Was HCB Really "All That"???

HCB was my beginning. As a kid I got the Decisive moment and being young and impressionable spent hours deconstucting his images trying to understand why I responded to them so strongly. Didn't know he was famous or anything. Just knew the man was doing something I never saw before.

Something I wanted to be able to do.

The downside here is that I tried to shoot like HCB and it took years to get over that, both his decisive moments and his geometry.

But besides his images, that he helped create Magnum, a photographer run agency was very important.

I do find the question of 'was he a genius?' spurious. HCB was an important photographer whose work set a benchmark for many photographers. Trying to figure out if he was better than Ansel Adams or Gene Smith or whomever is really a dumb thing to do. It is so American to set up competitions and "Best of " and top 10s. Let's just be thankful that there were all of these photographers out there trying to advance photography.
 
rolleistef said:
and the real aim of Mr Nick Trop may have not been to discuss if HCB was a great photographer or not but rather to debate about Him and bring more knowledge, go back to the basis, think about it.. That's called in French a stone in the pond and is a very common university practice, for example when there first were studies about the History of Women. Somebody also lately stated that Bach didn't wrote his famous Solo Cello Suites etc.
Was it the case? If not, the result is the same anyway.
Click to expand...

Glad somebody get it around here ;) As for the undercurrent of "anger" referenced in the second post, you make more waves when you throw the stone into the pond - hard.
 
georgef said:
its the good BEER in Canada he he!

To answer the original post, HCB is one of those people for me; over the years, I have seen a number of photos that I have really been impressed by...many of these, I found out periodically, are his. I became his fan before I knew of him, if that makes sense.
Click to expand...

I wonder how many of us have formed our opinions from seeing his work online and never having seen an actual print on the wall? I'll admit that I don't get why he's "All That", but I've only seen his work online.
 
Who were the guys on the Mayflower? Why had they been outcast from Britain? Google "Cartwright" for the answer...
I like the association between "Renaissance" and "anti-intellectualism" btw ;)
 
From the bigger perspective, think of the HCB question like this.

Just for the heck of it lets look at the early 1930's.....we have two groups of people who came on the scene in this period of time and then both groups are still casting a shadow over the photograpy world today. All due to the fact that these groups were the first to gain commerical and artistic dominance. In europe we have Braassai, Doisneau, HCB, Capa, Kertesz, Sander, Eisenstaedt, Atget, Horst, R.Peter sen....Most of the bigest players were in Paris.

These guys came from Hungary, France, Germany, UK and USA, Most were all caught up some aspect of the Surrealism Fade of that time. Dali was all the rage and then some. But European taste went in a different direction from the american photographic fascination with Natural images.

Europe was at the time more interested in Street Photograpy for the most part. It seems that European artistic photography is still leaning that way today. To me that is just fine.

The USA had Weston, the F64 group, Steichen, Adams , Strand, D.Lange, M.White and many others. Who came on the scene in the 30's and 40's were almost trapped in a market where unless they were shooting to record the depression, then the only other real work was shooting the war. Most american photographers were pressed into service to do so.

So the history of differnt development paths of photograpy in the USA and Europe have been a result of how the gallery and publishers could curbe and twist development of photographers from the benefit of business of the "marketing" merchants.

That said HCB and all of the people that we now see as "idols" of photography for the intellectual art flunkies to worship. these guys did not try to emulate anyone !! As there was not photo Gods to copy ??

America's classical photography period produced one style of imagery and that imagery is still haunting the world today.....Eruope had a more divers creative system of rivers. HCB was just one guy that know what he wanted to shoot and at the time in many cases...No one else was there to document. I do not rermember Weston or Adams at Ghandi's funeral or charging around the world. So it is no wonder that many americans just do not get or understand many of the early european master of photogrpahy.

Not good or bad just different. Best Regards.....Laurance
 
larmarv916 said:
From the bigger perspective, think of the HCB question like this.

Just for the heck of it lets look at the early 1930's.....we have two groups of people who came on the scene in this period of time and then both groups are still casting a shadow over the photograpy world today. All due to the fact that these groups were the first to gain commerical and artistic dominance. In europe we have Braassai, Doisneau, HCB, Capa, Kertesz, Sander, Eisenstaedt, Atget, Horst, R.Peter sen....Most of the bigest players were in Paris.

These guys came from Hungary, France, Germany, UK and USA, Most were all caught up some aspect of the Surrealism Fade of that time. Dali was all the rage and then some. But European taste went in a different direction from the american photographic fascination with Natural images.

Europe was at the time more interested in Street Photograpy for the most part. It seems that European artistic photography is still leaning that way today. To me that is just fine.

The USA had Weston, the F64 group, Steichen, Adams , Strand, D.Lange, M.White and many others. Who came on the scene in the 30's and 40's were almost trapped in a market where unless they were shooting to record the depression, then the only other real work was shooting the war. Most american photographers were pressed into service to do so.

