Harry Lime
Practitioner
Sometimes a certain amount of knowledge and insight is needed to understand something that otherwise does not seem all that impressive or important.
chikne
Well-known
I'd like to say something like "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" except I suspect I might not, which may well be a problemHow can I photograph it if I don't recognise it?
For myself, I tend to be quite simple-minded about it (to the small extent I think about it at all). Something like "when all the key elements in the scene come into the right arrangement". This can be very simple-minded indeed. In a sporting scene "when the player catches the ball" might do it. Or, say, when someone walks into the right spot by a sign. Or when the geometry just looks right (or, at least, how I want it). Maybe there's something super-complex in the concept but, for now, I'm happy enough with my own "Idiot's Guide" simplification. YMMV.
...Mike
It's OK, and that simply translates to a well composed picture, which sounds like something anyone can do or learn how to do, not some magic superpower rhetoric!
Last edited:
Charlie Lemay
Well-known
Koudelka obviously stands on HCB's shoulders, but IMO Koudelka is way taller.
chikne
Well-known
morgan
Well-known
This is an odd thread. Frankly Nick, comparing HCB to digital photographers is like comparing Interpol to Joy Division. Most progression in the arts is based upon previous work and it's the ability to create in a relative vacuum that to me shows originality. Interpol (and all those other 80's bands) just knocked off and built on Joy Divisions original sound. There's a reason his work has stood up over time, and perhaps a lot of it has to do with the time/place context in which he worked. You're comparing apples to oranges. I like HCB, but not sure he'd be my favorite from the time period (Capa earns that). But Nick, you seem to be bitter and angry over HCB's success. If you think you can do better, go ahead.
furcafe
Veteran
jespin00
Newbie
Now NickTrop, I see you congratulating someone for being intellectually honest. And to also have understood the "RFF-style photography" (whatever that means, im sure you'll give us a rant eventually)
Notice he shares the same opinion as yourself.
Were there not people here on this thread who have been intellectually honest as well? Wasn't that all you were looking for when you started this thread? Was it ego? I look at your display picture and I see someone whose just angry with no clear direction or output, so why not pick on an artist like Henri Cartier Bresson. I mean, why not! It'll stir things up! If we can do it to George W. Bush, Charles Bukowski, Picasso, Van Gogh, Jack Kerouac and the girl nextdoor, we could do it for anybody!
So you post, and then you sit and wait. You cause a hurricane of a thread and you sit. You reply, playing as if the least ignorant person on this thread, this forum, this life
is yourself and oh, of course, CK Dexter Haven. But I wonder, why should I even care? He's just a guy with a laptop talking to another guy with a laptop. But this whole talk about congratulating someone for being honest.... SO intellectually honest you'll invite him in a metaphorical club has got me urked.
You talk about the "Halo Effect", marketing, Frank Zappa.
From the looks of it, you're no better than the Frank Zappa fans after all.
Now I've been reading the this whole thread from Page 1 to this Page and i'm excited to see what Nick Trop will say(which will inevitably leave to more pages). Now people are going to bitch because HBC came from a well off family and were given more opportunities to take photos, especially around the world. Any case, given that privilege who here in this forum would turn that down? Some people have money, some people don't, yet we all seem to inevitably die?
His type photography dealt with living. So while you guys reply to this thread, I'll be out taking photos.
williams473
Well-known
Generally people or things that aren't all they are cracked up to be are shown to be farces in time, like the pogo stick In this case Cartier-Bresson's work has stood the test of time, and will continue to do so. His work is part of the collection of great Western Art photography and isn't going anywhere. So people can tear him down and wonder why it is a guy can get so much acclaim, but it's for a reason. Time has shown that. If someone doesn't connect with his work - who cares? Henri certainly doesn't, being 6 feet under and all.
In this case Cartier-Bresson's work has stood the test of time, and will continue to do so. His work is part of the collection of great Western Art photography and isn't going anywhere. So people can tear him down and wonder why it is a guy can get so much acclaim, but it's for a reason. Time has shown that. If someone doesn't connect with his work - who cares? Henri certainly doesn't, being 6 feet under and all.
