Contacts - Henri Cartier Bresson

Roger Hicks said:
Hmmmm...

Frances (my wife) talked to HCB's printer at Arles one year a while back. And I've always been a great admirer of his.

You have to remember that HCB was

A A rich kid who didn't need to earn a living

B French, and therefore given to intellectualization

C A genius

so I'd not put too much emphasis on believing the way he explains things.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Roger you burst my bubble. Got to go, my therapist waits.....:eek:
 
Last edited:
BTW when rating myself, I'd go with:

A. Not a rich kid, but I was always told I was a snot nosed kid.
B. I got solid C's in High School French.
C. Genius, as in, " Ok, Genius, take out the garbage."

I am close, so close.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Dear Al,

That was indeed precisely my point.

As for Gallic intellectualization, having lived in several countries, I am sure that the French have a much greater tolerance of intellectualization than most. Intellectualization is not merely a product of intellect and education, but also of culture.

I find it amusing that something I would see as a compliment to French culture is being taken as the opposite.

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...
Oh well, compliment or not, if only it could be true... I would LOVE to see French people not only showing "tolerance of intellectualization" but practice, actual practice of intellectualization... in whatever field by the way, not only photography -and I do underline that I am not a teacher, nor an "intellectual" etc, I am mostly self-educated.
Anyway, Henri Cartier-Bresson (why "HCB", he's not a brand of beer or whatever?) is certainly great, though are Raymond Depardon's writings on photography (not at all technical, rather "sentimental") available in English? I appreciate a lot his way of "explaining" a rather general context-mood-environment, then you draw your own conclusion about a particular photograph.
 
Roger Hicks said:
I find it amusing that something I would see as a compliment to French culture is being taken as the opposite.
Click to expand...

Dear Roger,
Don't misunderstand me. Compliments are good. But here what is at stake is the truth of an opinion which I believe wrong. I didn't take your statment badly, I just think it's wrong. That's all.
Bonne journée à toi,
Marc-A.
 
Pitxu said:
I prefer when French "girls" get hot. But I am Basque.:D
Click to expand...

Really. I've already told you that I find it puzzling. You'll have to explain me that.
So what does it mean to be French? And what does it mean to be Basque? Really I don't understand.
 
Pitxu said:
What don't you understand Marc?
I would try to explain.Pitxu.
Click to expand...

I don't understand this sentence "I am Basque", especially coming from you (I've got some Basque friends, and I love the Basque region where I go every year).
Besides, I would like to understand what it means to be French and to be Basque.
 
I don't know if you understand why I feel uncomfortable with this. Maybe PM, I don't want to open this discussion here. well, I could PM you instead ;-)
 
sitemistic said:
While I'm not a big HCB fan, I do think the myth usually overwhelms the reality in many "great" artists. You really have to judge a photographer's work within the context of the time in which he worked. Ansel Adams shot beautiful b&w landscapes in the early 20th century. But now we look back on his work with our late 20th/early 21th century esthetic and subsequent exposure to many thousands of outstanding landscape photos and pronounce his work nothing special. And that is as it should be. Many have surpassed his work, his esthetic.

Just because, compared to his contemporaries, HCB shot a specific kind of image well does not make him the greatest "decisive moment" photographer of all time. He has been, as he should have been, eclipsed by many other outstanding photographers in his genre as time has gone on. As tools, technique and access have improved, other artist's work has surpassed his.

It is comfortable for us, it seems, to make icons of men. But art and artists are created within a context. And as much as we try to make their work universal in time and taste, both move on, as we should also.
Click to expand...

I agree with what you said to a certain extent. Though he had a particular philosophy towards his pictures, style, whatever.
You might be able to spot this in what I write or not, but, as gay as it sounds I feel deeply cheated upon and manipulated after watching this documentary.

Ok the "decisive moment" thing wasn't quite stated by him, invented by the media instead, apparently he called it rather "image a la sauvette". Still he made it quite clear that he didn't like to crop, yet a lot of his pictures were cropped. He clearly spoke of a magic moment when taking a picture, criticized people who pressed the button times and times again without looking at what was happening in the finder, yet he did just that, pressed his button times and times again, burning number of frames on the same shot.