So the history of differnt development paths of photograpy in the USA and Europe have been a result of how the gallery and publishers could curbe and twist development of photographers from the benefit of business of the "marketing" merchants.

That said HCB and all of the people that we now see as "idols" of photography for the intellectual art flunkies to worship. these guys did not try to emulate anyone !! As there was not photo Gods to copy ??

America's classical photography period produced one style of imagery and that imagery is still haunting the world today.....Eruope had a more divers creative system of rivers. HCB was just one guy that know what he wanted to shoot and at the time in many cases...No one else was there to document. I do not rermember Weston or Adams at Ghandi's funeral or charging around the world. So it is no wonder that many americans just do not get or understand many of the early european master of photogrpahy.

Not good or bad just different. Best Regards.....Laurance
Click to expand...


Excellent read.
 
Ok...here we go again. You must just love to take things out of context. The whole thrust is that the americans and we taking different paths of creative development based on the historical conditions each was surrounded by. Second the first generation of commerically successful photographers then became the role models for which still exert excessive infulence on the marketplace today.

As they are the still considered by most historians and the publishers and gallery and the auction busines owners the masters of photography......and are the most lucrative sources of income for most of these commerically money hungry members of society.

Again out of context HCB did not feel the need to come to america to work with the most interesting photographers. His stop in america was only to support his interest in putting together a body of work that was his personal view of America. The European movement was again always moving in a direction didcated by it's own artistic desire. Marget Bourke-White as strickly a hired gun and was and is not in the class of HCB or most others. Her motivation was only driven by a sense of commerical one upmanship not an inner flame of artistic vision. Eisenstaedt had this same inner vision. MBW was not shy about her deisre to be famous. Did she do some excellent work sure but was never considered an original and best know for here work for Life shooting Aviation combat stories.

Iam oh so glad that you chose to take the bait and throw up Eugene Smith as your partron sait. Eugene Smith was as mentioned did his best work as a Navy phtographer. And was not a figure of historical importance in the time frame the was under discussion in my previous posting.

How strange again you are outside the topic and time frame under discussion. It was not until his later emergence after Korea that he became a important figure in the photographic world. The guy was great but not involved or important in the 1920' and 1930's which was the context of discussion.

It's a shame that you are not aware of the "American Classical Period" but no matter. The subject of discussion is not if you like whcih photo of Ghandi.....but rather that the infulence of early commerically successful photographers , like impressionistic painters still define and act as the standard of judgement for what is considered "excellence" for todays photographers. That was also implied in the original Thread that started some 11 pages ago.

Magnum was the source that Life went to when it wanted imagery that is now why some many issues of LIFE that are sought as collectable ars HCB, Eisenstaedt, issues. The biggest point you are working over time at missing is that European masters that came primarly from Paris and the period of the 1920's and 1930's were and are the original seed of a different school of photograpy. Different from and worlds away from the school of american scenic photogrpahy. You again are trying to make a inaccurte comparison between people who were original masters of respective schools of photogrpahy and those that followed and copied thier mentiors some 30 years later.

So that would be like comparing "Da Vinici" and "Warhol"...because they were both artists & painters !!

Also Adams, Stieglitz, Strand, and Weston, and the whole F64 gang is still the most sought after Amerian work at the gallerys and the auction houses. I think you need to contact Christies. If you still not sure of the effects that these early masters take a look at the auction of the entire Adams Print collection offered recently. I personally like Smith very much but.....it is clear that his legacy will be minimal at best. Why? He was not part of the original early masters who set the stage and stylistic molds for the rest to follow.

If he had been a commerical success in the 1920' or 1930's then his name would be mentioned in the same breath as Stteglitz, Strand, HCB, Brassai, Eisenstaedt. The context of my post had nothing to do with your personal perferences. Surpirse. But different direction of creative development Europe and America took during the same period. Also how commerical success twists the development of photographers past and present.

The context is the development period of 1920's and 1930's and infulence of dominance of people of HCB and others over us now some 80-90 years later. Not about who was our perosnal favorites of "all time".

Regards......Laurance
 
Last edited:
Anti intellectualism is not a purely American matter. It's just that you can see anti intellectualism popularized by American popular culture. In Austria we have very often a reaction like "Do I have to know that ?!"when you mention "Oh Kurt Vonnegut just died". It has also become quite fashionable to say "The kids shouldn´t learn Shakespeare in school teach them how to prepare their documents for the IRS.....Interestingly those teachers who were committed and taught Shakespeare were the same who gave good insight in practical questions.
To me Nicks question was a valid one. I remembered how every artist/painter/author/photographer can be made somhow "uninteresting": just declare him a classic! It's as if you cut her/him out of the stream of development. There the classics spend their existence standing isolated like monuments.
 
