Bresson in Italy

[nikos79]

This weekend, I came across a new book, *Bresson in Italy*. Bresson is one of my favorite photographers—not only for his images but also for his thoughts on photographic art, which I deeply admire. However, as I flipped through the book, I couldn’t help but feel that most of the photographs were quite mediocre.

What struck me even more was the contrast between Bresson’s own philosophy and the modern tendency of curators to endlessly "milk the cow." Bresson once said:

"For us, there are two stages of selection and, consequently, two possible disappointments. The first comes when we confront reality through the viewfinder. The second, when the images are developed, and we are forced to part with those that, while correct, are ultimately less powerful."*

Yet, looking at this book, it seems that today's curators have abandoned this principle entirely.

 

[cliveh]

Can you illustrate your statement with some example pictures?

 

[nikos79]

I’ll try to find some examples, but I already have a striking case in mind from another book. There are two photographs Bresson took in Spain—one of which was his clear choice, while the other was set aside and forgotten. Yet, years later, curators decided to bring the discarded image back into circulation.

 

[nikos79]

It's difficult to find these photos, as they were mostly unearthed from his negatives specifically for this book.

 

[cliveh]

I’ll try to find some examples, but I already have a striking case in mind from another book. There are two photographs Bresson took in Spain—one of which was his clear choice, while the other was set aside and forgotten. Yet, years later, curators decided to bring the discarded image back into circulation.

The one Bresson chose was the one on the left. The one on the right is crap. If the curators decided to bring the discarded image/s back, it is probably because they are trying to make money out of it, which is completely unethical and certainly not what HCB would have wanted..

 

[nikos79]

The one Bresson chose was the one on the left. The one on the right is crap. If the curators decided to bring the discarded image/s back, it is probably because they are trying to make money out of it, which is completely unethical.

Totally agree. In the book there were many similar examples of such photos he discarded himself.

 

[cliveh]

How's this for controlling perspective to create a composition with a 50mm lens.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I’ll try to find some examples, but I already have a striking case in mind from another book. There are two photographs Bresson took in Spain—one of which was his clear choice, while the other was set aside and forgotten. Yet, years later, curators decided to bring the discarded image back into circulation.

You have to check your facts. These images were not "brought back into circulation" by curators — whoever they are. They were published during Cartier-Bresson's life time, i.e., with his permission. I believe it was in a volume called Scrapbook — I don't have that book, so I'd have to check at the library. The scrapbook is a reproduction of the album he brought with him to New York after the war, when MoMA did an exhibit of his works.

As for these "curators" you mention, note that nothing published during his lifetime was done without his permission. After his death, his second wife, Martine Franck, became responsible for publications. This now falls into the hands of the Henri Cartier-Bresson Foundation, which follows his indications as to which of his works are published, and how.

Nothing is left to the whim of anonymous "curators."

Question unrelated to your post: why do you keep calling him "Bresson," here and elsewhere, when his actual name is "Cartier-Bresson" ?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I’ll try to find some examples, but I already have a striking case in mind from another book. There are two photographs Bresson took in Spain—one of which was his clear choice, while the other was set aside and forgotten. Yet, years later, curators decided to bring the discarded image back into circulation.

I checked, these two photos are indeed part of the Scrapbook, the book in which Cartier-Bresson had assembled (actually glued to the pages) 200 photos of his that he brought to New York for his MoMA retrospective.

Cartier-Bresson, as Martine Franck noted, cared very much for this Scrapbook and kept is with him until late in life.

The one Bresson chose was the one on the left. The one on the right is crap. If the curators decided to bring the discarded image/s back, it is probably because they are trying to make money out of it, which is completely unethical and certainly not what HCB would have wanted..

These photos were never "set aside and forgotten." That he included more than one "version" of the scene indicates that he saw all of them as a possible subject for exposition. So we may think the second photo is "crap," Cartier-Bresson certainly deemed it good enough to be shown MoMA.

 

[MattKing]

Question unrelated to your post: why do you keep calling him "Bresson," here and elsewhere, when his actual name is "Cartier-Bresson" ?

