Bresson in Italy

[nikos79]

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.

I was mostly joking man no worries

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.

It is ok just trying to sound a bit serious, don't take that too much. Just for argument sake

 

[Don_ih]

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*.

Portrait or landscape is a matter of categorization - a part of identifying something. It's not really interpretation. Interpretation isn't even identifying a mood (like melancholic or hopeful). Interpretation is summarizing (in symbols - could be words, could be dance, could be yodelling) the significance of the thing in question. Notice it's "the thing" - an object - something that is not already you.

I already wasted an enormous amount of typing about all of this in other threads. So I'm opting out of this one. Alex and I usually phrase things from somewhat different perspectives, and sometimes we don't exactly align, but I almost always generally agree with what he says.

 

[koraks]

The premise of your argument assumes that objectivity in art exists

The exact opposite in fact. This doesn't change the fact that it's possible to discuss and reach common ground on what's literally visible in the image. We could then move on to interpretation and finally normative evaluation. Along the way, we'll encounter differences in what we see, how we interpret it and we think of it. These differences tend to give rise to interesting questions and sometimes insights/realizations about other people's as well as your own views. It's quite enlightening. It's also an approach that results in differences in subjective seeing evolving into gained insights for all involved, instead of friction.

Let's try again.

Looking at the first photograph, I see a series of partially destroyed walls. I see a hole in the closest wall through which I can see the rest of the scene, with further walls apparently running away from the viewer or parallel to the first wall. It's difficult to tell the structure of the (ex-)building depicted. There is debris on the ground. Several kids are in the center of the image, framed by the broken wall in the foreground, some of whose faces are visible. The kids whose faces are visible appear to be smiling. One kid in the foreground has two clutches. Another kid right behind him has a hand stretched out to him. The kid with the klutches has a facial expression that's difficult to determine; he might be smiling, or he might be grimacing for some reason.

My interpretation of the scene is that kids are playing in the ruins of a building or perhaps village, with the ruins seeming to be originated by war violence. As to the nature of their play, I find it hard to guess what's going on, in particular with regard to the kid in the foreground. Did he select to be the focal point of what seems to be a chasing game? Does he enjoy it? Is he really handicapped, or are the clutches part of play? One kid in the back is laughing; is he laughing at his mates (?) in the foreground or with them? Etc.

In terms of norms, let's say what I'm looking for in a photograph might be summed up as a graphically, aesthetically pleasing or at least (to me) interesting scene, and (if there's opportunity for it) some kind of message, commentary or aid to reflect on an aspect of society. I'm also looking for something that makes me see things differently than I did before; either literally (seeing) or in an abstract sense 'seeing' things in a different light. So you might say an innovative (subjectively, within my standards and frame of reference) approach.

In terms of evaluation, so applying my personal norms to what I think I see, I find the very central composition effective and well-executed, but not necessarily very novel (not even for 1935) or exciting. It's a bit like looking at a stage in a theater, with a curtain, a stage and a backdrop - it's rather 2-dimensional. It's graphically effective, but not necessarily very exciting. In terms of the message, I think I'm looking at kids playing, and whether or not their play is mutually empowering or exploitative in how the kids relate to each other, it looks for all intents and purposes like kids being kids. And this in the middle of what must be a war scene (I assume), which makes for an obvious contrast - a contrast that is perhaps a little too obvious, although it's certainly effective in grabbing someone's attention (pressing a gun in someone's face is also effective, but it's also not very subtle or elegant). So my judgement at this moment would be that it's a well-executed, aesthetically pleasing photo - but not one that engages me in particular.

I could do the other photo in the same way, but it'd take some time to get to the same point. Trying to cut some corners: there's kids in this frame who literally (physically) interact with the frame they're positioned in, and they're spread around more. Faces are shown, but no very apparent smiles; I'd describe (interpretation) these looks as possibly neutral, maybe inquisitive, curious or attentive to something the photographer is doing or saying. Several kids are looking directly at the photographer, which I find engaging and makes me realize they really interact with the photographer - some of them are also physically closer. There's an interesting (normative evaluation) divide between the group in the foreground and the group in the background, although the kid top left ties the group in the back together with the viewer/photographer again. I find it much more difficult to figure out what exactly is going on here and what the action(s) is/are that we're in the midst of. In terms of composition and geometry, the central logic is a classic pyramid with one kid (I'm incluned to think of him as 'the jester') breaking this core logic with his less formal and more dynamic pose. The receding lines of the alley (?) and the broken wall in the background (creating a mirrored echo with the upper edge of the hole in the foreground wall) create a sense of depth, which is emphasized by the positioning of the kids. Overall (normative assessment) I find this image a whole lot more interesting; it leads me to ask many more questions and leaves me to guess at the answers a lot more, and given the more static pose of many of the characters, I find them easier to relate to as an adult - and given the fact that they're looking at me, I can't help but wonder what they think, how they feel about their environment and how they reflect on the guy with the camera apparently finding them relevant enough to photograph.

So I come to a very different conclusion than you do - but it's IMO not so relevant that our conclusions are different. What's relevant to me, is that I try to make explicit the thought process that leads to this conclusion, in which indeed, every step of the way is imbued with considerable subjectivity. But by making each step in the process explicit, we could potentially discuss the different assumptions, norms and expectations that we apparently have. Not only does this make our exchange more meaningful than a blunt "this photo is good and that one is bad" - it also puts the both of us in a position to recognize better what's going on in our own minds, as well as making it easier to see things in a different light.

You strike me as a smart fellow, so I'm sure you can do this, one way or another. If only you take from this that you can actually draw a line between observing and passing normative judgement (however fuzzy that line may be), I've achieved all I could ask for. Give it a try. I guarantee you - it'd be a small step for me, but a giant leap for yourself.

 

[MattKing]

Interpretation is summarizing (in symbols - could be words, could be dance, could be yodelling)

I never took you to be a fan of early k.d. lang!
If people start advocating for a tool allowing yodeling in Photrio, I'm going to put up resistance!.

 

[Don_ih]

k.d. lang

I thought she was totally wacky when she first appeared. It was excellent.

 

[nikos79]

The exact opposite in fact. This doesn't change the fact that it's possible to discuss and reach common ground on what's literally visible in the image. We could then move on to interpretation and finally normative evaluation. Along the way, we'll encounter differences in what we see, how we interpret it and we think of it. These differences tend to give rise to interesting questions and sometimes insights/realizations about other people's as well as your own views. It's quite enlightening. It's also an approach that results in differences in subjective seeing evolving into gained insights for all involved, instead of friction.

Let's try again.

Looking at the first photograph, I see a series of partially destroyed walls. I see a hole in the closest wall through which I can see the rest of the scene, with further walls apparently running away from the viewer or parallel to the first wall. It's difficult to tell the structure of the (ex-)building depicted. There is debris on the ground. Several kids are in the center of the image, framed by the broken wall in the foreground, some of whose faces are visible. The kids whose faces are visible appear to be smiling. One kid in the foreground has two clutches. Another kid right behind him has a hand stretched out to him. The kid with the klutches has a facial expression that's difficult to determine; he might be smiling, or he might be grimacing for some reason.

My interpretation of the scene is that kids are playing in the ruins of a building or perhaps village, with the ruins seeming to be originated by war violence. As to the nature of their play, I find it hard to guess what's going on, in particular with regard to the kid in the foreground. Did he select to be the focal point of what seems to be a chasing game? Does he enjoy it? Is he really handicapped, or are the clutches part of play? One kid in the back is laughing; is he laughing at his mates (?) in the foreground or with them? Etc.

In terms of norms, let's say what I'm looking for in a photograph might be summed up as a graphically, aesthetically pleasing or at least (to me) interesting scene, and (if there's opportunity for it) some kind of message, commentary or aid to reflect on an aspect of society. I'm also looking for something that makes me see things differently than I did before; either literally (seeing) or in an abstract sense 'seeing' things in a different light. So you might say an innovative (subjectively, within my standards and frame of reference) approach.

In terms of evaluation, so applying my personal norms to what I think I see, I find the very central composition effective and well-executed, but not necessarily very novel (not even for 1935) or exciting. It's a bit like looking at a stage in a theater, with a curtain, a stage and a backdrop - it's rather 2-dimensional. It's graphically effective, but not necessarily very exciting. In terms of the message, I think I'm looking at kids playing, and whether or not their play is mutually empowering or exploitative in how the kids relate to each other, it looks for all intents and purposes like kids being kids. And this in the middle of what must be a war scene (I assume), which makes for an obvious contrast - a contrast that is perhaps a little too obvious, although it's certainly effective in grabbing someone's attention (pressing a gun in someone's face is also effective, but it's also not very subtle or elegant). So my judgement at this moment would be that it's a well-executed, aesthetically pleasing photo - but not one that engages me in particular.

I could do the other photo in the same way, but it'd take some time to get to the same point. Trying to cut some corners: there's kids in this frame who literally (physically) interact with the frame they're positioned in, and they're spread around more. Faces are shown, but no very apparent smiles; I'd describe (interpretation) these looks as possibly neutral, maybe inquisitive, curious or attentive to something the photographer is doing or saying. Several kids are looking directly at the photographer, which I find engaging and makes me realize they really interact with the photographer - some of them are also physically closer. There's an interesting (normative evaluation) divide between the group in the foreground and the group in the background, although the kid top left ties the group in the back together with the viewer/photographer again. I find it much more difficult to figure out what exactly is going on here and what the action(s) is/are that we're in the midst of. In terms of composition and geometry, the central logic is a classic pyramid with one kid (I'm incluned to think of him as 'the jester') breaking this core logic with his less formal and more dynamic pose. The receding lines of the alley (?) and the broken wall in the background (creating a mirrored echo with the upper edge of the hole in the foreground wall) create a sense of depth, which is emphasized by the positioning of the kids. Overall (normative assessment) I find this image a whole lot more interesting; it leads me to ask many more questions and leaves me to guess at the answers a lot more, and given the more static pose of many of the characters, I find them easier to relate to as an adult - and given the fact that they're looking at me, I can't help but wonder what they think, how they feel about their environment and how they reflect on the guy with the camera apparently finding them relevant enough to photograph.

So I come to a very different conclusion than you do - but it's IMO not so relevant that our conclusions are different. What's relevant to me, is that I try to make explicit the thought process that leads to this conclusion, in which indeed, every step of the way is imbued with considerable subjectivity. But by making each step in the process explicit, we could potentially discuss the different assumptions, norms and expectations that we apparently have. Not only does this make our exchange more meaningful than a blunt "this photo is good and that one is bad" - it also puts the both of us in a position to recognize better what's going on in our own minds, as well as making it easier to see things in a different light.

You strike me as a smart fellow, so I'm sure you can do this, one way or another. If only you take from this that you can actually draw a line between observing and passing normative judgement (however fuzzy that line may be), I've achieved all I could ask for. Give it a try. I guarantee you - it'd be a small step for me, but a giant leap for yourself.

I appreciate the depth and care you put into this response. It’s refreshing to see a discussion where the process of looking is broken down rather than just the conclusions being stated. You’re right that a structured approach—observing, interpreting, and then evaluating—helps clarify where our differences actually lie, rather than just making it a matter of ‘taste’ versus ‘objectivity.’

So, in that spirit, I’ll take your challenge seriously and try to look again.

In the first image, I still find that what draws me in most is the way the broken wall acts as a kind of frame—almost a portal—separating the viewer’s world from the children’s. Their expressions, their movement, the sheer joy of play amidst destruction—it all creates a striking contrast, and yes, perhaps one that is too ‘ready-made’ or obvious, but nonetheless effective. You described it as almost like a stage, and I see what you mean; the composition does feel theatrical in a way that might make it seem more designed than discovered. That said, I still find the emotional impact strong—there’s something about the resilience of play in ruined spaces that feels universal.

In the second image, I do see now why it might be more engaging in a different way. The eye contact between some of the children and the photographer makes it feel more confrontational, less staged. Unlike the first image, where the children are absorbed in their world, here they acknowledge the presence of the observer—you, me, Cartier-Bresson himself. That creates a different dynamic. There’s also more tension in the arrangement; I hadn’t considered the way the boy on the left disrupts the composition, creating movement and instability in an otherwise structured scene.

So while my instinct still leans toward the first image as more immediately striking, I can now better appreciate how the second might be richer in engagement, in its openness to interpretation. It leaves more room for ambiguity, which—I'll admit—is often where the most compelling images live.

Thanks for pushing me to articulate this better. I don’t think we have to agree, but this kind of exchange is exactly what makes looking at photographs more than just a passive experience. I’ll try to carry this approach forward—at the very least, I now know that slowing down to reconsider an image can sometimes reveal more than I first assumed.

 

[koraks]

I don’t think we have to agree

Exactly; it's totally fine if we end up still having different preferences for different reasons. In fact, I sure hope (and expect) that this won't always bring convergence on normative assessment - but by having an exchange like this, we both gain something. For instance, you said this about the (literally) framed composition of #1:

the composition does feel theatrical in a way that might make it seem more designed than discovered.

I find that interesting, because I hadn't actually thought of the designed vs. discovered issue. Not that I believe that Cartier-Bresson somehow designed or set this up, but there's an aspect of 'deliberateness' that may play a role in how I feel about that image. Maybe I do feel like #2 being the more spontaneous of the two images, which helps me to relate more to what's going on (the war, the impact on kids), whereas when looking at #1, I may still feel like I'm being kept at a safe distance because "it's a setup after all" - which, again, I don't believe it was, but there might be an aspect of experiencing it as such going on on my side.

It's because you made your thought process explicit, I could tap into that and figure out a little better how I relate to these images. For me, that's the kind of discussion that can be worthwhile - although it tends to involve a lot of talking/typing.

Thanks for taking my suggestions seriously; I appreciate it. And I honestly hope that it'll serve you well, in the first place!