Last edited:
Just to clarify my post:
Spider67 said:
Anti intellectualism is not a purely American matter.
Click to expand...
Obviously. I underline a very particular link between "political" anti-intellectualism in the USA and the "puritan" tradition. If you take other examples, Italy or France, you'll have to make a different approach to political anti-intellectualism (you cannot derive it from puritanism or even a religious tradition, but from counter-revolution populism, in the case of France) ... and unfortunately, French citizens and Italian citizens are more and more anti-intellectual ... their vote speaks for them.
Marc
PS: in France, now, if you defend human rights you're immediately considered an intellectual living in rich areas ... "les intellectuels de Saint-Germain-des près ..." Next we have barbarism and everybody's happy about that.
 
larmarv916 said:
Ok...here we go again. You must just love to take things out of context. The whole thrust is that the americans and we taking different paths of creative development based on the historical conditions each was surrounded by. Second the first generation of commerically successful photographers then became the role models for which still exert excessive infulence on the marketplace today.

As they are the still considered by most historians and the publishers and gallery and the auction busines owners the masters of photography......and are the most lucrative sources of income for most of these commerically money hungry members of society.

Again out of context HCB did not feel the need to come to america to work with the most interesting photographers. His stop in america was only to support his interest in putting together a body of work that was his personal view of America. The European movement was again always moving in a direction didcated by it's own artistic desire. Marget Bourke-White as strickly a hired gun and was and is not in the class of HCB or most others. Her motivation was only driven by a sense of commerical one upmanship not an inner flame of artistic vision. Eisenstaedt had this same inner vision. MBW was not shy about her deisre to be famous. Did she do some excellent work sure but was never considered an original and best know for here work for Life shooting Aviation combat stories.

Iam oh so glad that you chose to take the bait and throw up Eugene Smith as your partron sait. Eugene Smith was as mentioned did his best work as a Navy phtographer. And was not a figure of historical importance in the time frame the was under discussion in my previous posting.

How strange again you are outside the topic and time frame under discussion. It was not until his later emergence after Korea that he became a important figure in the photographic world. The guy was great but not involved or important in the 1920' and 1930's which was the context of discussion.

It's a shame that you are not aware of the "American Classical Period" but no matter. The subject of discussion is not if you like whcih photo of Ghandi.....but rather that the infulence of early commerically successful photographers , like impressionistic painters still define and act as the standard of judgement for what is considered "excellence" for todays photographers. That was also implied in the original Thread that started some 11 pages ago.

Magnum was the source that Life went to when it wanted imagery that is now why some many issues of LIFE that are sought as collectable ars HCB, Eisenstaedt, issues. The biggest point you are working over time at missing is that European masters that came primarly from Paris and the period of the 1920's and 1930's were and are the original seed of a different school of photograpy. Different from and worlds away from the school of american scenic photogrpahy. You again are trying to make a inaccurte comparison between people who were original masters of respective schools of photogrpahy and those that followed and copied thier mentiors some 30 years later.

So that would be like comparing "Da Vinici" and "Warhol"...because they were both artists & painters !!

Also Adams, Stieglitz, Strand, and Weston, and the whole F64 gang is still the most sought after Amerian work at the gallerys and the auction houses. I think you need to contact Christies. If you still not sure of the effects that these early masters take a look at the auction of the entire Adams Print collection offered recently. I personally like Smith very much but.....it is clear that his legacy will be minimal at best. Why? He was not part of the original early masters who set the stage and stylistic molds for the rest to follow.

If he had been a commerical success in the 1920' or 1930's then his name would be mentioned in the same breath as Stteglitz, Strand, HCB, Brassai, Eisenstaedt. The context of my post had nothing to do with your personal perferences. Surpirse. But different direction of creative development Europe and America took during the same period. Also how commerical success twists the development of photographers past and present.

The context is the development period of 1920's and 1930's and infulence of dominance of people of HCB and others over us now some 80-90 years later. Not about who was our perosnal favorites of "all time".

Regards......Laurance
Click to expand...

Eugene Smith perfected the photo-essay method of photography and coverage of a "story" by photographs - and not just any photographs but stunning photographs meticulously printed. He did not care about photographing for news, his main interest was telling a story and his photo essays are the standard even today for documentary photographers. He also cared for people that he photographed, unlike HCB who's main concern was the beauty of the composition... He was also a complete photographer, he shot, edited and printed his own work.

I know this is not the subject of the thread and your posts to say who's better but it is always preferable to get one's facts right.

Smith is a true giant in documentary photography and his true successor is Salgado.
 
Nh3 said:
Smith is a true giant in documentary photography and his true successor is Salgado.
Click to expand...
Ehm, and how many contemporary documentary photographers other than Salgado you know? On what scale and metric Salgado work is better and more important than say, Jim Nachtwey?

Not to say that Salgado is not a top photographer, but the whole idea of comparing them like high school cheerleaders is ridiculous. Beyond certain level of social (or artistic) contribution talking about importance gets pretty meaningless, and there are dozens of working photographers in that league.
 
I keep writing paragraph after paragraph trying to put into words how I feel about this topic and it all keeps coming back to this. If the man took those photos he's famous for taking, then he deserves whatever fame comes of it, whether you like his photos or not. This is art. There is no simple checklist to decide what's good. And none of us have any authority to decide other people's opinions for them. He's famous because people like his work. That doesn't make him better than someone you might prefer, but it might make him more popular. I've never been one to care too much about popular opinion, and I would assume that is true of most of the B&W film shooting, camera porn looking, EBL measuring folks on RFF. So, what are we trying to figure out?

Paul

PS. Picasso sucks.
 
varjag said:
Not to say that Salgado is not a top photographer, but the whole idea of comparing them like high school cheerleaders is ridiculous. Beyond certain level of social (or artistic) contribution talking about importance gets pretty meaningless, and there are dozens of working photographers in that league.
Click to expand...

I do agree with you. (Though I'm not sure that they are "dozens" of photographers in the Salgado's or Smith's or Nachtwey's league. But my knowledge is very limited, so I can't argue). Comparing and, even worse, ranking those photographers seems a silly venture.
We are like dwarves trying to measure giants with our thumbs.
Marc
 
Obviously there is something undefineble and magical about the best of Bresson's work. Jeez, just look at the photos! The mysterious thing is how he managed to compose some of his best shots by utilizing every centimeter of the frame, and this w/ a RF camera. Not sure how he did that. No one cares about his life. It's the photos, get it? Well, either you do, or you don't.
 
photophorous said:
Picasso sucks.
Click to expand...

here I see no smile so I assume here is a successor of younger newer anti-intellectual generation, something like a new mentality, developed by our local media, television. I couldn't say that Simpsons (animated series) is much worser than Picasso but I see this as a magnificent art piece of American culture. Yeah, animated series can be art too. People will appreciate Simpsons after 200-300 years. That new TV world is soon emerging to internet which is full of such words as ROFL, WTF and you still get quality time :) LOL ROFL MAO
 
Well...the acution list is interesting but NOT conclusive of a Trend. ther have been numerious time when people like Steichen,Weston, Adams and others from the early masters group, have established new records of acution purchase prices during the last 50+ years. Maybe these items you listed were purchased by only american buyers or not. Which again was the context of the remark. Sure there will be prints that sell of amazing amounts of money, like a recording artist who has 1 hit or is a fade for short time and thenifades in to the background.

The early Master mentioned my oringal post have a really long trackrecord of success which is why they exert so much infulence in the future.

.....But, the original point of the "my" original post was pointing out the reason "why" european and american early master photgraphers of the 20's and 30"s went different paths for creative development and also today exert overwhelming infuence in the market and development of photographers today. As a adjunct to understand why many people do not understand or apperciate HCB.

Also just as many europeans do not understand the most american artists and photographers. So there are a lot of people who do not get influence some american photogrpahers.....the flip side to the HCB question that startd the this thread.

Remeber that when Capa reached out to help HCB...his advice was "tell them your a photojournalist" otherwise you be trapped with the labe as that "little surrealist photographer" Which is what he did....iin reality he keep on shooting what was of interest to him. Not the art directors of Life and many other publications were in love with the images that he chose to create.....Sure they offerend him a chance to do things he wanted, but only if it fit his self defined artistic desire.

Everyone has some early master that still infulences our own work today.....inspiration mentor. For myself I never looked at photography as the origin of my creative drive. Only as a way to save something I wanted to draw or paint. My own images today still do not reach my artisitc goals. Missing the mark...but closer than many years ago. Do I want to make imiatation images like modern "want-2 be" members of the long dead F64 club....No. Nor do I want to imitate HCB, Brassai, Doisneau, Hass and may others.....No But I still have to deal with the gallery and publishing industry that is asking for image that remind them of Weston, Adams, HCB, Brassai, Dosineau and many other early masters. HCB would be amazed or embarssed by the excessive imitation or gushing the Art fulnkies exhibit over his work. the greater issue...he never wanted to be anyone favorite photographer.

Regards.....Laurance

That has always been only the actual " topic ".
 
Last edited:
If memory serves, Cindy Sherman sold her Untitled stills series for a million bucks to a museum that escapes my mind...to add to list posted above.
 
This thread is great. There's a couple of year's worth of entries to Pseud's Corner here at the very least. I haven't read such splendidly sweeping and ill-informed generalisations or pure puffery in many a long day. My thanks to those who have taken the time to make sensible contributions and indeed to those who have provided, as usual, so many unintended laughs.

Regards,

Bill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom