A mini-ramble on HCB

[Gabriel M.A.]

Like The Cranberries would have said, "Everybody else is doing it, so why don't I?".

Before you press the button, I'll tell you what my rant is not: it is not pro-HCB; it is not anti-HCB. It is on Henri Cartier-Bresson.

I am mentally exhausted, so I wish I would have written a long essay, but given the feedback I was given a while ago here that my blog had "a lot of words" (a la "too many notes; cut a few..."), I think it'll go well with the Biggie fries. 😉

Perhaps I'll translate the article to which I make reference, and got me thinking about the man and us as photographers, in general. So much the "general public" doesn't seem to be aware of about this man, and comes through as misunderstood.

I think the real "decisive moment" is a personal experience(s). HCB seems to have had his own. Finding the forest for the trees.

Ok, enough pre-ramble to the ramble:

http://blog.gabrielma.com/archives/2006/03/17/37.html

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Hmm...I should try to put a nudie in the next post...

 

[Chaser]

I think the ramble is actually rather concise...

 

[a.black]

Hmm...I should try to put a nudie in the next post...

yeah that would have helped, should have announced them in your title 😀

But interesting approach to HCB. I especially liked that on: "His decisive moment, it seems, was when he found himself in accord with his own vision."
Having just watched the documentary The Impassioned Eye trice in a row, I'm just starting to get into his work. Your interpretation is certainly worth a thought. Thinking about Decisive Moments, there isn't just this one. In a sense you have to find a scene and make "your" personal decisive moment.

I'm just wondering about HCB philosophy. What came first? His Decisive Moment, than his photos, or did he decide at one point to give his work a conceptual approach?

 

[John Camp]

Watched the HCB movie the other night and it occurred to me that he wasn't so much a photographer as a visual reporter -- he used the camera as a reflex, but what he was really doing was looking for visual artifacts that said something about the time or about human beings. I think that's why he quit shooting photographs -- he found another way to approach visual artifacts without putting the camera between him and the artifact. He actually gave himself time to contemplate the artifacts he found. (Although, to tell the truth, I don't think he drew very well; but on the other hand, that's not important.) The point is that the essential bit of what he was doing was not photography; it was art.

I understand from other sources that he was pretty proud of his position as one of the early Magnums; took it seriously. But somehow, I don't really think of him as a pro photographer. I tend to think of "pros" as guys who know all about exposure and lighting and etc., and believe that if given a little time to figure it out, they could shoot anything. But the fact is, they wind up shooting very little of artistic merit, because their eye is on money instead of the world. I just found in a used book store a book called The Pirelli Calendar Complete, calendars done over a couple of decades by some of the most famous pro photographers in the world, and realized that with all the money they had to spend, all the access to location and equipment and beautiful women, they somehow managed to make very few memorable photographs. But you look at HCB's big book, and you see one great photo after another. He was not doing what most pro photographers do. And that's a good thing.

JC

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I'm just wondering about HCB philosophy. What came first? His Decisive Moment, than his photos, or did he decide at one point to give his work a conceptual approach?

I certainly don't know much about HCB; I've never watched the documentary you refer to; I haven't seen him on the screen, period. But I think I am learning about him the other way around: from his last years and first photography years first, and filling in the rest as time passes by. Lots to see and lots to read; he seems to have had a little bit of a reverse experience than Picasso did.

Which brings me to what you said, John: Picasso was an artist of the brush and pencil first, and then was awed by photography; I don't think his photography was any good (I think Salvador Dalí's, on the other hand, was, but he had a more "quasi-realistic" approach to his fantasies --hence surrealism--, so the camera was a good tool for him). Henri Cartier-Bresson went down this road the other way. Yes, it was "art" what permeated his work. Consciously? I don't know. But he certainly seems to have had this sensibility.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Well guys, thanks for your interest.

 

[tedwhite]

Which channel broadcast The Impassioned Eye? And does anyone know if it will be repeated, or if it can be purchased?

Appreciate any info.

Ted

 

[Andrew Touchon]

You can rent it on NETFLIX.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Looks like there's a rental for me this weekend. Thanks guys!

 

[Andrew Touchon]

When I watched The Impassioned Eye, I noticed that HCB seemed to be fascinated by the red color in the painting he was viewing at the Louver. However, all of his photos I have seen are in black and white. I wonder if he ever used Kodachrome?

 

[a.black]

When I watched The Impassioned Eye, I noticed that HCB seemed to be fascinated by the red color in the painting he was viewing at the Louver. However, all of his photos I have seen are in black and white. I wonder if he ever used Kodachrome?

I'm wondering if he even cared about what film he used. Anything technical seems to be completely uninteresting for him. In the whole documentary I guess he refers to "a camera" only once or twice.

 

[Jocko]

The point is that the essential bit of what he was doing was not photography; it was art...

I don't really think of him as a pro photographer. I tend to think of "pros" as guys who know all about exposure and lighting and etc., and believe that if given a little time to figure it out, they could shoot anything. But the fact is, they wind up shooting very little of artistic merit, because their eye is on money instead of the world. JC

I think that's absolutely spot on, JC. The priority of the artist (at least since the Romantics) is to please or express himself: the pro primarily serves a client. Perhaps this defines the difference between art and craft.

In the artist's case, the medium really doesn't matter. HCB's drift to drawing or painting is by no means unique in photographic history. Peter Emerson did the same in the early 1890s and caused an even bigger fuss.

Cheers, Ian

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I think that's absolutely spot on, JC. The priority of the artist (at least since the Romantics) is to please or express himself: the pro primarily serves a client. Perhaps this defines the difference between art and craft.

In the artist's case, the medium really doesn't matter.

Well, yes and no. Perhaps that's the case in "modern" times, but there are many artists that produced work of art with, as John put it, "their eye on money", (i.e. commission) such as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Mozart and Shakespeare, just to name a few. They did have sufficient talent and/or genius to please while expressing themselves, and yet setting, stretching and/or creating new paths in their field(s).

They had their own naysayers and dittoheads during their lifetime. The "tragic" figures are often those that have a higher naysayer-to-dittohead ratio while alive.

 

[Jocko]

Well, yes and no. Perhaps that's the case in "modern" times, but there are many artists that produced work of art with, as John put it, "their eye on money", (i.e. commission) such as Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, Mozart and Shakespeare, just to name a few. They did have sufficient talent and/or genius to please while expressing themselves, and yet setting, stretching and/or creating new paths in their field(s).

They had their own naysayers and dittoheads during their lifetime. The "tragic" figures are often those that have a higher naysayer-to-dittohead ratio while alive.

Absolutely - but that's why I made the point about the Romantics. The end of the 18th century would seem to mark an historical shift, when artists became alienated from the general culture. Perhaps this was due to industrialisation or the emergence of a scientific world-view, which denied any value to the imagination.

It's interesting to recall that in medieval English "maker" denoted a poet or artist as well as artisan. There was no real distinction between high or low culture; the audience in Shakespeare's Globe was far more diverse than in any modern theatre and the whole congregation of an Italian cathedral could share the works of Leonardo or Michelangelo. Of course there were levels of sophistication, variations in opinion and personal expression - but there was also a degree of cultural consensus we have very largely lost.

Charles Fort used to say that steam engines were invented "because it was steam engine time". Perhaps one could argue the same for photography; the first art after printing to exploit new technology, to embrace alienation and a democratic agenda, where the individual viewpoint was supremely important - the "decisive moment".

 

[tedwhite]

Gabrielma's post got me to thinking about motive - there's usually an impetus, or urge, that impels us to do whatever it is that we do.

I don't like to use rigid categories, but in this instance to do so might be useful.

I might call the person who only picks up a camera for vacations and family gatherings a Private motive photographer. There is no intent to publish, sell, or display his photographs (outside of showing them among immediate family).

The second photographer I term Commercial Motive. His work is motivated entirely by outer rather than inner demands. It is photography for others. It is producing a product, whether it be a nude gatefold, a fashion ad for Banana Republic, the cover of an annual corporate report, the latest Detroit automobile, or a paparazzi shot for People mag.
These people live, I believe, in the market place, and are market driven. What sells is good, what doesn't sell, is not. If he doesn't sell, he'll quit photoraphy completely and get into real estate.

The third category of photographer - into which I would place HCB and many, many others -
I would call, for want of a better term, the Artistic Motive photographer. He is not content to leave his photographs in the family album. He phtographs a green bell pepper in black and white and with a view camera, not because a client told him to, but because he wanted to. Of course, like a commercial motive photographer, he would be pleased in someone would pay him for his work so he wouldn't have to perform, what Cyril Connolly termed "uncongenial work" in order to put food on the table. For every nationally known artistic photographer whose works are on display in galleries and sophisticated publications there are countless photographers who continue to make images without a major following.

So, what then, keeps them going? Like sculptors, painters and composers, they value the quality of the artistic object being created. Obviously, some kind of an audience is important. An unseen photograph is like an unread manuscript or an unplayed symphony. But - and in my opinion it's an important "but" - unlike the commercial motive photographer he does not tailor his work to meet the current whims of the public. He does it regardless.

And because of this, many in this category must be content with a small audience of viewers, and they frequently do something else for a living. But this person derives a special satisfaction from knowing that he is reaching some viewers who will spend time with his work and react to it with some sensitivity.