Last edited:
Nando
Well-known
In reply to the original post, what trollish bull****! Whether or not one likes Henri Cartier-Bresson's work, why disrespect him as a photographer and as a human being? Pierre Assouline's biography of HCB provides a lot of insight about this man and life that he lead. HCB's life was not always rosey.
Last edited:
jan normandale
Film is the other way
This is a pretty good thread and a lot of people I like are here, Nick, antiq, Fred, Rich, Steamer, Keith, Christoph, Harry L. I also think that most of the artists here that are being slammed are good. As bobbyrab said in this thread, sometimes you come back and what never made sense does make sense or as Fred/Nikon said an “ah ha” moment.
I know many of these names but have not delved into their work for various reasons however I will. I know some will not be for me others will. I also know that in 5 years some of the ones I like won’t interest me and ones I dismissed I’ll probably find interesting.
Trying to “get it” by knocking someone down who has a big reputation won’t provide an insight to make better photographs. I’ve seen people spend tons of money on equipment and they make better photos technically however the still “don’t get it” I’ve seen people pick up pinholes, jump to busted cameras, grab a Leica , move to a folder and then use a disposable. They consistently get shots that show they have a perception and skill many don’t.
We all recognize those people. Just go through RFF’s galleries you can see the ones who are consistent. They may miss the ball on occasion but they are consistent shooters who know what and how to shoot when the see it. HCB and Leibowitz annoy me on a personal level however I would carry their camera equipment for a day if I had the chance. Some people can change things and when it’s over people look back and say “what’s the big deal, anyone could do that”. Imagine what the world was before the Cubists existed. Now people incorporate this in their work and no one even thinks about it. But the “first guy” is not always the one to get the fame. Picasso was famous for appropriation of other artists ideas. This dilutes and muddies the water over time so lay people don’t understand what is happening, however people in the mainstream or academics do.
Most of the names thrown out in this thread deserve to be here for different reasons but they do deserve their reputation and to be recognized.
BTW Fred..on the NYFA, that sucks. Better luck next year
I know many of these names but have not delved into their work for various reasons however I will. I know some will not be for me others will. I also know that in 5 years some of the ones I like won’t interest me and ones I dismissed I’ll probably find interesting.
Trying to “get it” by knocking someone down who has a big reputation won’t provide an insight to make better photographs. I’ve seen people spend tons of money on equipment and they make better photos technically however the still “don’t get it” I’ve seen people pick up pinholes, jump to busted cameras, grab a Leica , move to a folder and then use a disposable. They consistently get shots that show they have a perception and skill many don’t.
We all recognize those people. Just go through RFF’s galleries you can see the ones who are consistent. They may miss the ball on occasion but they are consistent shooters who know what and how to shoot when the see it. HCB and Leibowitz annoy me on a personal level however I would carry their camera equipment for a day if I had the chance. Some people can change things and when it’s over people look back and say “what’s the big deal, anyone could do that”. Imagine what the world was before the Cubists existed. Now people incorporate this in their work and no one even thinks about it. But the “first guy” is not always the one to get the fame. Picasso was famous for appropriation of other artists ideas. This dilutes and muddies the water over time so lay people don’t understand what is happening, however people in the mainstream or academics do.
Most of the names thrown out in this thread deserve to be here for different reasons but they do deserve their reputation and to be recognized.
BTW Fred..on the NYFA, that sucks. Better luck next year
williams473
Well-known
Funny how people can also accuse a photographer like Leibowitz of being a "sellout" or whatever, and yet the only work they see of these artists is in mainstream publications - so maybe she's not selling out - maybe your taste in photography is just owned by one or two publishers. Like Leibowitz never did anything other than Rolling Stone. Like she doesn't have boxes of prints from her life we've never seen. Gimme a break.
And this kind of post uncovers another pet peev of mine - How many artists complain about how hard it is to make a living as an artist, but then tear the ones who WORK hard enough to make it to shreds? It honestly hurts the insulter more than the insulted, but it still amazes me.
And this kind of post uncovers another pet peev of mine - How many artists complain about how hard it is to make a living as an artist, but then tear the ones who WORK hard enough to make it to shreds? It honestly hurts the insulter more than the insulted, but it still amazes me.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
But I actually LIKE Zappa. HCB, well I don't "get" his stuff, but the catch phrase "the decisive moment", THAT was brilliant.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Maybe.
I liked Citizen Kane a lot. It IS a great film. But, if I just want to watch a film I like, it would be "Blade Runner". Ridley Scoot is a true genius. After all, he did do the "1984" Apple commercial...
Dave Wilkinson
Veteran
Was HCB really 'all that ' ???
- he must have been, Nick!....he did it all without a Yashica 'Electro' GT
- he must have been, Nick!....he did it all without a Yashica 'Electro' GT
V
varjag
Guest
Dunno about Citizen Kane, but that Battleship Potemkin thing was really cheesy. I mean, that stroller-down-the-steps thing is really overdone, cliche and not as nice as in The Untouchables anyway.
BigSteveG
Well-known
HCB is far from my favorite photog. I do like some of his images. He did contrubute to the medium in a great and meaningful way by promoting the "street" genre.
bobbyrab
Well-known
With regards Annie Liebovitz, part of her talent is having a personality and reputation that gives her access to some of the worlds most popular entertainers, politicians, and cultural Icons as subjects for her portraits. They seem to be very willing to do her bidding in order to get the images and even if you don't rate her as a photographer, you have to take your hat off to her for achieving what she has, I can't think of anyone else who has engineered that kind of access for themselves. Much as I like her work, I prefer the work of Jane Bowen who usually has ten minutes with an Olympus and a 50mm lens, and on a good day a window. Horses for courses.
sjones
Established
So just to clarify, denouncing something simply because of the 'hype' it may attract, whether intentional or not, is considered "intellectually honest"?
Florian1234
it's just hide and seek
Well, for me he certainly made some great photos.
But surely there's a myth around him. On the other hand - doesn't this make it more fascinating? You don't know exactly how he worked out with a certain photo that you like. Thus it is even maybe a bit harder to try yourself to shoot this kind of style.
If you see his contacts (we had that topic a while ago, I think) which one usually does not, because a contact is the "secret" of the photog., then you might get better into how he worked.
In the end I would say: Do your own thing, but you can - of course - admire the work of others, among them also HCB.
For me personally: I like his work, and I like some parts of his character. Certainly not all parts.
As for the "hype" thing: I think on the one hand side there's this "past is more interesting" factor, yes. But there are a lot of people out there (also posting here) who do amazing shots right now, also "street"-style or reportage. But there are tons of more rather "boring" shots, too. It is, generally speaking, the fact that the societies change in how they look at photos. This look will change as it changes.
Hope this makes sense.
But surely there's a myth around him. On the other hand - doesn't this make it more fascinating? You don't know exactly how he worked out with a certain photo that you like. Thus it is even maybe a bit harder to try yourself to shoot this kind of style.
If you see his contacts (we had that topic a while ago, I think) which one usually does not, because a contact is the "secret" of the photog., then you might get better into how he worked.
In the end I would say: Do your own thing, but you can - of course - admire the work of others, among them also HCB.
For me personally: I like his work, and I like some parts of his character. Certainly not all parts.
As for the "hype" thing: I think on the one hand side there's this "past is more interesting" factor, yes. But there are a lot of people out there (also posting here) who do amazing shots right now, also "street"-style or reportage. But there are tons of more rather "boring" shots, too. It is, generally speaking, the fact that the societies change in how they look at photos. This look will change as it changes.
Hope this makes sense.
Bnack
Established
I hope this isn't too much of a digression... but in regards to the trust fund baby comments. Charles Darwin came from a privileged family and was able to spend his life on a boat researching whatever he felt like, and he had countless hours on the boat to sit and write, or philosophize about the world and science. I don't think his discoveries are at all diminished because he had the time and resources to do what others did not.