Would Henri Cartier-Bresson Do Motion Picture?

[denizg7]

Do you guys think if there was a video recorder back in the days that were as small and compact as a barnack model , do you think henri would've used a video camera , instead of photograph camera?

 

[kdemas]

He did do some movie work, specifically on the Spanish Civil War I believe.

 

[filmtwit]

No, because small 16mm and 8mm camera's were around and he never seemed to touch either one those.

 

[denizg7]

what i was saying was what if there was a small compact 35mm body like motion picture recorder , where he could record short 3-10 secs of a person, wouldn't that be more powerful

 

[Particular]

You mean, like the Robot which could do up to 12 frames a second? I don't think he was interested. A still image is much easier to disseminate. You can print it in a magazine, on a poster, in a book. I think he thought stills were more powerful.

 

[icebear]

... non, oui, non, oui, non. NON !

There can only be one decisive moment.

 

[RichC]

It's not just about technology: culture has a role.

As others have mentioned, Cartier-Bresson could have easily carried and used a small cine camera. But he didn't.

Today, quite possibly.

His decisive moment is about capturing a narrative in an aesthetically compelling way. You can do something similar as a moving image, of course.

One of the tutors on my master's degree is the Magnum photographer Mark Power, and he's just made his first video - for his Black Country project. In fact, this is his first multimedia project, combining still photography, video and sound. Other Magnum photographers are going down this route too, such as Martin Parr.

This blurring in the use of media by Magnum reflects a cultural shift in how the photographic image is used and perceived within modern society.

So, if Cartier-Bresson were still alive and taking photographs, it is entirely possible he'd use video. After all, just a few years ago Mark Power was wedded to his 4x5 film camera, wholly uninterested in digital let alone video. But changes in technology and culture made digital acceptable to him, and later video (he still uses film, but now uses a Canon SLR and makes inkjet prints).

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's not just about technology: culture has a role.
. . . .

So does reality. Why do so many people want to project the fantasies of the present onto historical figures? One might as well ask, "Would Rembrandt have made videos?"

Cheers,

R.

 

[Dylan Hope]

"Record the whole moment, decide later"
- (H)ypoth(e)tical(nri) Cartier-Bresson

 

[doolittle]

He might have used such a device, but set the selector switch to photo.
Videos were hard to sell back then.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Do you guys think if there was a video recorder back in the days that were as small and compact as a barnack model , do you think henri would've used a video camera , instead of photograph camera?

Instead of? Since he died no more than seven years ago, and video recorders have been available way longer before than that, I would assume the answer would have to be found there.

 

[RichC]

Why do so many people want to project the fantasies of the present onto historical figures? One might as well ask, "Would Rembrandt have made videos?"

Now that's a far more pertinent question!

I was just replying to the original poster, and, to be honest, I'm more interested in your post! I'm not especially bothered by what medium someone (living or dead) uses. Unless it affects me directly - very unlikely.

Going back to why this type of question is asked, perhaps it illuminates the concerns of the questioner.

I suspect that often such questions are not really about the historical figure per se but symptomatic of an attitude to technology and change - in the case of photography, the extremes of feeling threatened by the extinction of film or incomprehension of those who refuse to see digital technology as the future of photography and continue to use archaic and inefficient practices. (Of course, neither extreme is helpful nor correct.)

 

[denizg7]

this is becoming too philosophical

 

[doolittle]

this is becoming too philosophical

Well it is the Philsophy of Photography forum! I would argue though that RichC pertinent point is more psychological.

 

[jonasv]

Well it is the Philsophy of Photography forum! I would argue though that RichC pertinent point is more psychological.

We should have a Psychology of Photography forum as well, then.
And argue for days about which forum a posts belongs in!

 

[daveleo]

Maybe he would have opted for one of the new 12fps DSLR's, held down the shutter button on a scene and picked the one "decisive frame" from the lot, print and frame it.

(Once he got the hang of doing that, he'd probably shoot the Olympics )

 

[jultou]

He would not do 12fps, he was saying:
"not strafe to avoid cluttering the mind"

 

[tj01]

He was Jean Renoir's apprentice for many years studying motion film, as an assistant director.

 

[umcelinho]

Yes, but he would use his iPhone for filming only.
Oh, and he would also use instagram.

 

[umcelinho]

So does reality. Why do so many people want to project the fantasies of the present onto historical figures? One might as well ask, "Would Rembrandt have made videos?"

Cheers,

R.

I really don't get it either. Each to their time and technology. Would all the renaissance painters ditch paint and canvas and shoot digital? Most certainly. Would Van Gogh be a bokeh whore? You bet.