Can you explain why HCB chose this photo?

[Chuck_P]

You look but you don't see.

With all due respect, your statement presumes that those that "don't see" are kind of like just not seeing the forest because of all the trees..........................Nope, I looked, I saw, and I don't like. If there is some kind of contextual personal significance behind the reason as to why HCB included this image then I can and do certainly appreciate that, but as far as the image itself goes, it ends there for me. So, AFAICT (as far as I can tell) all the musing going on here is just because it is an HCB photograph. Having said that, I certainly appreciate HCB and his contributions to photographic history.

 

[Don_ih]

And sometimes other people can make me see what I couldn't grasp before.

If a history lesson is required to see the reason a photo was taken or exists at all, then the history lesson is the important bit and displaces the photo as secondary. It's no longer being understood as a photo but as an accompaniment to a body of knowledge that may or may not be entirely accessible.

Do you need the history lesson to appreciate Picasso's Guernica as a painting? Nope. You need the history lesson to gain a fuller understanding, though.

What are the circumstances for appreciating the original Cartier-Bresson photo? It seems that even those who think there is some historical or personal significance think the photo is itself not worthwhile.

The Koudelka photos you linked are just better photos.

If a photo stirs you to look for the reason behind it, great. The HCB photo would inspire almost everyone to turn the page.

 

[warden]

I have a copy of the book 'Henri Cartier Bresson: Photographer', originally published by Delpire in 1979. As I understand it, the book's contents were selected by HCB with Delpire, so they can be considered to be HCB's idea of 'My Personal Best'. Of course I am in awe of HCB, and always enjoy this book when I pull it off the shelf. Actually it omits some of my favourite HCB photos, while it includes a few that leave me wondering why they were included. This is one example. I just don't see anything special about it. Can anyone make me see what HCB saw in it, among so many gems?

@cliveh: this might be up your street?

View attachment 385177

This one doesn’t work for me either, no matter who took it, as a stand-alone image.

 

[retina_restoration]

I'm not surprised to see that we are once again in familiar territory: "I don't like it, so it's worthless", and the noise that follows such statements.

 

[gary mulder]

This tread brings-up the question. Has a artist the obligation to please his audience ? Then in ultimate he will only being mirroring the taste of his audience. If it’s not to your liking just pass it on in a civilised manner .

 

[MurrayMinchin]

If a history lesson is required to see the reason a photo was taken or exists at all, then the history lesson is the important bit and displaces the photo as secondary...

It's not an all or nothing relationship...knowing the historical context or the inspiration behind a work can add an additional level of understanding.

I for one find it interesting and informative to know that Picasso 'invented' the way he portrayed faces within Cubism after seeing an exhibition of West African indigenous/tribal ceremonial masks. ("Good artists copy. Great artists steal." Picasso).

Pretty sure we all have one photo, if fortunate enough to have a retrospective exhibition, that would appear as a weak outsider because to us it is a personal marker for the start of a new and important phase of growth/exploration. Does that have to be spoon fed to the audience? I personally wouldn't put that information on a title card, but the photo would be there.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

So, AFAICT (as far as I can tell) all the musing going on here is just because it is an HCB photograph.

Of course it is. And that's what's interesting about it, why we shouldn't dismiss the inquiry simply as musings.

This photograph departs from everything we know about Cartier-Bresson. It's a landscape without people, which he never did. There is no geometric principle at work in the composition, which we know was fundamental for him. In fact, you could find many aesthetic elements in this photo that could make you doubt that it's even a Cartier-Bresson, as there are few photographers with a signature as distinctive as his. Yet not only is he the one who took it, not only did he take it despite it seemingly not conforming to his aesthetic persona, but he included it in a book meant as a restrospective of his favoured works.

Therefore, the picture had meaning to him. And this is what makes the conversation interesting. It forces us move away from generalities regarding geometry and composition and form and beauty and personal preferences (I like it / I don't like it) to ask the question Why did he take this. And this in turn takes us to the very question of meaning in photography.

Because in our appreciation of photographs, if not in our own photography, we put so much emphasis on composition and its elements, we tend to forget, omit or refuse to admit that photography can also be about meaning, that a photograph can be looked at from the point of view of its meaning—or possible meaning—rather than through compositional elements such as geometry, balance, color, tonality, etc.

I don't know if my hypothesis that this is a photograph related to the place where Cartier-Bresson hid after escaping from a German prison camp. But say it is. And say it's the reason he included it in his choice of his most favoured photographs. This forces you to look at it differently—to look at it as meaningful rather than trying to see the compositional elements that would make it a "good" photograph. You look at it with his eyes, and, through empathy, understand what is moving about the place and why he took it.

Sometimes meaning is irrelevant and it's about composition, and sometimes composition is irrelevant and it's about meaning. Photography allows both, and all nuances in between.

I do think it's great to be reminded that looking at a photography, as, I believe, Stephen Shore wrote (or maybe it was John Swarkovski?) is also asking the question Why did someone think this was interesting enough to take a photo of it.

I like this photo because it reminds me of Robert Adams' eloquent words (when is he not eloquent?): "Landscape pictures can offer us, I think, three verities—geography, autobiography, and metaphor."

 

[Arthurwg]

Perhaps it's...beautiful?

 

[snusmumriken]

Of course it is. And that's what's interesting about it, why we shouldn't dismiss the inquiry simply as musings.

This photograph departs from everything we know about Cartier-Bresson. It's a landscape without people, which he never did. There is no geometric principle at work in the composition, which we know was fundamental for him. In fact, you could find many aesthetic elements in this photo that could make you doubt that it's even a Cartier-Bresson, as there are few photographers with a signature as distinctive as his. Yet not only is he the one who took it, not only did he take it despite it seemingly not conforming to his aesthetic persona, but he included it in a book meant as a restrospective of his favoured works.

Therefore, the picture had meaning to him. And this is what makes the conversation interesting. It forces us move away from generalities regarding geometry and composition and form and beauty and personal preferences (I like it / I don't like it) to ask the question Why did he take this. And this in turn takes us to the very question of meaning in photography.

Because in our appreciation of photographs, if not in our own photography, we put so much emphasis on composition and its elements, we tend to forget, omit or refuse to admit that photography can also be about meaning, that a photograph can be looked at from the point of view of its meaning—or possible meaning—rather than through compositional elements such as geometry, balance, color, tonality, etc.

I don't know if my hypothesis that this is a photograph related to the place where Cartier-Bresson hid after escaping from a German prison camp. But say it is. And say it's the reason he included it in his choice of his most favoured photographs. This forces you to look at it differently—to look at it as meaningful rather than trying to see the compositional elements that would make it a "good" photograph. You look at it with his eyes, and, through empathy, understand what is moving about the place and why he took it.

Sometimes meaning is irrelevant and it's about composition, and sometimes composition is irrelevant and it's about meaning. Photography allows both, and all nuances in between.

I do think it's great to be reminded that looking at a photography, as, I believe, Stephen Shore wrote (or maybe it was John Swarkovski?) is also asking the question Why did someone think this was interesting enough to take a photo of it.

I like this photo because it reminds me of Robert Adams' eloquent words (when is he not eloquent?): "Landscape pictures can offer us, I think, three verities—geography, autobiography, and metaphor."

I applaud everything you say here, except to gently correct you over HCB’s landscapes. There are some well-known HCB landscapes without people, but they do also have the strong geometric composition one learns to expect of HCB.

 

[Saganich]

This tread brings-up the question. Has a artist the obligation to please his audience ? Then in ultimate he will only being mirroring the taste of his audience. If it’s not to your liking just pass it on in a civilised manner .

I would say that the successful artists I am friends with would never admit it but I know it's in their calculous.

 

[snusmumriken]

This tread brings-up the question. Has a artist the obligation to please his audience ? Then in ultimate he will only being mirroring the taste of his audience. If it’s not to your liking just pass it on in a civilised manner .

I would think that while an artist is financially dependent on sales, he is bound to try to please his audience. (Perhaps ‘please’ is the wrong word in the case of some artists, but I think we know what we mean.) Success must be liberating in that sense, and certainly by the 1970s/80s HCB must have felt free to include whichever photos he damn well wanted in this selection. The publisher might not have felt quite the same, but this title was a dead cert anyway.

 

[koraks]

I would say that the successful artists I am friends with would never admit it but I know it's in their calculous.

Then again, we could debate what it means to be successful as an artist. There are multiple dimensions to success, surely. Mind you, I'm saying this without judgement and just as an observation. And also, I wonder how feasible it is to disentangle these dimensions of success if you're an artist working on something. Is it possible to somehow not be led, at least in part, by how you believe an audience might respond? And if you try to avoid that at all cost - wouldn't you still fall into the same trap?
You could, of course, choose not to confront an audience with your work in the first place.

 

[Chuck_P]

I don't know if my hypothesis that this is a photograph related to the place where Cartier-Bresson hid after escaping from a German prison camp. But say it is. And say it's the reason he included it in his choice of his most favoured photographs. This forces you to look at it differently—to look at it as meaningful rather than trying to see the compositional elements that would make it a "good" photograph. You look at it with his eyes, and, through empathy, understand what is moving about the place and why he took it.

Your hypothesis on it's possible origins might very well be the case, who knows, which is why I acknowledged in my prior post and appreciated that it might have that kind of special importance to him. It may just be a favorite of his for whatever reason. But If the context behind the inclusion of the photograph could be known, and it doesn't seem to be at this point, then I can certainly take a different view on it. But until then, I'm forced to look at it for what it is.........

 

[BrianShaw]

I wonder which f/stop he used...

 

[Don_ih]

It's not an all or nothing relationship...knowing the historical context or the inspiration behind a work can add an additional level of understanding.

You cut your quote short of where I said exactly what you said right there. I never suggested it was an "all or nothing relationship". But if the photo has nothing noteworthy about it on its own, it doesn't really succeed as a photo.

Why did someone think this was interesting enough to take a photo of it.

That is what is driving this entire conversation. It's established that Bresson took great photos - yet this photo is placed within a book by him. If the photo was by Dagwood Bumstead, no one would think it was significant at all. No one would ask why he bothered to take the photos. It's only on the basis of an already established sensibility that we ask that question.

Has a artist the obligation to please his audience ? Then in ultimate he will only being mirroring the taste of his audience.

An artist is under no obligation to please anyone. But the art will succeed or suffer in the estimation of the audience regardless. Some people will like it, some will not - those assessments are not what makes something art. Those assessments, however, establish a value. And if you are an artist who pleases no audience, your art will head to the dump when you die.

 

[snusmumriken]

We need to bear in mind that it's a photo of some neige blanche, and the French are keen on that stuff.

Just to record the fact that I did laugh at this. Thanks.

 

[warden]

We need to bear in mind that it's a photo of some neige blanche, and the French are keen on that stuff.

Ha!

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I wonder which f/stop he used...

In an interview he once stated that outdoors he always set his camera at either f/8 or f/11, depending on light.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

But until then, I'm forced to look at it for what it is..

We all try to look at everything and everybody in this world for what they are, but figuring out what exactly it is they are is a long and arduous task.

Or maybe I've just read too much Heidegger...

 

[MattKing]

If the photo was by Dagwood Bumstead, no one would think it was significant at all.

As Dagwood Bumstead is/was a comic strip character, the fact that it was by him would be, at the very least, remarkable.
As has been referenced earlier, part of the photo's fascination comes from the fact that HCB chose it. If it had been a photo taken by someone with a very different body of work, we probably wouldn't be discussing it.

 

[Don_ih]

Dagwood Bumstead

is an everyman character. You did a good job paraphrasing what I was saying when you said

If it had been a photo taken by someone with a very different body of work, we probably wouldn't be discussing it.

(Mark the date. Matt and I agree about something.)

 

[Chuck_P]

........................ but figuring out what exactly it is they are is a long and arduous task.

Yes, I agree, which is why I don't engage in spending much time trying to figure out why someone does what they do, lol..........

 

[Pieter12]

He had an empty page to fill. He wanted to find out if anyone was paying attention. More likely, he wanted to spark a discussion about why he chose that image.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

As has been referenced earlier, part of the photo's fascination comes from the fact that HCB chose it. If it had been a photo taken by someone with a very different body of work, we probably wouldn't be discussing it.

Exactly. This is a seemingly uninteresting photo that is, on many aspects, unique within a published body of work composed almost exclusively of exceptional and extraordinary photographs.

Had it been an uninteresting photo by Joe Dude-Guy sitting within a body of work composed of hundreds or thousands of similarly uninteresting photos, there would be no reason to talk about it.

Now if within that body of uninteresting photos Joe Dude-Guy were to make one, just one, photo on the level of the best photos of Cartier-Bresson, Gene Smith or Robert Frank, we'd also be talking about that photo.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I applaud everything you say here, except to gently correct you over HCB’s landscapes. There are some well-known HCB landscapes without people, but they do also have the strong geometric composition one learns to expect of HCB.

I couldn't find any in the three Cartier-Bresson books I have, except for this one, made in 1968, same year he stopped photography to devote himself to painting.

I keep wondering if this one doesn't also have a very personal meaning. It was made in Brie, and Cartier-Bresson was born in Chateloup-en-Brie, but as there a a few towns called Brie in France, tough to say if there is a relation.