+1
Bresson was a French film director.

 

[nikos79]

I checked, these two photos are indeed part of the Scrapbook, the book in which Cartier-Bresson had assembled (actually glued to the pages) 200 photos of his that he brought to New York for his MoMA retrospective.

Cartier-Bresson, as Martine Franck noted, cared very much for this Scrapbook and kept is with him until late in life.



These photos were never "set aside and forgotten." That he included more than one "version" of the scene indicates that he saw all of them as a possible subject for exposition. So we may think the second photo is "crap," Cartier-Bresson certainly deemed it good enough to be shown MoMA.

The second photo isn’t "crap" but it’s definitely weaker. Perhaps I misremembered this particular case, having seen both images some time ago. However, the new book undeniably contains photos I had never seen before. And yes, he is HCB—but when you say "Bresson" in photography, I think everyone gets the point! I just tend to refer to surnames out of habit.

 

[nikos79]

How's this for controlling perspective to create a composition with a 50mm lens.

View attachment 395235

Brilliant

 

[koraks]

The second photo isn’t "crap" but it’s definitely weaker.

OK, please help me see how it is 'definitely weaker'. I'd like to learn. It would help me if you could guide me through the objective laws & legislation of what constitutes a Good Photograph.

All facetiousness aside, I don't agree. I feel both compositions have stronger and weaker points. I would not go so far as to say that either version is clearly better. Personally, when it comes to composition, I have a slight preference for the second version, although I can see why the first image initially made it to the cuts and the second didn't. Some of this may have to do with the action itself, some of it may be due to what was fashionable at the time, image-wise.

What irks me, and I offer this for your consideration @nikos79, is when people say things like "definitively". What this usually means is that they feel a certain way and they have no really good arguments to substantiate that feeling, so they resort to using this sort of hyperbole to stress the point. I challenge you to replace the 'definitively' with an actual argumentation for your observation. In this, I imagine that the conclusion will involve that this assessment is at least to an extent subjective - which is fine. But then, at least, it will no longer be a quasi-objective and faux-universal conclusion that's stated with misguided aplomb, but a position in what might be a constructive debate on how images work, what cultural, subjective and perhaps also biological/neurological factors influence our preferences of some images over others, and questions of how form and content interact. Personally, I would find that sort of exchange a whole lot more interesting than reading how some guy on the internet tells me that A or B is "definitely" better or worse than C. That doesn't tell me much, except for perhaps a lack of ability or willingness to involve others in one's reasoning - a tendency which is all too easily mistaken for an attempt to autocratically raise a normative judgement to a universal dogma. I'm sure that's not what you meant, and you might want to avoid the criticism and backlash that the impression of such a motive might generate.

 

[nikos79]

OK, please help me see how it is 'definitely weaker'. I'd like to learn. It would help me if you could guide me through the objective laws & legislation of what constitutes a Good Photograph.

All facetiousness aside, I don't agree. I feel both compositions have stronger and weaker points. I would not go so far as to say that either version is clearly better. Personally, when it comes to composition, I have a slight preference for the second version, although I can see why the first image initially made it to the cuts and the second didn't. Some of this may have to do with the action itself, some of it may be due to what was fashionable at the time, image-wise.

What irks me, and I offer this for your consideration @nikos79, is when people say things like "definitively". What this usually means is that they feel a certain way and they have no really good arguments to substantiate that feeling, so they resort to using this sort of hyperbole to stress the point. I challenge you to replace the 'definitively' with an actual argumentation for your observation. In this, I imagine that the conclusion will involve that this assessment is at least to an extent subjective - which is fine. But then, at least, it will no longer be a quasi-objective and faux-universal conclusion that's stated with misguided aplomb, but a position in what might be a constructive debate on how images work, what cultural, subjective and perhaps also biological/neurological factors influence our preferences of some images over others, and questions of how form and content interact. Personally, I would find that sort of exchange a whole lot more interesting than reading how some guy on the internet tells me that A or B is "definitely" better or worse than C. That doesn't tell me much, except for perhaps a lack of ability or willingness to involve others in one's reasoning - a tendency which is all too easily mistaken for an attempt to autocratically raise a normative judgement to a universal dogma. I'm sure that's not what you meant, and you might want to avoid the criticism and backlash that the impression of such a motive might

Second photo: Too obvious and vulgar, almost voyeuristic in the sense of creating embarrassment in the faces of the children. There is already misery present, and showing the sad children was too much.

