Was HCB Really "All That"???

[VinceC]

> know that he had to stick the lens through a fence and also the part cropped is basically black - he did not crop any visible part of the picture which had detail.

I don't think it diminishes from the impact of that photo... It was not as a bad as i thought. <

The photograph of the man jumping over the puddle was taken in 1932, using probably a Leica I -- crummy viewfinder by later standards, no rangefinder. I don't think that, using such a camera, you could assert that you would never crop. Later, with improved viewfinders, when you had years and decades of learning your lenses, you could make a decision in your work to not crop. But with a Leica in 1932, early in your career, it wasn't always easy to predict exactly what would be on the negative.

 

[two40]

A while ago someone posted this HCB photo on DPC and it got really bad votes and comments. As soon as the 'HCB' name wasn't attached to a photo the regular punters of the site, who consist of rather high quality photographers, didn't rate it at all. Someone did reckognise it and a mass edit of comments followed.

 

[antiquark]

Haha, sounds like a similar story to the infamous HCB "DeleteMe" thread. The comments that follow are hilarious:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/andrerabelo/70458366

 

[Matthew Allen]

A while ago someone posted this HCB photo on DPC and it got really bad votes and comments. As soon as the 'HCB' name wasn't attached to a photo the regular punters of the site, who consist of rather high quality photographers, didn't rate it at all. Someone did reckognise it and a mass edit of comments followed.

I assume you've all seen this - probably the single funniest TOP post ever - but it bears reposting:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Matthew

 

[white.elephant]

I say you allege to like the work of HCB mainly because you're expected to like HCB. His work has taken on a mythology, has a halo effect. Much of its appeal has to do with the film (black and white) and era (France, decades ago) it was shot and the fact he shot with a Leica. I think if I plucked some interesting black and white stuff from RFF, you would praise it because you thought it was HCB. I think "the decisive moment" is overstating something painfully obvious.

Look, I have no way to defend what I'm about to say, but . . .

I never studied the History of Photography. My long-held passion for photography recently rekindled (six months ago or so). In March, the Bravo cable network had a week-long series of specials on photographers. Newton, Mapplethorpe (sp?) and HCB, among others. Now I knew of HCB, but I can't say I ever closely looked at his work. I mainly knew the well-known landscape photographers. Street photographers had never captured my attention. I say all this as a way of stating that, until I saw that HCB special on Bravo, I was fairly unaware of HCB and his reputation.

I saw the special and came away impressed with the man. His photos were nice, sure, but the man and his thought process impressed me.

The next time I went into a Borders, I looked for a book of his work. I found a big one, sat down in a chair, and looked through it.

Page after page after page after page of brilliant images. Uncropped, as others in this thread have mentioned. Images that leapt off the page. One after another. Holy smoke.

Look, his reputation meant nothing to me. Nada. But after looking through this volume of work, I don't care what equipment he had or how much money his family had or how many rolls of film he had to shoot to get those images, they moved me greatly. Made me care about 'street photography' in a way I never thought of before. Made me want to try it.

Was he a great artist? Look, if you watch the Charlie Rose episode (you can find it on You Tube), cartier-Bresson himself denies he is a great artist.

But did he take many, many amazing images? In this man's opinion, absolutely.

 

[M. Valdemar]

So you think Borders is a public library? Buy the book, Mr. Cheap Charlie.

 

[jan normandale]

So you think Borders is a public library? Buy the book, Mr. Cheap Charlie.

Nice comment. I guess you have never, ever in your entire life looked at a book or magazine and put it down and walked out. C'mon this is just a photography forum. Isn't it?

It's definitely OT and it's personal. Have a coffee.

 

[NickTrop]

Look...,
But did he take many, many amazing images? In this man's opinion, absolutely.

You're allowed to like HCB. My intent wasn't to diss the guy. My questions were, hey - the guy got to do what few (if any) can do, run around and take a ton of pictures with black and white film loaded into his Leica. If you were in a position to do that for your entire life, wouldn't you have a pretty nice portfolio at the end of the day (life) too? If you were born in to wealth and got to fish out on a lake every day of your life you'd be a pretty damned good fisherman over time, and catch quite a few big ones. If that were the case, would you deserve icon status as a fisherman?

Many popular artists develop a "halo effect" and a mythology around them and you're "expected" to hold them in icon status if you're interested in painting, music, art, photography - etc. How much of his appeal is because you're genuinely moved by his work, and how much is it because it's a requisite expectation if you're "in to" a particular art form? Are you being intellectually honest?

