to are those photos - not the photographer, not his or her world, not the subject. Just the photos that the photographer chose to show. And you'll notice that the act of choosing which photos to show is fully removed from the act of photographing itself - which is an act that normally, in the recording of a scene, excludes the presence of the photographer as participant.

 

[snusmumriken]

I get what @nikos79 is saying. Except in the portraits, there is rarely any interaction of HCB’s subjects with the camera. He was interested in people, but he preferred to capture them doing whatever they did unawares. In interviews he even described it being like hunting.

One might contrast that style with, for example, Bert Hardy, who seems to have charmed his way into every situation he photographed.

We don’t have to take one style and damn the other, but it’s reasonable to find that one appeals more than the other, and to explain that.

 

[nikos79]

I get what @nikos79 is saying. Except in the portraits, there is rarely any interaction of HCB’s subjects with the camera. He was interested in people, but he preferred to capture them doing whatever they did unawares. In interviews he even described it being like hunting.

One might contrast that style with, for example, Bert Hardy, who seems to have charmed his way into every situation he photographed.

We don’t have to take one style and damn the other, but it’s reasonable to find that one appeals more than the other, and to explain that.

Exactly the tenderness you find in Bert Hardy is really hard to find in HCB. Sometimes you do and in my opinion these photos really shine.
Once again I am not criticising HCB, just trying to offer some insights and opinions.
I stated many times that he is one of my all time favourite photographers.
And maybe this strict detachment and need to organize the world according to his "geometric" mind is what really attracted me to his photography. Maybe the fact that he avoids any emotion and takes the role of the observer is the one that creates in the end the biggest emotion.

 

[snusmumriken]

An obvious advantage of HCBs un-engaged style - fitting his sense of artistic integrity - is that he couldn’t be accused of engineering the scene.

 

[cliveh]

An obvious advantage of HCBs un-engaged style - fitting his sense of artistic integrity - is that he couldn’t be accused of engineering the scene.

How true.

 

[Elmarc]

An obvious advantage of HCBs un-engaged style - fitting his sense of artistic integrity - is that he couldn’t be accused of engineering the scene.

I can think of quite a few examples where he is engaged with the subject. This being one of my favourites:

 

[cliveh]

 

[nikos79]

I can think of quite a few examples where he is engaged with the subject. This being one of my favourites: View attachment 413663

Am I alone in feeling that this photograph still conveys a form of distance or more precisely, a "controlled" engagement?

Despite the obvious physical proximity to the subjects, this image feels unmistakably Cartier-Bressonian in the way it preserves a social distance. The photographer is present, acknowledged, even welcomed, yet he remains outside the situation.

Even the smiles play a role to that. These are smiles of acknowledgment not of understanding or compassion.

Also I don't find that photo that good especially the thing that the bottom right man is doing with this mouth (is it a straw?) I find very annoying, it draws attention without adding meaning, and slightly disrupts the image’s emotional coherence, feels more like a snapshot that HCB more powerful images

 

[nikos79]

View attachment 413682

By contrast, this photograph feels like Cartier-Bresson at his very best. Nothing is shown directly, yet almost everything is implied. Light and shadow carry the image, and if there is any meaning (?) or content or call it as you want, it emerges through implication rather than declaration or underlining.
A photograph in which light, shadow, and geometry do the work of narration. The human presence of both the partially hidden girl and the silhouette being transposed is felt rather than shown, surrounded within a quiet but precise form and geometry.

 

[Elmarc]

Am I alone in feeling that this photograph still conveys a form of distance or more precisely, a "controlled" engagement?

Despite the obvious physical proximity to the subjects, this image feels unmistakably Cartier-Bressonian in the way it preserves a social distance. The photographer is present, acknowledged, even welcomed, yet he remains outside the situation.

Even the smiles play a role to that. These are smiles of acknowledgment not of understanding or compassion.

Also I don't find that photo that good especially the thing that the bottom right man is doing with this mouth (is it a straw?) I find very annoying, it draws attention without adding meaning, and slightly disrupts the image’s emotional coherence, feels more like a snapshot that HCB more powerful images

One of my favourites 'for engagement'.
I don't think that the two boys would be so animated if they were in the presence of somebody who was disengaged or detached do you?
Do you recognise the relationship between the two boys?
How one is more confident while the other is more reserved?
I enjoy this juxtaposition of both characters and I think it makes the photo.
Not everything has to be about lines and form.
Here is the full sequence. Apologies for the poor quality snap shot. Taken from the HCB scrapbook.

 

[GregY]

How true.

That's a beautifully complex image.

 

[Don_ih]

Am I alone in feeling that this photograph still conveys a form of distance or more precisely, a "controlled" engagement?

You'll invariably find what you're looking for.

 

[Mike Lopez]

You'll invariably find what you're looking for.

Indeed.

 

[GregY]

Am I alone in feeling that this photograph still conveys a form of distance or more precisely, a "controlled" engagement?

Despite the obvious physical proximity to the subjects, this image feels unmistakably Cartier-Bressonian in the way it preserves a social distance. The photographer is present, acknowledged, even welcomed, yet he remains outside the situation.

Even the smiles play a role to that. These are smiles of acknowledgment not of understanding or compassion.

Also I don't find that photo that good especially the thing that the bottom right man is doing with this mouth (is it a straw?) I find very annoying, it draws attention without adding meaning, and slightly disrupts the image’s emotional coherence, feels more like a snapshot that HCB more powerful images

Nikos you read a lot of your personal stuff into these photos......

 

[GregY]

One of my favourites 'for engagement'.
I don't think that the two boys would be so animated if they were in the presence of somebody who was disengaged or detached do you?
Do you recognise the relationship between the two boys?
How one is more confident while the other is more reserved?
I enjoy this juxtaposition of both characters and I think it makes the photo.
Not everything has to be about lines and form.
Here is the full sequence. Apologies for the poor quality snap shot. Taken from the HCB scrapbook.
View attachment 413686

E, thank you for posting the sequence.

 

[koraks]

Nikos you read a lot of your personal stuff into these photos......

Indeed. His comments are not really about the photos IMO. They're about the inner workings of his own psyche. That's fine, but let's recognize that as a separate and largely unrelated topic from HCB's photographs.

 

[snusmumriken]

I can think of quite a few examples where he is engaged with the subject.

Of course there are several. I regret using the word 'rarely' in post #834. I should have said 'less commonly' or something similar. At a rough count in the books I have, direct engagement accounts for about 5% of the photos, excluding portraits. Arguably I should also have excluded landscapes-without-people from the total, but someone else can do that if bothered.

About the two boys in the photo above, I would say that it doesn't imply an easy relationship of photographer and subject. I am possibly one of the most socially awkward people you could meet, yet I too have a photo of gypsy boys being brash towards the camera. To me, HCB's photos with direct engagement are generally a bit uncomfortable. The Berlin taxi drivers, for example, where it looks as though he has just shoved the camera in their faces. There are several eye-witness accounts of how he would vanish after taking a shot, rather than sticking around to explain.

 

[Don_ih]

The question remains: does it matter? If he did or did not "engage" with his subjects, it's largely irrelevant to what we have. He didn't get his friends to pose for photos. He didn't get subjects to jump for a "fun" photo. He wasn't after the standard gawping grin from people. He didn't demand attention from his subjects. Those aren't the things he wanted when he pointed a camera. But it doesn't matter what he didn't want - I think there is plenty of room to be pleased by how good he was at getting what he did want.