First image: There is a striking contrast between the bombed scenery and the joy on the faces of the kids, plus the genius framing of the hole in the wall, almost like a fairy tale or a window to a theatrical world.

 

[koraks]

Too obvious and vulgar, almost voyeuristic in the sense of creating embarrassment in the faces of the children.

Try this:
1 Describe what you objectively see, without passing judgement
2 Identify which personal norms/values you have that apply to this image
3 Relate those values to the objective aspects of the image
4 Based on the above, pass judgement, if you must, although you'll find it's not really necessary because the assessment follows, and turns out to be of little relevance given the more meaningful discussion that precedes it.
Now you only do (4) and that puts is in the position where at least I (and possibly others) disagree, but there's no way to meaningfully discuss it beyond a disappointing observation like Like Jeffery Lebowski's "that's like, your opinion, man".

To put it bluntly, you've simply replaced "definitely" with adjectives like "vulgar", "misery", "theatrical", "genius." But what does that actually mean? How and why does that make one image better or worse - and from which perspective/for which purpose?

Can you actually do this? Is it something your teacher has ever touched upon? Or has the teaching you've received from him stunted this potentially valuable angle of your development?

 

[Hassasin]

Good thing "mediocrity" was mentioned, at least there is hope to re-assess history.

 

[nikos79]

Try this:
1 Describe what you objectively see, without passing judgement
2 Identify which personal norms/values you have that apply to this image
3 Relate those values to the objective aspects of the image
4 Based on the above, pass judgement, if you must, although you'll find it's not really necessary because the assessment follows, and turns out to be of little relevance given the more meaningful discussion that precedes it.
Now you only do (4) and that puts is in the position where at least I (and possibly others) disagree, but there's no way to meaningfully discuss it beyond a disappointing observation like Like Jeffery Lebowski's "that's like, your opinion, man".

To put it bluntly, you've simply replaced "definitely" with adjectives like "vulgar", "misery", "theatrical", "genius." But what does that actually mean? How and why does that make one image better or worse - and from which perspective/for which purpose?

Can you actually do this? Is it something your teacher has ever touched upon? Or has the teaching you've received from him stunted this potentially valuable angle of your development?

The premise of your argument assumes that objectivity in art exists, or that we can begin from a neutral, factual ground before layering on personal interpretation. But the very act of seeing is subjective. The moment we compose an image, or even describe one, we are already interpreting. There is no "objective seeing" because seeing is not passive—it is a choice.

A photograph does not just document reality; it reshapes it. It carves out a fragment of the world and makes it something else—something that does not exist outside the frame in the same way. The street before the lens is one thing; the photograph of it is another. The idea that one must first engage in "objective description" before discussing meaning assumes that meaning is separate from form, that there is a way to isolate aesthetics from emotion, composition from intent. But in art, these are inseparable.

So, when you ask, "What does 'vulgar' or 'genius' actually mean?"—it means precisely this: that a photograph does not exist as an objective entity, but only through experience, perception, and interpretation. What makes one image "better" than another depends not on fixed criteria but on the tension between what is seen and what is felt, what is included and what is omitted. The value of an image is not in some abstract measurable quality but in its resonance—whether it haunts, provokes, unsettles, or moves us. That is why judgment in art is never an afterthought but inherent in the act of seeing itself.

 

[Don_ih]

I think you can adopt a more "objective" view of that second photo and appreciate it in a way completely different from the first. The first photo, shows a scene of children playing (one on crutches) in the middle of a bombed out area. The second photo is more dynamic, in a sense, since the children have dispersed. Some have receded to the background, some are emerging through the break in the wall. It is an interesting photo in its own right, but it's completely thematically different from the other.

If your view of the second photo is wanting it to be the same as the first photo, you are definitely going to be disappointed.

a photograph does not exist as an objective entity, but only through experience, perception, and interpretation

Those things that are experienced, perceived, and interpreted are actually objective. The experience, perception, and interpretation are subjective, because they are yours. This is a little bit of confusion. Note that your experience can be vast, your perception can be accurate, and your interpretation can still be right or wrong, and the object itself remains unchanged by any of it.

 

[nikos79]

I think you can adopt a more "objective" view of that second photo and appreciate it in a way completely different from the first. The first photo, shows a scene of children playing (one on crutches) in the middle of a bombed out area. The second photo is more dynamic, in a sense, since the children have dispersed. Some have receded to the background, some are emerging through the break in the wall. It is an interesting photo in its own right, but it's completely thematically different from the other.

If your view of the second photo is wanting it to be the same as the first photo, you are definitely going to be disappointed.



Those things that are experienced, perceived, and interpreted are actually objective. The experience, perception, and interpretation are subjective, because they are yours. This is a little bit of confusion. Note that your experience can be vast, your perception can be accurate, and your interpretation can still be right or wrong, and the object itself remains unchanged by any of it.

Yes, the physical object of a photograph remains unchanged regardless of who looks at it. But art does not reside in the object itself; it exists in the act of seeing, in the relationship between viewer and image. A photograph is not just a collection of shapes and tones on paper or a screen. It is an experience—one that emerges only through engagement, which is inherently subjective.

You argue that perception and interpretation can be right or wrong. But right or wrong according to what? If an image can evoke vastly different emotions, meanings, and ideas depending on who encounters it, then where is the fixed, objective reality of the image? Its existence as an object is indisputable. But its meaning—its very function as art—is fluid.

Art, and especially photography, is not just about what is physically present but about what is revealed through seeing. A photograph is not the world—it is a transformation of it. And if that transformation does not exist apart from the viewer’s engagement, then to say that what is experienced is "actually objective" is to miss the point. The photograph, like any work of art, is not a fact to be measured; it is a phenomenon to be felt.

 

[nikos79]

While art is inherently subjective in its experience, those trained in its language—composition, form, light, rhythm, historical context—can engage with it in a way that is not purely personal but deeply informed. Just as a musician hears harmonic structures that others might only feel instinctively, or a writer recognizes narrative techniques that shape emotion, a trained viewer of art understands how an image generates meaning. The way a photographer frames a subject, manipulates contrast, or plays with depth and movement is not accidental—it is a visual language, deliberately constructed. And just as language can evoke specific emotions through rhythm and tone, so too can an image be crafted to elicit particular responses. This does not make art objective, but it does mean that its power is not random; it can be understood, analyzed, and, most importantly, mastered to communicate beyond the limits of the everyday gaze.

 

[Don_ih]

But art ... exists in the act of seeing, in the relationship between viewer and image.

I disagree. But I really don't want to get into it other than to say it's a simplification.

You argue that perception and interpretation can be right or wrong.

I posited that perception can be accurate/inaccurate (not right or wrong) and interpretation can be right or wrong. If you dispute those, you are not open to the possibility of communication (in any sense of the word) and are ultimately solipsistic.

Art, and especially photography, is not just about what is physically present but about what is revealed through seeing. A photograph is not the world—it is a transformation of it. And if that transformation does not exist apart from the viewer’s engagement, then to say that what is experienced is "actually objective" is to miss the point. The photograph, like any work of art, is not a fact to be measured; it is a phenomenon to be felt.

You seem to think "objective" is a pejorative. The whole subjective/objective dichotomy is an abstraction from grammar, it doesn't actually reflect reality and is a very poor model for an understanding of consciousness (which is what it's being used as here, incidentally). There is no subjective without the objective. You don't experience without a something experienced. When one moves too heavily to the idea of subjective determination of things like art and meaning, it ultimately becomes a move to a world devoid of content occupied by a single, god-like entity known as ego.

 

[nikos79]

I disagree. But I really don't want to get into it other than to say it's a simplification.



I posited that perception can be accurate/inaccurate (not right or wrong) and interpretation can be right or wrong. If you dispute those, you are not open to the possibility of communication (in any sense of the word) and are ultimately solipsistic.



You seem to think "objective" is a pejorative. The whole subjective/objective dichotomy is an abstraction from grammar, it doesn't actually reflect reality and is a very poor model for an understanding of consciousness (which is what it's being used as here, incidentally). There is no subjective without the objective. You don't experience without a something experienced. When one moves too heavily to the idea of subjective determination of things like art and meaning, it ultimately becomes a move to a world devoid of content occupied by a single, god-like entity known as ego.

Ah, I see—we’ve reached the part of the debate where acknowledging subjectivity means we’re teetering on the edge of solipsism, one step away from declaring ourselves the sole architects of reality. But let’s pump the brakes a little.

First off, no one here is treating “objective” as a dirty word—objectivity is great for things like measuring distances or baking cakes. But when we talk about art, we’re not just listing facts; we’re talking about meaning. And meaning *isn’t* sitting there in the image like a hidden treasure, waiting to be dug up—it happens through engagement.

You say interpretation can be “right or wrong.” Sure, if someone looks at a portrait and insists it’s a landscape, we’ve got a problem. But most of art isn’t about that kind of binary accuracy. If one person finds a photo melancholic and another finds it hopeful, is one of them *wrong*? Or are they both just responding from different perspectives, shaped by their experiences? That’s not solipsism; that’s what makes art *work*.

And as for the fear of a “world devoid of content,” I’d argue the opposite—leaning too heavily on objectivity is what strips the life out of art, reducing it to a checklist of physical attributes instead of an experience. Art doesn’t vanish into a void just because it’s shaped by the viewer; it *comes to life* because of that.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

when you say "Bresson" in photography, I think everyone gets the point! I just tend to refer to surnames out of habit.

When you say "Bresson" in photography, people wonder who you are talking about. His surname is Cartier-Bresson.

Try this:
1 Describe what you objectively see, without passing judgement
2 Identify which personal norms/values you have that apply to this image
3 Relate those values to the objective aspects of the image
4 Based on the above, pass judgement, if you must, although you'll find it's not really necessary because the assessment follows, and turns out to be of little relevance given the more meaningful discussion that precedes it.
Now you only do (4) and that puts is in the position where at least I (and possibly others) disagree, but there's no way to meaningfully discuss it beyond a disappointing observation like Like Jeffery Lebowski's "that's like, your opinion, man".

To put it bluntly, you've simply replaced "definitely" with adjectives like "vulgar", "misery", "theatrical", "genius." But what does that actually mean? How and why does that make one image better or worse - and from which perspective/for which purpose?

Can you actually do this? Is it something your teacher has ever touched upon? Or has the teaching you've received from him stunted this potentially valuable angle of your development?

+1 on all of this.

Art, and especially photography, is not just about what is physically present but about what is revealed through seeing.

To channel my interior Umberto Eco, I'd say — and believe — you are giving too much weight, if not all, to the viewer's intent, losing sight (pun very much intended) of the work itself and the author's intent. They all have equal weight.

posited that perception can be accurate/inaccurate (not right or wrong) and interpretation can be right or wrong. If you dispute those, you are not open to the possibility of communication (in any sense of the word) and are ultimately solipsistic.

This is right on.

Interpretation is worthless if in a bubble, and limits itself to "how does this make me feel". Comes from dialogue, and confrontation, with the work itself, and with the author's intent. You can't leave both aside just because they're inconvenient.

I'm taking a bunch of shortcuts, here, as this is not the place to dive into hermeneutics.

Second photo: Too obvious and vulgar, almost voyeuristic in the sense of creating embarrassment in the faces of the children. There is already misery present, and showing the sad children was too much.

First image: There is a striking contrast between the bombed scenery and the joy on the faces of the kids, plus the genius framing of the hole in the wall, almost like a fairy tale or a window to a theatrical world.

You're answering the wrong question. Your question is "Why do I find this photo weak?", then elevate your personal criteria to absolute criteria.

Better question would be "Is this a weak Cartier-Bresson photograph, and if so, why?". This forces you to confront what you think you see/feel to what is there and to who was Cartier-Bresson as photographer.

Interpretation is work.

 

[nikos79]

When you say "Bresson" in photography, people wonder who you are talking about. His surname is Cartier-Bresson.

Ah yes, the great crisis of photographic discourse: Do we say "Cartier-Bresson" in full or casually drop the first part? If I say “Picasso,” are people confused because his full name is Pablo Ruiz Picasso? Or shall we insist on “Michelangelo Buonarroti” at all times, lest someone think we’re referring to a different Michelangelo?

Let’s be honest: when someone says “Bresson” in the context of photography, nobody is thinking Robert Bresson, the filmmaker, or some random guy from Lyon. This is just pedantic nitpicking masquerading as intellectual rigor.

Interpretation is worthless if in a bubble, and limits itself to "how does this make me feel". Comes from dialogue, and confrontation, with the work itself, and with the author's intent. You can't leave both aside just because they're inconvenient.

I'm taking a bunch of shortcuts, here, as this is not the place to dive into hermeneutics.

The idea that the artist’s intent must hold equal weight with the viewer’s perception assumes that art is a fixed, closed system where meaning is predetermined. But that’s not how art functions.

Even if we could know exactly what Cartier-Bresson intended with each shot (which we can’t), that wouldn’t mean his intent is the final word on its meaning. Art is a conversation, not a command. What’s interesting about an image isn’t what Cartier-Bresson saw—it’s what we see when we encounter it. If you lock meaning inside the artist’s mind, you turn the work into a museum artifact, not a living experience.

And let’s be clear: artists themselves often don’t have a precise understanding of what they’ve created. Many work intuitively, capturing moments, shapes, emotions—things that might even contradict their stated intentions. If we made the artist’s intent our guiding principle, we’d be stuck with superficial readings that merely confirm an external authority rather than exploring what the work actually does to us.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

Ah yes, the great crisis of photographic discourse: Do we say "Cartier-Bresson" in full or casually drop the first part? If I say “Picasso,” are people confused because his full name is Pablo Ruiz Picasso? Or shall we insist on “Michelangelo Buonarroti” at all times, lest someone think we’re referring to a different Michelangelo?

Let’s be honest: when someone says “Bresson” in the context of photography, nobody is thinking Robert Bresson, the filmmaker, or some random guy from Lyon. This is just pedantic nitpicking masquerading as intellectual rigor.

I can't believe we're having this conversation. All I said was that Cartier-Bresson was his full name. It's not wanting to adhere to intellectual rigour, it's just wanting to stick to reality.

That said, if you want to call him MacGuffin, go ahead.

The idea that the artist’s intent must hold equal weight with the viewer’s perception assumes that art is a fixed, closed system where meaning is predetermined. But that’s not how art functions.

Even if we could know exactly what Cartier-Bresson intended with each shot (which we can’t), that wouldn’t mean his intent is the final word on its meaning. Art is a conversation, not a command. What’s interesting about an image isn’t what Cartier-Bresson saw—it’s what we see when we encounter it. If you lock meaning inside the artist’s mind, you turn the work into a museum artifact, not a living experience.

And let’s be clear: artists themselves often don’t have a precise understanding of what they’ve created. Many work intuitively, capturing moments, shapes, emotions—things that might even contradict their stated intentions. If we made the artist’s intent our guiding principle, we’d be stuck with superficial readings that merely confirm an external authority rather than exploring what the work actually does to us.

If you want to believe any of this is true, I have no problem with that. Whenever someone tells me "I know how art functions," I know it's time for me to leave the conversation, as there is no conversation.