People talk about "the decisive moment" like it's something deep. Nice catch-phrase, but is it really all that meaningful? Isn't this overstating something obvious? Sartre it ain't imo.
|

 

[M. Valdemar]

I guess jokes need smiley faces and disclaimers these days.

 

[Ororaro]

I guess jokes need smiley faces and disclaimers these days.

In case you didn't know, you always sound sarcastic. So yes, smileys would be helpful in your case, I guess.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Short answer:

HCB wasn't "all that". He was "some of it"; the important parts.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

His work should stand for itself.

You either like it or you don't.

Why so many knock him for being a "rich kid" I"ll never understand.

Exactly. Also, the "rich kid" part (while I myself can't possibly relate to one --yet :wink wink:--) just underscores the knocker's insecurities (among possibly other things). You'd have to take that silly argument further to say that "rich kid"s are expected to have their works perceived as great works just because they're "rich kid"s.

Anybody who's been aware of the current "mortgage crisis" can see that what most of them touch turn into ***-***, and expect the government to bail them out at the proletariat's expense.

The whole class-ification is pointless, inane and completely missing the point they're missing.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

I can't type "p00-p00"? F@rk.

 

[Nh3]

You're allowed to like HCB. My intent wasn't to diss the guy. My questions were, hey - the guy got to do what few (if any) can do, run around and take a ton of pictures with black and white film loaded into his Leica. If you were in a position to do that for your entire life, wouldn't you have a pretty nice portfolio at the end of the day (life) too? If you were born in to wealth and got to fish out on a lake every day of your life you'd be a pretty damned good fisherman over time, and catch quite a few big ones. If that were the case, would you deserve icon status as a fisherman?

Many popular artists develop a "halo effect" and a mythology around them and you're "expected" to hold them in icon status if you're interested in painting, music, art, photography - etc. How much of his appeal is because you're genuinely moved by his work, and how much is it because it's a requisite expectation if you're "in to" a particular art form? Are you being intellectually honest?

People talk about "the decisive moment" like it's something deep. Nice catch-phrase, but is it really all that meaningful? Isn't this overstating something obvious? Sartre it ain't imo.
|

Well, you finally had to mention Sartre in your post. That was a total give away.


Ironically, you're trying to be cool for throwing rocks at a photography icon. You think just because everyone loves HCB, then by arguing that he was not "all that" (which is a meaningless phrase invented by bubble-headed teenage girls with no vocubalry) you could feel like a rebel and someone who thinks outside the herd.

I also don't understand why everyone feel the need to post here justifying that HCB was really "all that".

 

[Al Patterson]

I can't type "p00-p00"? F@rk.

You just gotta love the word filter here...

 

[Pablito]

My intent wasn't to diss the guy.
|

I guess "diss" was a "joke" then....

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=811157&postcount=13

.......yawn.........

 

[dll927]

The main result of this thread is to show how many different opinions there can be on a subject.

HCB was not the first and only spoiled brat born into humanity. And a lot of them probably had a lot less influence. Both Ansel Adams and Edward Weston lived in Carmel, CA, which is not exactly a low-income burg.

True enough, with enough shutter clicking, one is bound to come up with some worthwhile pictures. Getting them published may be another story. But it's probably also true that in his time there weren't many around doing what he did. And I doubt that 'large-format' guys could be called street photgraphers, if indeed that's what HCB was. So Brassai, et. al, worked in a somewhat different melieu.

He was notoriously publicity-shy, claiming that he didn't want to be recognized. Yet he largely stayed away from telephoto lenses, which don't work terribly well on Leicas anyway. He was quoted as saying that the 90mm lens was the lens that "shortened the foreground", so he wasn't spying on anyone.

Whose "favorite photographer" he was or wasn't is probably totally beside the point.

 

[chikne]

I assume you've all seen this - probably the single funniest TOP post ever - but it bears reposting:

http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/2006/06/great-photographers-on-internet.html

Matthew

Hilarious!!

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Oy. V. G.

 

[ferider]

Dude was born way wealthy in France. Of course, he didn't actually have to do anything useful for a living so he studied art. Gave him a good handle on composition - sorta like David Lynch and other film directors who first study painting and art. Due to his family wealth, did the kinda "cool" (but unuseful things) trust fund babies get to do - get "involved" with "art movements", hook up with "intellectuals", read Heart of Darkness - jaunts off to Africa for a while...

Your "wealthy Dude" also spent 3 years in a POW camp and joined the French Resistance afterwards. His photos that impressed me most were taken at the end of WWII.