Most importantly, he is working in an area where he doesn't have to compromise. he considers not having to compromise of great importance. And he and the viewers share somethng in common: a respect for photography as something of value in itself.

Sorry about the rant.

Ted

 

[John Camp]

Ted said better what I was driving at.

Those people cited by Gabrielma -- Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Mozart -- do not seem to me to have been driven by money. They were artists who happened to get money (although not much, in Mozart's case.) That happens. Ingres, Renoir, Monet, Degas etc., lived long enough to get substantially rich from their work; Manet, Van Gogh, Gauguin, etc. did not. Whether or not they got money does not seem to me to have been a critiical aspect of their lives; if they hadn't gotten money, they probably would have chosen the same path anyway.

Pros, on the other hand, seem to me to be people who choose a particular path for some reason other than the art involved: for money, prestige, a certain life style. That's not to say that they aren't good -- they are; and the best have amazing visions of what their clients want. I think perhaps you could see the difference in comparing a really terrific pro, like Annie Liebovitz, and a really terrific artist, like Diane Arbus (or Ansel Adams, or Minor White, or HCB, or Paul Caponigro or Gary Winograd.)

 

[peter_n]

Excellent post, Ted!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Ted said better what I was driving at.

Those people cited by Gabrielma -- Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Mozart -- do not seem to me to have been driven by money. They were artists who happened to get money (although not much, in Mozart's case.) That happens. Ingres, Renoir, Monet, Degas etc., lived long enough to get substantially rich from their work; Manet, Van Gogh, Gauguin, etc. did not. Whether or not they got money does not seem to me to have been a critiical aspect of their lives; if they hadn't gotten money, they probably would have chosen the same path anyway.

Pros, on the other hand, seem to me to be people who choose a particular path for some reason other than the art involved: for money, prestige, a certain life style. That's not to say that they aren't good -- they are; and the best have amazing visions of what their clients want. I think perhaps you could see the difference in comparing a really terrific pro, like Annie Liebovitz, and a really terrific artist, like Diane Arbus (or Ansel Adams, or Minor White, or HCB, or Paul Caponigro or Gary Winograd.)

I was trying using your own idea to illustrate some of what I meant, but I'll clarify (my thoughts get muddy, I know): no, I don't believe they were "driven by money" either. They were driven by their passion; however, they adapted their output as-needed in order to "deliver to the client" something that could be consumed. I do disagree that in the case of some of these artists (Mozart, Van Gogh) money was a critical aspect of their lives, but with it or without it they still made masterpieces.

I believe we seem to be in agreement in a common underlying idea here, and it is very complex; Jocko hit it in the nail, and Ted brought out the screwdriver later. There have been cultural (i.e. attitudes) changes brought on in the past few centuries, and they have been stronger in the last generation or two. Also, currents are not so "linear" anymore, and cultures aren't so monolithic. It is a challenging time to be "an artist" where the only measure of the success is money. It always has been that way while the artist is alive. After that, it's "fame".

And how do you become famous? Oh, Machiavelli, dare we ask that question? Warhol had his finger on the pulse of that question.

I think that it's over the passing of time that those artists that trascend live on. Will HCB be one of them? I don't know, but it seems that he was pretty much satisfied with himself, and many with him. Is that really what counts, in the end?

 

[VinceC]

>>Those people cited by Gabrielma -- Michelangelo, Shakespeare, Mozart -- do not seem to me to have been driven by money. They were artists who happened to get money (although not much, in Mozart's case.) <<

I think it's complicated. Michelangelo, Shakespeare and Mozart are three very good examples of men with a clear passion for artistic perfection who then applied their talents (and very hard work) toward the pursuit of wealth. They sought audiences and patrons and financing for their projects. They wanted to be recognized for their achievements. Shakespeare is especially baffling to modern scholars because he does seem to have conducted his life as a successful businessman. Of the three, he succeeded. He created great and passionate art, made a lot of money, purchased a rank of nobility, and retired to a country estate (his business success might be atributed to his older wife, who was the daughter of a successful landowning household ... his affection for her is debatable, they were forced to marry due to pregnancy, but in those days marriage was a much a business arrangement as an affair of the heart). Mozart was a child prodigy and quite aware of his unmatched talent, but he was high-strung and not much of a businessman and so lived in constant financial insecurity. The driving force in his life was to be both artistically AND financially successful.

I think there's a strong human desire for fame and fortune and recognition by our fellow people. Upon achieving this recognition, everyone reacts differently. We all know from our camera collecting that the pursuit can be more exhilarating than the actual catch. One possible theme in Cartier-Bresson's life is that, having achieved recognition for being at the top of the photo art world, he may have grown bored at having achieved his personal goal and, like Shakespeare, simply decided he'd said all there was for him to say, and retired to a quiet life.