How to reveal significance...

The big question is, what are you trying to express through your images? I am not a huge fan of HCB (but I acknowledge that he was great at what he did) because even if I did see all these geometrical elements in his photos, they simply don't interest me much. I think at that time one branch of photography was to mimic paintings so they share the same kind of visual elements, but if you are not really into that kind of stuff, then all these straight lines and diagonals don't mean much to you.
 
I need to thank BobYIL for posting the original post. It made so much sense to me when I read the link that I started going through my HCB stuff looking at his work differently, and I've learned a huge amount in the last couple of weeks.

Along the way, I've ordered some HCB books that I didn't have and stumbled on one real gem, a little book by Clement Cheroux that is more about HCB himself than just pictures, and provides a lot of personal information, quotes, and evidence that support how carefully he planned his photos and what he was looking for, completely supporting Adam Marelli's article in every respect. It's changed what I see in his photos, and, for better or worse, I can already see how it's going to change what I do.
 
mdarnton said:
I need to thank BobYIL for posting the original post. It made so much sense to me when I read the link that I started going through my HCB stuff looking at his work differently, and I've learned a huge amount in the last couple of weeks.
Click to expand...

I am glad you found it interesting.

Since the day I attended an HCB exhibition for the first time in 1964, I’ve always wondered of what makes him so unique, placing him so apart from other photographers inspite of ordinary subjects he photographs most of the time. How did he achieve a certain signature maintained through those hundreds of pictures I have seen since almost five decades? Why do they exhibit a certain wholeness, completeness that I hardly find a fault to criticise?

The first quality I was able to note was his free but ultimately disciplined vision to employ three elements in perfect harmony; subject, surrounding and timing. Subject provides with him the core of the message, the surrounding emphasizes the subject’s relationship to the forms and geometry around it from a chosen perspective to reinforce the message and these all expressed in the frame of peak moment when the involved elements formed the “optimum” which would possibly be never repeated afterwards.

We can learn a lot from HCB’s pictures however to emulate him, IMHO, is exceedingly difficult as it demands a lot of practice, dedication and enormous discipline before craving for the luck. Here is a picture from me from 1979 while I was trying to play HCB for some years, however only to give up after figuring out that it needs the constant devotion of a concert pianist; not something for an engineer like me.

6819570359_2ed4cc21c6_z.jpg
 
I've seen people try and provide this type of post-mortem analysis of HCB and others photographs a number of times, both in discussion groups and web articles like this one. What always strikes me is that the overtone always seems to suggest that the photographer in question has, in some form, this thought process happening in their head as they select and frame the images.

This analysis might disect and show the audience why the elements of the composition work together so well (even if the linkages are a little tenuous in some examples). But no one actually goes through these mental steps while framing a shot. The difference between those that consistently achieve these relationships in their images and those who struggle is no more than another way of trying to formalise the actions of people with a natural artistic talent for pulling graphical elements together as a natural course of seeing.
 
I do not do the mental steps myself, but a lot of photographers do exactly that when they compose a picture. For some, compositional rules/guidelines enable discussion of why a photograpoh works. For others, the rules/guidelines are to enable a well-composed picture before pressing the button. It takes all sorts.
 
craygc said:
This analysis might disect and show the audience why the elements of the composition work together so well (even if the linkages are a little tenuous in some examples). But no one actually goes through these mental steps while framing a shot. The difference between those that consistently achieve these relationships in their images and those who struggle is no more than another way of trying to formalise the actions of people with a natural artistic talent for pulling graphical elements together as a natural course of seeing.
Click to expand...

So long as I'm not being an utter fool and completely misreading this post I would agree with the basis of the statement above whilst not completely disregarding the overall value of this kind of article.

I struggle to imagine many photographers being able to work as quickly as is required in this area whilst drawing mental lines across a real life scene. Rather than relying on, yes talent but also, experience, training/practice (call it as you see it,) instinct and the subconscious.

Some or all of the ideas, theories, practices etc mentioned in the article may or may not have added to HCB's arsenal ( or any other photographer for that matter as these principals will apply to many images taken over the years,) but surely the application of these skills will be used in a manner more instinct ( perhaps mechanic is a better word?) than by some manner of tick list/crib sheet technique.

Whilst any innate talent may be what separates the great from the good this type of analysis, almost no matter how contrived and forced, at least makes people think about design, composition and the relationship between eye and brain. I may have smirked at times, raised an eye brow now & then or nodded in agreement whilst reading the article but it did make me stop and think. Perhaps by stopping now, thinking now, I may not have to stop and think when I have the camera to my eye....regardless of whether I use established techniques or go my own way i.e. continuing my quest to make headless people, blurred foregrounds and sharp backgrounds the new clothes of my own expanding Empire ;)
 
craygc said:
. . .But no one actually goes through these mental steps while framing a shot.
Click to expand...

Well, I certainly do not want to disagree with a person who has spoken with EVERY photographer! You MUST be right! Even though I thought I've always been very conscious of what I do, I must be wrong. . . .

Just because someone is able to respond to a situation quickly, it does not mean they aren't thinking. It's not for someone who can't do something himself to pronounce that others can't, I don't think. How presumptuous!
 
alistair.o said:
Not certain I altogether agree with you there Stewart. I am still trying to understand if it was to do with his early geometric disciplining in art class that instilled these things in him, that it became his nature.

I'm still mulling it over.
Click to expand...


I'm largely in agreement with Stewart. I think such consideration comes in at the editing stage and not at the point of taking the shot.

People tend to attribute super human abilities, such as being able instantly assess the compositional nuances of a scene, to the big names in photography. However the contact sheets I have seen (Bresson, Frank etc.) have shown them to be just as varied anybody else's.
 
Henri had artistic training from an uncle (I think) so he would know to look for geometric, and repetitive shapes to include in his photos but that's hardly a unique talent, we do it every time we go to Manchester ... and I catch Bob hanging round that fountain all the time ;)

PS yes HCB contact sheets taught me not to treat him as a god ...
 
I have been moderately successful in several artistic fields, and intimately involved with the members of a couple of others over four or five decades, and one thing I have learned is the the belief in spontaneity and intuition in the arts is the conceit of amateurs.
 
"Once asked by an interviewer for how many pictures he made per day, Cartier-Bresson countered with "How many words do you write in your notebook each day-and do you use all of them?""

I admire the photographs of James Ravilious too and examined some of his contact sheets. I found out that the matter is not how many times you "err" until getting the "hit", but being able to get it at the end; i.e. to be able to get those bunch of photos including the "one" worth to exhibit. To deal with the fractions of seconds to involve considerations on form & geometry too should certainly be more challenging than doing the same rather with static objects, like the works of Ernst Haas or Ansel Adams.
 
mdarnton said:
I have been moderately successful in several artistic fields, and intimately involved with the members of a couple of others over four or five decades, and one thing I have learned is the the belief in spontaneity and intuition in the arts is the conceit of amateurs.
Click to expand...

With respect, are you not applying a similar approach to the comment by Craycg that you took issue with earlier? Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your point or maybe I'm just naive but this appears to be a blanket statement suggesting that everyone in every artistic sphere must take a fully considered and thought out approach to every stage of their endeavours.

Whilst a musician may take months to compose a song they are then able to deviate from the 'plan' whilst playing that song live by using spontaneity and intuition? Could a painter such as Jackson Pollack be deemed to have had a reasoned and thought out philosophy behind his work whilst allowing intuition and spontaneity to play an influential part in his work? So could it not be the case that a photographer can have a clear philosophy, maybe even a plan for their days shooting yet still have room to allow their intuition to play a spontaneous part?

Perhaps I am simply naive...or dim:) I just struggle to believe that we all do everything in the same way, that things must be done in the same manner regardless of the individual or the artistic realm in which they're involved i.e. with photography I find that my thought processes are extremely different whilst trying to compose a landscape to a 'street scene.' I would suggest my street scenes are far more successful than my landscapes where I would belief my intuition plays a smaller part...though of course this may simply mean I need to think more about my landscapes:D
 
Last edited:
mdarnton said:
I have been moderately successful in several artistic fields, and intimately involved with the members of a couple of others over four or five decades, and one thing I have learned is the the belief in spontaneity and intuition in the arts is the conceit of amateurs.
Click to expand...

... well you are to be congratulated on you're moderately success, but I disagree completely with the idea that the work of HCB Capa or Szymin is anything other than spontaneous is absurd ... you'll be claiming raising the flag or the fallen soldier were staged next!
 
Sparrow said:
Henri had artistic training from an uncle (I think) so he would know to look for geometric, and repetitive shapes to include in his photos but that's hardly a unique talent, we do it every time we go to Manchester ... and I catch Bob hanging round that fountain all the time ;)

PS yes HCB contact sheets taught me not to treat him as a god ...
Click to expand...

For the sake of speed and brief explanation, here two quotes regarding HCB and his early 'training'. This is what I was refering to in geometrical terms, nout avuncular.

1. At the age of 19, Cartier-Bresson entered a private art school and the Lhote Academy, the Parisian studio of the Cubist painter and sculptor André Lhote.

2. Although Cartier-Bresson gradually began to be restless under Lhote's "rule-laden" approach to art, his rigorous theoretical training would later help him to confront and resolve problems of artistic form and composition in photography.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom