Cartier-Bresson - Surrealism and communism!

jippiejee said:
Maybe that's the point. I know more photographers picking up painting again after reaching a certain level of recognition.
Click to expand...

Yes perhaps. But CB was consistently good over a long period of time. He was a very private man. I guess we may never know.
 
How can you say that? There are more bakery products than a branch of Greggs!
Click to expand...

I think that there is a whole new genre there: socialist bakery, decisive moment photography. Perhaps the Leica marketing people should investigate this? :angel:
 
Sejanus.Aelianus said:
I think that there is a whole new genre there: socialist bakery, decisive moment photography. Perhaps the Leica marketing people should investigate this? :angel:
Click to expand...
Of all the half-baked ideas, this one takes the biscuit.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the thread is the way some people have thrown a wobbly when they saw the word "communist".

Cheers,

R.
 
Gosh Tom, I find anarchy is surreal as well. Just look at places in the world people are trying to change things but (have/need) to get destructive to get the message across.
 
wilonstott said:
His political beliefs are moot. Unless one of his photos contains an explicit statement of politicality, then the people that worry about these things are only quibbling over visual implication. Moreover, worrying about Cartier-Bresson's intentions (for the meaning of his photos) is plainly an intentional fallacy.

Little definition for that last phrase right here:

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/289889/intentional-fallacy
Click to expand...

The "intentional fallacy" is certainly well-motivated; but it's far from clear that it doesn't require modifications of a sort that go against the nature of its pure, unadulterated version. It seems right to say that a work should be judged outside the intentions of the artist; it should work or fail on its own merit. But, curiously, the intentional "fallacy" doesn't seem to be much of a fallacy, formally speaking. (At least the formulation I am aware of.) It's a methodological precept, the admission or rejection of which is optional upon various considerations, rather than born in grave logical sin. Also, there are cases where it seems to be just false. Sometimes we evaluate aesthetically work precisely in ways that enmesh it with the life of the author. The intentional fallacy says that that is wrong, yet our appreciation of the work would seem to be seriously diminished without those aspects. Examples could be Van Gogh's last paintings, or, to give a photographic example, Fukase's 'Solitude of the Ravens'. Come to think of it, photography is a rather recalcitrant domain to be tackled by the intentional fallacy because it carries with it (or at least some strands of it do) a kind of autobiographical burden which other art forms are not saddled with. That's not to say red flags shouldn't go up when artistic intentions are inappropriately mentioned. But some maintentance/moderation work is probably needed if one wants to bring interpretations more in line with our intuitions and everyday aesthetic experience.

As an aside, this thread is totally surreal, what with posts going equally off the tangent. (This post being no exception.) Comrade Henri would be so proud. And, yes, I prefer scones over croissants. Mine with clotted cream and strawberry jam, please.

.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Of all the half-baked ideas, this one takes the biscuit.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of the thread is the way some people have thrown a wobbly when they saw the word "communist".

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...

Hi,

I think most people confuse Stalinism with communism. These forums, f'instance, are pure communism in that knowledge is freely distributed according to needs. And this thread is surreal which a few people don't like (or, perhaps, don't get) in its linear text form.

Sometimes I think people define surreal as weird, but there you are; which is Stoicism - I hope you liked that example of Stoic ataraxia.

Regards, David

Regards, David
 
Politically speaking, Surrealism was ultra-leftist, communist, or anarchist. To quote from the wikipedia entry:

The group aimed to revolutionize human experience, in its personal, cultural, social, and political aspects. They wanted to free people from false rationality, and restrictive customs and structures. Breton proclaimed that the true aim of Surrealism was "long live the social revolution, and it alone!" To this goal, at various times Surrealists aligned with communism and anarchism.

It seems that surrealism, and its disciples like Cartier Bresson were always aligned with the values of the left.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom