I find HCB's work, especially his earliest surrealist snapshots before he took advice from Capa to be the most enthralling street work out there. That early work was just a knockout and I have seen two of his exhibitions in Asia.
The reason that I find that early work so visionary is because he was the one who essentially started it all with the decisive moment and that associated philosophy behind the snapshot. His combination of surreal juxtapositions on the streets of Spain, France and Mexico in the early 30's often employing paradoxes with posters and frames within frames was visionary. To an extent Andre Kertsz was producing similar work but he didn't match HCB with his amazing and intuitive timing.
I realize that Capa told him to make edits with stories otherwise he would be labelled a surrealist photographer, but when he jumped over to that new form of storytelling his work just didn't seem as spontaneous to me. That early work before his drive to tell a story was all intuition, as he wandered the streets there seemed to be a whole new and exciting world that he captured on film.
I often look at his early photographs and wonder what it would have been like to be confronted by a dapper young man taking your photograph with a Leica complete with black Vidom - back in the early 30's the 35mm camera was still ground breaking and not common, so I guess it would have been a scene like out of a Kubrick movie.
I have read on places like flickr and other internet groups criticism of him from young photographers who have no idea of the skill level needed to operate a Barnack with a shutter speed a lot less than what we are afforded today. A lower ISO of film, less depth of field and slower shutter speeds all seen through a tiny viewfinder. After using a Leica IIIC for some time, I am in constant awe of the skill level needed to utilise that machine. Wow.
In a sense there were no precedents for him to follow or copy so his work was more derivative of painting and literature than other contremporary photographer's work. After that, many photographer's style morphed into one another but his 30's was so fresh. I particularly like the photo of the two men at the bull ring, a portrait within a portrait. Also, the man sleeping under the sketch in Spain. Also, I adore that photo of that man in France who has turned around to confront him with those foreboding trees on either side of the path.
I really like his work he did in Russia later on and he must have done his homework before going there. It is no surprise that he was so well read and was really conveying his sense of knowledge through his photographs. If I have one criticism of him, I felt like that he become trapped within his own philosophy of the decisive moment and didn't decide to breach the confines of that mode of operation.
As his photograph subjects were within a fixed frame - that is all of the energy was contained within the frame. Later photographers like William Klein, Moriyama and Winogrand breached that fixed frame with the energy exploding out, hence pushing the boundaries of the medium. Perhaps that was the weakness of his genius - he was so content that the frame couldn't be breached.
NOW TO MYTHS: Mike Johnston on the inline photographer does an interesting analysis on the photo with the children playing and the fat man walking through the frame with all of the square windows. I think that it was taken in Spain. He asserts that it was taken with a 35mm lens and I'm inclined to agree with him as the perspective and depth of field is different from what would be from a 50mm. Also, that photo of the old lady with the flag draped over her shoulders in USA was apparently taken with a 90mm.
So, I think that there are a lot of myths that invariably float around his name. Also, Magnum once published this thing that he had retired from photography to take up painting in the 70's which is simply not true. I have seen his photographs in a gallery and museum show in Seoul that dated to the 80's and 90's.
Also, there is a photograph floating on the internet of him taking photos in England at some parade in the 80's. So, that should be clarified as not as active as he once was. Actually, one of my favorite photos from his work in the 90's was a self-portrait of his shadow next to a line of trees in France. Perhaps he was saying that he is a shadow of his former self.
So, here is a quote from "Icons of Photography" the 20th Century published by Prestel (1999) - an excellent book by the way. "What is more in his advanced years, he was able to afford the luxury of declaring his photographic oeucre complete, so that he could devote himself chiefly - as in his youth - to drawing and painting. And that was some twenty years ago".
About his genius: "Alicante was one of Cartier-Bressons very first pictures, the work of a twenty five year old genius who frequently recorded ladies of the streets on his journeys through Spain and Mexico". This photo shows and the contact sheet that I have seen on the net shows him engaging with his subjects. So the myth that he never engaged with his subjects (apart from his portraiture work) and took a snatch and grab approach was also not true.
About the myth of not cropping, well many posters above have provided excellent insight to break that myth as well. Actually there is a photograph that he printed that went up for auction in London of the man jumping the puddle that was printed and cropped by him in the 30's when it was taken. Went for a pretty penny as well as did all the stuff that he physically printed. The tones were very different, hence pointing to the fact that he hadn't mastered that second part of the medium.
Someone above wrote that there was still a black line on the left, well I think that the printer was clever and used the fence post to appear like the negative edge. So, he did print his own work in the 30's but realized that he didn't enjoy it and would prefer hunting for photos and engaging in surrealist meeting than time in the darkroom.
My favorite quote to finish: "In his pictures he subjugated lines, surfaces, movements and the intermediate stages of gray between black and white, into a whole, according to almost musical patterns and laws".
In highlighting some of these myths I wasn't criticising him, quite the opposite. It is just that my respect for the man and his work is such that I want to know the 'full picture' behind his legacy. Some famous writer whose name escapes me now once wrote: "Isn't fame after all the sum of the misunderstandings that gather around a new name".