Nowdays there could be countless number of people chasing their decisive moment when shooting, quite frankly this is like chasing a dead ghost,
People, and I don't exclude myself, look up to the Magnum agency, mostly their photographers, as if anything shot by them is a masterpiece, while they are clearly snapshots.
Quite frankly I own 2 photography books, 1 Magnum book and a HCB one, I will happily swap them for a few prints from RFF.

Oh and shall I mention that Bresson called himself an anarchist? What did he anarchised against exactly? Most people who give themselves an etiquette generally do the exact opposite, you'll never find a "hacker" calling himself that, they call themselves "geeks", and, let other people call them hackers.

Oh boy I'm so upset by this thing.... Anyway, Bresson, Magnum and the "decisive moment" = TRUCKLOAD OF BOLLOCKS!!!

Now let's get over it =)
 
Oh I didn't just like his work, but also his way of expressing himself, because he did seem to be quite direct. I mentioned quite a few time on this forum, another movie on him called "Just plain love".

Honestly, watching both of those movies is utterly contradictory....
 
chikne said:
I agree with what you said to a certain extent. Though he had a particular philosophy towards his pictures, style, whatever.
You might be able to spot this in what I write or not, but, as gay as it sounds I feel deeply cheated upon and manipulated after watching this documentary.

Ok the "decisive moment" thing wasn't quite stated by him, invented by the media instead, apparently he called it rather "image a la sauvette". Still he made it quite clear that he didn't like to crop, yet a lot of his pictures were cropped. He clearly spoke of a magic moment when taking a picture, criticized people who pressed the button times and times again without looking at what was happening in the finder, yet he did just that, pressed his button times and times again, burning number of frames on the same shot.
Click to expand...
I don't quite get it. Did you seriously think before that he never took a failed shot? That he always hit on spot, like a sniper in bad war movie?

The guy ran through thousands and thousands of film rolls. There are only a few hundreds of his photos that are commonly thought as his legacy. Where did the rest go? :)

Doing a sequence as situation unfolds is very common technique. You still have to have eye to pick the scene to photograph in first place. You still have to nail the moment.

Oh and shall I mention that Bresson called himself an anarchist? What did he anarchised against exactly?
Click to expand...
You don't "anarchise against", anarchy is not what you think it is.
 
varjag said:
I don't quite get it. Did you seriously think before that he never took a failed shot? That he always hit on spot, like a sniper in bad war movie?

The guy ran through thousands and thousands of film rolls. There are only a few hundreds of his photos that are commonly thought as his legacy. Where did the rest go? :)

Doing a sequence as situation unfolds is very common technique. You still have to have eye to pick the scene to photograph in first place. You still have to nail the moment.
Click to expand...

Clearly not but I didn't think he would take half a roll on the same subject. How many times did I hear folks saying "I wonder if this guy ever took a bad shot" or "The difference between him the rest was that he could do it in 1 single shot" :rolleyes:


varjag said:
You don't "anarchise against", anarchy is not what you think it is.
Click to expand...

How do you know how I know what I think anarchy is? And yes you can "anarchise", even though I just made up the term, against something as you wish, For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
 
kshapero said:
BTW when rating myself, I'd go with:

A. Not a rich kid, but I was always told I was a snot nosed kid.
B. I got solid C's in High School French.
C. Genius, as in, " Ok, Genius, take out the garbage."

I am close, so close.
Click to expand...

...Funny!...
 
A lot of times you have to crank off a few frames to be sure the subject didn't blink. Sometimes you see the "magic moment", push the button, and then another "magic moment" appears. That isn't the time to ask yourself which "magic moment" is the better one. You shoot it.

When you're on asignment the name of the game is to always come back with a useable photo. Editors don't want somebody that comes back with the occasional great shot but can't consistantly produce useable pictures. HCB seemed able to fulfill those expectations. If there were times that he didn't we'll never find out about it. I doubt that we'll ever see a book titled "The Asignments HCB Screwed Up".

On another tack, he was shooting essays, not spot news on a deadline. Would he been able to function in situations where he had to get someplace, have just a few minutes of shooting time, and get the film back to the office in time to have finished prints by press time?
 
chikne said:
Clearly not but I didn't think he would take half a roll on the same subject. How many times did I hear folks saying "I wonder if this guy ever took a bad shot" or "The difference between him the rest was that he could do it in 1 single shot" :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I can see how one can arrive at such conclusion sure. It's just that HCB himself was more modest in claims. He insted mumbled something about "the mind, the eye and the heart combining into one" for capturing the moment, which sounds more like a line from Celene Dion song than something a Jedi-like, ultimate photographer supposed to say :)

chikne said:
How do you know how I know what I think anarchy is? And yes you can "anarchise", even though I just made up the term, against something as you wish, For reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy
Click to expand...
If you take anarchy in political and social sense your term just doesn't mean much, not any more than "communizing against" or "feudalizing against". That you made such a derivation suggests that you link anarchy more to terrorism and violent response than to theoretic work of Kropotkin and such. Hence my comment :)

Anarchy is an alternative (at least perceived so) to hierarchy found in most organizations. Magnum for instance was founded as grassroots effort to balance out the influence of dominant press organizations, weekly illustrated magazines of the time.
 
Well then,

One of the great misconceptions that oddly still continues to this day is the comparison of photography to painting.

Many even so-called photographers on the contemporary art scene still mistakenly compare it to painting as if it must be one brilliant masterpiece that is taken/captured.

I cannot stress too strongly the error in this. I have yet to find anyone, anywhere post their work in series in order to tell a story online. Never one time.

Sould you attend any fine photography atelier or school this is what is most stresed. I attended the Documenta at Kassel, German this year...great names from past and present. Humbling. However, perhaps we are touching more on art of photography than journalism, yet it still holds true to the strong misconception.

It is true (apparently) the he (like many) would shoot very selectively..but then again, so did most, especially by comparison to the present digital age. In short, quality over quantity.

HCB was an artist, without question. To criticise him is foolish, at best, ignorant. It is all good folks...and he is a big part of history to the medium and an important figure. Did he receive too much recognition compared to others, sure, perhaps, so were/are other artists in history..it is part of the game.
Yet he was always humble and remained genuine to the end. He had an original concept of what he wanted and voice, which is more than most out there.

He was the quintessential "zen" photographer and surrealist. Surrealism shined in no other form like photography.

It is brilliant and beautiful the concept of the moment, when one sees everthing come together in harmony before their eyes..yet it is rather passe these days and many (of us) are nostalgic revering these famous images as those who continue to paint in an old master style and not find their own truth and individuality.

I cannot recommend more highly the famous book by Susan Sontag "On Photography" for those genuinely studying and who wish to better understand photography.
 
Last edited:
What I have found out over time is that it's very important for Basques and Jews to make sure everyone know what they are.

I never understood why, though.
 
varjag said:
I can see how one can arrive at such conclusion sure. It's just that HCB himself was more modest in claims. He insted mumbled something about "the mind, the eye and the heart combining into one" for capturing the moment, which sounds more like a line from Celene Dion song than something a Jedi-like, ultimate photographer supposed to say :)
Click to expand...

So since you admit that he mumbled about "the mind, the eye and the heart combining into one" for capturing the moment, please also consider the possibility that whether he sounded like Celine Dion or Obi One Kenobi is something that is entirely left to the person witnessing his comments. Indeed, what one might call home, another will call it hell.

varjag said:
If you take anarchy in political and social sense your term just doesn't mean much, not any more than "communizing against" or "feudalizing against". That you made such a derivation suggests that you link anarchy more to terrorism and violent response than to theoretic work of Kropotkin and such. Hence my comment :)

Anarchy is an alternative (at least perceived so) to hierarchy found in most organizations. Magnum for instance was founded as grassroots effort to balance out the influence of dominant press organizations, weekly illustrated magazines of the time.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your view on that matter!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom