On looking into HCB's "People of Moscow"

[andy_piper2]

I recently reopened Cartier-Bresson's book "The People of Moscow", which was on my parent's bookshelf throughout my childhood, and which I recently 'inherited'. It's a 1955 book based on pix shot in 1954.

 

<p>

 

First observation: The pictures are surprisingly average - even weak at times. There are maybe 5-10 stand-out decisive moments in 100+ shots. It's very different from seeing a compilation of his 'greatest hits' - clearly it was a 'content-driven' book in which simply getting into Moscow and bringing back pictures at the height of the Cold War and the Krushchev 'palace revolution' was the paramount goal - not good photography per se.

 

<p>

 

And there was some weird editing - his famous picture of comrades dancing at a factory-workers' club was not there - but frames (nowhere near as good) from the same evening, and probably the same roll of film, WERE used.

 

<p>

 

By comparison, Smith's Pittsburgh pictures, or Manos' "Greek Portfolio" or Freed's "Made in Germany" all contain a much higher percentage of strong pictures - visually and in terms of content. But those were long-term projects where the very best could be chosen out of several years' work. HCB probably had a couple of weeks.

 

<p>

 

Second observation: there are quite a few pictures clearly taken with long telephotos - at least a 135, and some probably cropped from 135 to about 200mm or longer (based on grain). Someone (Dave?) mentioned on another recent thread that he'd never seen an HCB telephoto picture - well, here they are! Many were of sports events at the "Palace of Sports", but also some long shots of Red Square and its crowds.

 

<p>

 

My surmise, given the timing, is that this was his first project with the brand-new M3 with its telephoto frames, and he got a 135 to go with it, either a purchase or a loaner from Leica.

 

<p>

 

Anyway, it was revealing to look at a slightly different side of his work and realize that he had his off-days, as well.

[xav]

HCB was a photo-journalist. The aim of this book was to document how

moscovites lived, not to make art. As 1954 is right after Stalin's

death, it might have been the first time in many years that

Westerners were allowed to have direct access to Russians people. As

a photo-journalist, HCB had to get the pictures by any means

(telephoto, ...). The story of HCB using only 50mm lenses is a

legend. It sprang from the fact that the very small percentage of

his pictures he choose to retain as 'Art' were shot with a 50mm.

 

<p>

 

Your book is very interesting. It's probably more telling on the way

HCB worked than his books of artistically selected pictures. I never

had it my hands and would love to do so...

[nesrani]

I don't know if any of the themed HCB books are very good, certainly

not the ones I've seen. The India book is weak, for instance. This

one I haven't seen. But his achievement over a lifetime of shooting

is very impressive, despite the slavish gushing one sometimes gets

about him. I think he was really an artist, not a PJ - i.e. someone

who was best at taking pictures he liked rather than covering events.

The best books are the retrospectives or big collections, IMO.

[msitaraman]

Was,was,was. The guy is still alive and quite irascible, as far as I

know.

[pcg]

Andy's unfortunately correct. HCB's spectacular shots (12-20?)

overwhelm the body of his published work, which is itself

frequently of fairly poor imagery. When he was on, he was dead-

on; but too often his shots are snapshot quality. I suspect bad

editors, rushed publishing schedules, pressure to produce

bankable theme oriented books. And HCB never printed his own

negs, so much of the washed out & poorly focused imagery may

go back to that as a problem... On the other hand, the photos he

has signed & sold--at least those I've seen--are crisp, sharp,

beautiful prints. I own an HCB image of Matisse w/ doves that

stands up in quality to any silver print I've seen... So, much of the

book quality (or lack of) may just be horrendous printing quality

that we shouldn't attack HCB over. I've seen this repeatedly --

spectacular original silver prints that invariably blow away the

identical printed images in books. That's why patronizing

galleries on a regular basis is so important. There's nothing like

original work----

[nesrani]

OK, Mani, you're right, but he does seem a photographer of the past

doesn't he? Does he actually take pictures anymore?

[dlegaspi]

speaking of photography books, i finally got the "Arnold Newman"

(hardcover) and "Arnold Newman's Americans" books (new!) at dirt-

cheap prices...from strandbooks.com ($15 and $10 respectively)...i

just thought you guys might be interested...

[anon_terry]

<i>OK, Mani, you're right, but he does seem a photographer of the

past doesn't he? Does he actually take pictures anymore? </i>

 

<p>He does still take pictures, although not as extensively as he

once did. He recently completed a paid magazine assignment (exactly

which magazine, escapes me at the moment) and shot some new pictures

for the book <u>Magnum Degrees</u>, which was published in March 2000.

</p>

[richardvanle]

I have that Magnum book, I don't remember seeing any new HCB

stuff. I'll have to look again... probably inattention on my part. But I

agree with Rob, HCB does seem like a photographer of the past.

Though I love his work, I kind wish people would take it a little

easy with the HCB-worship.

[wilhelmn2]

I think that it's really great that books are finally being published

full of the less-than-masterpieces of several legendary

photographers. HC-B's "City and Landscape" is almost devoid of them,

as is AA's "AA at 100," and the "Edward Weston, the Last years in

Carmel." In general, their composition is perfect, while the subject

matter is often pedestrian. A lot less inspirational, but much more

educational than the "Best of...." books that have been available in

the past.

[richard_ilomaki]

Bonjour:

 

<p>

 

HCB latest photos were for Vanity Fair Magazine a year or so back,

when they ran a feature on Old Photogs 80+ yrs, featuring Newman,

HCB, Leni Riefenstall, Duncan + more.

 

<p>

 

That was when Duncan took the snaps of HCB that he -HCB- got so upset

about.

 

<p>

 

M Bresson took three shots of other photogs (I forget who at the

moment)using a Leica P&S I think.

 

<p>

 

He is over 90 and does not get around much, but for the last 10-15

years he has done mainly watercolours & pen & ink sketches.

 

<p>

 

I saw his exhibition of Portraits in London a few years ago and the

prints were as good as any others in a exhibit and many were 16 x 24

or so. Professional printing DOES INDEED make the difference between

a good image and a GREAT one.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

[justin2]

OK, I'll finally say this out loud; I've never been impressed with

HCB's work.

 

<p>

 

Like music, TV and books, lots of promotion equals lots of

exposure. And the public at large usually buys into what they get

over exposed to, e.g., Brittany Spears, Back Street Boys, etc. - no

redeeming talent but great marketing/promotion. Or take the

Oprah Book Club. Oprah picks a book of the month (that no one,

and I mean no one has ever heaqrd of) and it's an immediate

best seller.

 

<p>

 

HCB was a rich kid who hung out with the avant garde types in

Paris. He takes a few picutes and one of his gallery owning

friends let's him have a showing.

 

<p>

 

It's my belief that without his parent's money and connections

none of us would ever have heard of him.

[phc1]

What does it matter that his parents had money? The man is responsible

for some staggeringly good shots, that's all we need to know.

 

<p>

 

Even if some of his day to day work wasn't of the same standard, we

shouldn't lose sight of his achivement. He's only a photographer,

after all, not the messiah.

[richard_ilomaki]

Justin:

 

<p>

 

You are partially right, but whatever he had, it got him to places

few others had been with a small camera and it got an audience for

photojournalism that didn't exist in the Mass Market before. Yes,

Mass Market. Yes Hype, but so what?

 

<p>

 

The percentage of his Great shots is not much better than mine,

perhaps, but since I don't know any posh gallery owners, you remain

right. He may well have been a less-than-Galactically Great Photog,

but he was better than just about anybody else those days and was

eager to be in China on the day of the Mao revolution, for one thing,

Africa, India, etc before Lonely Planet came along- you know: f8 & Be

There.

 

<p>

 

His work may indeed be as much record/documentary as Art, but what

Art he did produce was very good, AND he inspired generations of

photojournalists to follow- some better, many not. That alone puts

him in Cooperstown.

 

<p>

 

Cheers

[terry_dvorak]

I'm guessing that if you polled photographers around the world on "the

greatest photographer ever," HCB would win hands down.

 

<p>

 

The notion that his family wealth bought him that acclaim is

laughable.

[preston_merchant]

HCB's legacy is not photojournalism, but surrealist street

photography. That doesn't mean that he didn't come up with some

powerful journalistic (i.e., storytelling) shots--just that his true

talents lay elsewhere.

[Robin Smith]

Photography is a loathsome art to be involved with. For any shot there

are always a million people who can offer better ideas of how to

"improve" it. You know, "get the person on the left to look off to the

left not at the camera", "crop off the tree on the left", "go back at

a different time of day" blah blah blah. This is the particular

trouble with photography: everyone takes photos, so most have an

opinion. In some ways photography is very easy. Better to pick

something like ceramics or glass - that tends to shut people up as

there is a real (and difficult) skill to learn.

[glenn_travis]

Is it little wonder that HCB is judged so harshly by this group, when

the intellect doing the judging is so mundane? When the Nazis

captured France, HCB was imprisoned and tortured by them for several

years. He managed to escape and spent the remainder of the war years

fighting in the France Underground. At the end of the war, HCB was

presumed dead. Hardly the life of leisure.

[jeff voorhees]

If Hank Carter couldn't shoot, if he didn't have the eye and sense of

timing that he does, it doesn't matter if he was "rich". Maybe

it helped a bit in the early days, not having to go to a "job"

everyday. It might have opened a few doors.

 

<p>

 

But if his stuff was not good, rich or not, it wouldn't hold up over

time and we wouldn't be having this little chat. I think he is an

artist at heart, but as per Robert Capa's direction, he is known as a

photojournalist. Remember everyone, he himself calls it the artless

art of the snapshot.

[pat_dunsworth]

Back in the mid-50s, when Miles Davis was the hottest ticket in the

Jazz world, and Duke Ellington was considered a has-been, Davis said

that every musician in the world ought to "get together in the same

place at the same time, get down on their knees and thank Duke". I'd

say that the same could be said for HCB. His handful of classic

street shots have had an overwhelming impact on how photographers

view everyday scenes. It's amazing how far you can see when you're

standing on the shoulders of a giant.

[richardvanle]

Wow. Given the fact that HCB is such a deity among

photographers (especially ones who use Leicas) I'm very

surprised at some of the harsh statements. Where have they

been hiding?

[Allen Herbert]

Wow indeed,if you look at some of the other posts, as well, you will

see some very strange comments.For a Leica user newsgroup it is very

srange indeed.

[nesrani]

"Photography is a loathsome art to be involved with. "

 

<p>

 

Loathsome, yes. Oh yes! Yes please...

[Spearhead]

<i>Loathsome, yes. Oh yes! Yes please... </i><p>

 

Yeah, where <i>is</i> Hunter Thompson when you need him...

[giles_poilu]

Some surprising views here indeed, HCB himself would probably deplore

all of us here for our fanatical interest in a simple mechanical

camera - remember his words as quoted on the back of "A propos de

Paris" - "Photography is nothing, it's life that interests me".

 

<p>

 

Why are so many people giving him a hard time? Anyone who saw the

BBC documentary ("Omnibus") a few years ago made to coincide with his

London exhibitions would conclude he is a remarkable person -

incredibly humble, charming and talented. There was a brief sequence

of him at work on the streets - nimble and elegant.

 

<p>

 

To him photography was not about Leicas or aspherical lenses, it was

simply a form of "instant painting" - his real love.

 

<p>

 

As he wandered through the London gallery surrounded by his life's

work and was asked what it all meant, his answer? - "It is sh*t!"

 

<p>

 

Life and people is all important.