S&D PUB: The Decisive Moment, fact or fiction?

tonmestrom · October 2, 2009

When Henri Cartier-Bressons book "<a href="http://www.baumanrarebooks.com/rare-books/cartier-bresson-henri-matisse-henri/images-%C3%A0-la-sauvette/64268.aspx">Images a la Sauvette</a> " was published in 1952 it described the concept of the Decisive Moment which he defined like this, "for me photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organisation of forms which give that event its proper expression". This of course is a highly aesthetical representation of photography but had a huge impact. This book is still considered to be one of the most important publications on photography of the Twentieth Century.

That this concept was not self evident to all photographers became very clear when Robert Franks book "The Americans"was finally published in 1958. For Frank this concept was too clean, too restrictive, too arranged and too neat. His photos were a far cry from those of Cartier-Bresson. His style was more casual, almost snaplike, more real life. This style was taken even further by photographers like Garry Winogrand.

So how important, far reaching or influential is this concept nowadays or indeed was for Cartier-Bresson himself? Douglas Smith from the University College in Dublin wrote an article in "<a href="http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/17540760802696997">Photographies</a> " in the issue of March 2009 where he described, amongst other things, the paradox of Cartier-Bresson describing the concept of the Decisive Moment only to acknowledge "that these moments are extremely rare; hence the need for photo reportage, a series of images narrating a sequence of events that cannot be understood in isolation" That indeed is a paradox.

So where does that leave us? Of course, many decisive moments have been photographed before and since Cartier-Bresson. Is this concept, described by someone who was a painter at heart and whose photography was strongly influenced by that very fact, of use for us? Not so much from a philosophical but from a practical point of view? "...simultaneous recognition" presupposes seeing and understanding and in later years Cartier-Bresson complained that the new generations of photographers didn't seem able to "see" anymore. Merely the ramblings of a brilliant but aging photographer or a new generation understanding that this concept, if practical at all, had only limited importance? Is it really possible to recognise such a moment in that split second or do we merely define such moments with hindsight?

the article in "Photographies" by Douglas Smith "FROM ONE CHINA TO THE OTHER - Cartier-Bresson, Sartre and photography in the age of decolonization" is a hugely interesting and informative read that I strongly recommend to anyone interested in the history of photography.

Personally I think it is a applicable concept although yes, it is very rare. To give an example this photo was taken in front of a church. After the mass the man in the wheelchair came out and was obviously waiting for someone while the pigeon had been trampling around already for a bit. When the woman came out it all started to fall into its place and I was very aware of the exact moment I pushed that shutter release.

So, what's your take on this? And please provide some examples (if you think you have some).

marc lankhorst · October 2, 2009

I agree with you that true decisive moments are quite rare, but they do occur and to me these lucky coincidences are the essence of "classic" street photography. It's always a delight to recognize and capture such a moment, even if that only happens a few times a year. Some illustrations:

I couldn't believe my luck; while I was taking some architecture shots, this man in his blue and white striped shirt happened to walk by, matching perfectly with the striped benches.

Again while photographing architecture (Palladio's Basilica in Vicenza), this nun happened to walk through my field of view, her white habit nicely contrasting with the dark background and adding to the "medieval" feeling of the picture. I pressed the shutter just as she tried to enter the shop (which turned out to be closed).

Just as I was walking past the Houses of Parliament in London, this masked guy with his bobby helmet (a protester of some sort) happened to pass by some actual bobbies, who were quite amused.

Here, I was struck by the symmetry and opposition of the two bicyclists, in a cityscape filled with bikes all around.

I really admire photographers like Cartier-Bresson or René Burri, who could create such extensive collections of decisive moments. Nevertheless, I am also fond of Frank and his melancholy but poetic and much more intuitive look at the Americans. Sometimes HCB's work can come across as too cerebral, and that certainly is a flaw in some of my own pictures. Being on the lookout for these moments somehow shapes your vision, and even photographs taken intuitively can take on such a "constructed" feeling.

fate_faith_change_chains · October 2, 2009

"for me photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organisation of forms which give that event its proper expression"

</blockquote>

Good post Ton, but the quote is part of a bit broader concept that I believe HCB was talking about, and which is more generally applicable to the act of photography without it having to be, in this context, about a one of a kind perfect (street)shot. The fuller quote reads like this :

" In order to 'give a meaning' to the world, one has to feel oneself involved in what he frames through the viewfinder. This attitude requires concentration, a discipline of mind, sensitivity, and a sense of geometry. It is by great economy of means that one arrives at simplicity of expression. One must always take photographs with the greatest respect for the subject and for oneself....To take photographs means to recognize - simultaniously and within a fraction of a second - both the fact itself and the rigourous organization of visually perceived forms that give it meaning. It is putting one's head, one's eye, and one's heart on the same axis."

When the quote is seen like this, especially the last sentence, it doesn't necessarily exclude the poetic intuitiveness of a Robert Frank, a Ralph Gibson, or just about any photographer's chosen style. I think rather then HCB's own style being too clean, too restrictive, too arranged and too neat it's probably more "correct" to say that his style/photography, whether one likes it or not, is on such a level were its damn hard, not obvious at all, to easily duplicate. I think there in mostly lies its restrictiveness, that HCB as a photographer simply played in a league of his own, and that the "decisive moment" ( not originally Kertesz ? ) were truly his decisive moments.

spanky · October 2, 2009

Robert Frank was quoted someplace as saying that the "decisive moment" doesn't exist, he does all he can to make a photograph look the way he wants it to.

Whatever the case, I think it's a slippery slope one starts on when they look to the techniques of others as a means to an end. Whatever technique or approach or philosophy HCB used to create his body of work was his and his alone. He knew the kind of pictures he wanted to make, and mostly likely through trial and error he discovered a method of doing so. Just because it worked for him does not mean it will work for others. Likewise, Frank knew that his work wouldn't be the way he wanted it to be (nor would it be authentic since he would be ignoring his own approach) if he simply tried to shoot in a way that HCB would.

If photographers today cannot "see" , it's because they have not yet acquired the the ability to see acutely. This is no easy task so it's understandable. Human nature does not require us to make any conscious effort to perceive and understand physical relationships except at the most superficial level. We simply orient ourselves to our surroundings and only "see" things that affect us directly. Even then, it's simply to understand the issue at hand. For many, perception and observation only scratches the surface and is subjective and intermittent.

I'll upload two pictures that may illustrate this (I hope). The first picture was taken while driving to work. I bought my Nikon F2 precisely for pictures like this...pictures seen while I'm not out taking pictures. You see, after awhile ones eyes are always "on". By this I mean it becomes a habit and even when your not out photographing, you will still see pictures presenting themselves. How many of us drive to work each day and arrive without any memory of the trip? Most of us I'd bet myself included in some cases. My friends certainly do since this is a favorite of many of them, but they all tell me they would have never noticed the bus in front of the strip club. They probably may have noticed, but they wouldn't have seen the irony perhaps because our minds are on other things so we don't "see" things like this or we do see them but it doesn't sink into us as something special. So it's important to try and switch gears in our heads and try to see the world as if for the first time. Notice not just things in an abstract way but what makes these things the things they are. Become aware of the mountainness of mountains, the marbleness of marble, the glassiness of glass and so on. When you eat, don't just woof it down and then scram. Savor each bite being aware of the the taste and texture. After awhile it gets easier to get your brain used to this heightened observation.

The second picture was taken after a long afternoon of shooting. I stopped in this sandwich shop for a cold drink before heading back home. As I sat there, I became aware of the bright cold Dec. light that seemed to magnify itself as it came through the window and onto the girl. (See above...the lightness of light etc.) So I started taking some shots from where I sat. As a coincidence, the sign on the left showing a drawing of a person lifting a drink or sandwich mimics the girl in the center. I bring it up because one way we strengthen our powers of observation is by the law of similarity. This simply states that objects in a photograph that are similar in size, shape, mass, tone or vector will be perceived by others as belonging together. Here, the effect would be stronger if the girl and the sign were closer to each other (the law of proximity would apply here) but this was the first picture I could think of as an example.

As I mentioned above, I think it's extremely important that one take the pictures that are meaningful to them and disregard what has worked for others. It's fine to admire and be inspired by other photographers; I am always going to galleries and museums for this reason. Once the camera goes around your neck though, it's time to forget all that and fully see and experience where you are and take the pictures that are meaningful to you.<div></div>

spanky · October 2, 2009

<div>

00Ue3Y-177617684.jpg.081b32dcdd6c2bd2ea5d38680ad0c1a3.jpg

</div>

fi_rondo1 · October 2, 2009

Here's some disconnected thoughts on the theme:

I

Although there are plenty of moments that come together in a way that can be called "decisive", I tend to think that philosophy (as such) is most often relevant after the fact.

II

One must always take photographs with the greatest respect for the subject and for oneself .

As with most humans, HCB makes himself out to be a better man than he actually was (rather bourgeois of him, eh?). Here's an anecdote recalled recently in a column by a journalist, John Walsh:

... an assignment undertaken at the end of the war by the American writer John Malcolm Brinnin, to travel across the States with Henri Cartier-Bresson, the undisputed God of modern photojournalism. What pulls you up short is Miller's description of "an incident in a diner, when one of the customers suffered an epileptic fit and Cartier-Bresson managed to get in the way, in his determination to get pictures of the frothing victim". Brinnin claimed the Frenchman was furious when anyone got in his own way - at one point he apparently pushed Brinnin to the ground in his anxiety not to miss a picture...

I don't fault Bresson for the above incident... by all accounts the guy was human, a great photographer, and just hated to see those decisive moments slip away...

III

In a way, the "decisive moment" is neither fact nor fiction, but something that goes beyond reality altogether. It has become an ideal, a holy grail, a legend, a myth.

IV

I have no idea if any of my images could be mistaken for a DM, but I wonder if the examples by Marc aren't more of a case of serendipity than anything else... and is there a difference? (... By the way, Marc, love the striped shirt one... would have made a good picture even without the guy)

marc lankhorst · October 3, 2009

I agree with Fi that serendipity has a lot to do with it, and HCB's quote on simultaneously, in a fraction of a second, recognizing the event and its expression in the organization of forms also seems to imply a form of coincidence or "luck". Most events don't come in such an organized form, and when they do (and I am able to recognize and photograph them) I consider myself very lucky.

I love the other Marc's schoolbus; a similarly lucky and significant coincidence. It's the same kind of irony one can find in many of HCB's pictures.

tonmestrom · October 3, 2009

already some great and informed replies. let me respond to some of what you've said.

yes Phylo, it is broader but does that change it's essence, especially within the context it was brought up? Personally I don't think so because there is clearly implied that a single photo can only hold and convey limited information but can it? (btw Winogrand once implied that photos tell no stories and yet, so many of his do. Another paradox?) I think that photographers like for instance Frank didn't much care for the more "studied" approach and look of much of HCB's and others work. It's therefore not so much on another level but more a question of personal style I think.

How great you refer to Kertesz in this respect. Kertesz was once compared to Columbus having discovered a new world only to find having it named after someone else. (what a great topic that would be to discuss, the profound influence and artistry of Hungarian photographers, like Kertesz, Maholy-Nagy, Besnyo, Capa, Brassai and the lot) in the first half of the last century. Historic artefact or something else alltogether?)

Yes Marc, it would be a slippery slope if one were to try to copy or emulate such work. It doesn't exclude however being inspired by it as you yourself also noted. For this reason however I don't agree with your statement of "...and disregard what has worked for others" because there is so much we can learn from studying just that only to apply it in our own unique way.

Fi, defining it as such after the fact? Isn't that also what you are on about Marc? (just a question, not a qualification). CB is seen by some as being arrogant but frankly I'm not interested in the man as much as his work (nice anecdote though). Has it become a myth? For instance contain some great sport photographs a decisive moment or merely a deciding moment. Again, look at the concept at hand.

Yes, serendipity is a huge factor in this kind of photography and one we should acknowledge. But can you influence serendipity by anticipating or in other words "seeing" and understanding and making use of it at the right moment?

(Marc, I missed your reply as I was pondering my own)

marc lankhorst · October 3, 2009

Ton, in answer to your last remark: perhaps I should have given a better explanation why I posted the four pictures above. The first two are examples of a person in a surroundings that acts as a kind of stage. Someone enters, and at the right moment/composition you can take a picture. I think HCB's picture of the girl running up the stairs in a Greek village might be an example of this or his man jumping a puddle.

The second two are examples of two occurrences at the same time, mirroring each other in some way. These are truly coincidences. HCB's portrait of Giacometti mirroring one of his own statues might also be an example, or the other Marc's two pictures.

I would argue that the first kind of picture lends itself better to influencing the serendipity, since you can anticipate that something interesting might happen "on stage" and you may even lie in wait for such an occurrence. The second kind requires two occurrences, which is much less likely to happen (no one would wait for a schoolbus to park next to a stripclub). You cannot wait for something like this to happen but you really have to be lucky and aware of your luck. I think part of HCB's excellence was in his awareness of such coincidences.

saintelmo21 · October 3, 2009

Key elements of good photography: focus, exposure, composition, and timing . Ephemeral and elusive that concept of the right time! It really seems to make the difference between a mediocre photograph and a piece of art. Arguably it could be the most important of the elements. I think there are lots of examples that are a little off in focus or exposure, yet manage to illicit a powerful reaction.That's our goal, isn't it?

Our chosen vehicle for attempted artistry is the street or public venues where there are many factors well beyond our control. We do not have a blank canvas to work with, that would be easier. On the contrary, our canvas is full, crowded with the activities of everyday life. The sounds, sights, and smells of a crowded street corner, the deck of a drilling rig, or whenever we choose to shoot S&D. So, it's not a matter of creating something from nothing, we have to take what is presented to us and craft the image into what we want. To do this successfully, we have to have a vision of what we want. Maybe that's another element of good photography: artistic vision.

Each one of us has different methods for capturing street images. Everything I know about HCB, I've learned from PN (as sad as that maybe). One thing that intrigues me is that he was an accomplished hunter. He went out purposefully and found the image he was looking for. I think we make our own luck...not to get caught up in cliches, but being in the right place at the right time has a lot to do with creating a street photo. We pick the place and the time, seeing the image is where the artistry comes into play. Capturing the image is where good photography skills come in.

I don't look for 'decisive moments'. I look for light and shadows that make cool, 'stony' images. Too much green revolution? Yeah, maybe, but I have fun with it.

AJHingel · October 3, 2009

Ton thanks for this very good and well formulated theme. We are of course many that, if I may say so, come from there, having been inspired by Cartier-Bressons book and not least his most famous pictures such: as "Rue Mouffetard" (the boy with two bottles of red wine) from the 50's, or "Aquila degli Abruzzi" (staircaess and women carrying bread on their heads) both from the 50's, and not least "Pont de l'Europe" from the 30's (the man jumping to to keep his shoes dry).

Being inspire by such legendary photos does however not mean that we are some out there that walk around believing we are grandchildren of the great Cartier-Bresson, but that we are some that are shooting with the same project in mind: to shoot scenes where "the significance of an event as well as of a precise organisation of forms ... give that event its proper expression".

However, in my eyes, the importance of that photographical project is not necessarily the time dimension. "The spilt of a second" might be of longer duration. People do stop walking sometimes and sometimes situated exactly where the "precise organisation" has been achieved. This precise organisation, providing expression, can even be found stable in time by lines and perspectives created by town planners, architects and other signs of human activity. In such cases the only movement in question is the photographer's eye and he can take all the time it takes to find the precise organisation of the scene providing the expression.

AJHingel · October 3, 2009

An example (linked to my response above)<div>

</div>

luis_g · October 3, 2009

The Decisive Moment, as viewed by many, implies, to a degree, that there is an ideal bit of time in a temporal sequence. This is attractive to many, since it simplifies the process, and turns it into a game with a known, desirable outcome. As Phylo insightfully pointed out, this is not what HCB meant.

Any sequence has a plurality of aspects, involving an enormous amount of variables in some cases from which a photographer chooses one over the others. To do this one has to project themselves into the future just a little bit. One must "lead" neural lag and camera lag, while making accurate predictive assessments of where the moving elements within the frame will be at the moment the shutter curtains begin to guillotine a slice of light. Otherwise, one is always working ex post facto, which is one of the reasons so many photographs are dull and devoid of life.

To better understand HCB and the decisive moment, one may want to read Eugen Herrigel's Zen in the Art of Archery.

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Art-Archery-Eugen-Herrigel/dp/0375705090

Norma Desmond · October 3, 2009

I talk about my own photography and photographs always with hesitation. I read what photographers say about their photographs and process with great interest . . . and hesitation as well. I often feel what I say about my photographs is self-canceling the minute I say it. I like to think of words I say and words other photographers say as snippets . . . glimpses (a word that goes way back for me to when I was indirectly being subtly influenced by a photographer friend before I ever really picked up a camera with serious intent). I see any one quote or even a grand verbally-expressed idea of my own or someone else as part of a fluid, ongoing, evolving process. I wouldn't want to be held to one specific quote isolated from all my other thoughts but rather as part of a long conversation. I see the words I speak as accompanying rather than explaining my work.

I've experienced decisive moments as instantaneously intuited or felt, like a light bulb going off I guess. A quick "Aha!" I "recognize" them later but feel them rather strongly in the "now." They all don't work out to produce great images, though some do. I've felt many "Aha" moments that I think were decisive, yet find out they didn't lead to a particularly good photo. I've been fooled? Not always! What I'm realizing is that many of those moments were in fact decisive and only so in yielding future potential. I felt something significant in a particular shooting moment and learned something, something intuitive and decisive that I could put to use later, at another time, to get a result more to my liking.

Two paradoxes have been referred to: Bresson talking about the rare decisive moment and the importance, on the other hand, of series reportage and Winogrand telling about the lack of stories in photographs which to others tell stories. I see no paradox, because of what I said to begin with here. I don't take photographers' and artists' words too explicitly or literally. They are often simply part of a creative process, ranging from absolute pearls of wisdom to more-hard-to-accurately-decipher stream of consciousness and sometimes (including my own) to simple verbal masturbation. I take Bresson to be recognizing that the decisive moment isn't the be-all and end-all of photographic goals. Perhaps he is seeing it as a tool. Sometimes one tool helps accomplish a certain task or job and sometimes another tool is in order. Winogrand might have been thinking at the time of the importance of visual aspects of photos, of not narratively translating the content of a photo into a "story." That doesn't mean a viewer can't see a story where Winogrand simply may have been motivated by lights and shapes, perhaps moments, perhaps expressions not creating a narrative for him. (I'm just throwing out possibilities. I don't know enough about Winogrand to guess at what he actually meant.)

I often think about decisive moments in an after-the-fact manner as has been referenced by others a couple of times. I have found myself editing into decisive moments. I go through photographs, sometimes years later, and expressions and moments can somehow become (or are being now recognized as) decisive. That has a lot to do with context. Something may now be decisive because of where my head or heart is now as opposed to where it was before. The moment hasn't changed. I have. A photo from way back may now be decisive to me (even if it wasn't back then) because it relates now in a significant way to a photo I just took, making it part of a greater artistic statement. What might not be decisive in isolation may take on decisive significance in the context of a documentary series. Aha, THAT expression or THAT moment puts an exclamation point on this series, though it wouldn't be nearly as strong on its own.

I also think moments become decisive in post processing. As I dodge and burn, as I bring details out of shadows, as I crop, suddenly something mundane becomes significant. It wasn't that way then. It is now.

Allen Herbert · October 3, 2009

"for me photography is the simultaneous recognition, in a fraction of a second, of the significance of an event as well as of a precise organisation of forms which give that event its proper expression".

What a fine wordsmith Henri was. I like to think he was not just talking about capturing a clever moment but photography in general when all the elements come together. Someone jumping a puddle to my mind is just a humorous photo which has little to offer other than creating a smile. The idea that it takes place in a fraction of a second is a sketchy thought even when applied to sport photography…..there are always many moments some not revealing as others but require some thought. Precise organisation of forms is nice and pleasing to the eye and adds to any photo…fine Art photography comes mind. However, the story/message the impact on the imagination, emotions are the significant factors in any photograph in my opinion. <div></div>

Allen Herbert · October 3, 2009

<div>

00UeP5-177799784.jpg.21e429226e7851d15eb077611a72bbf3.jpg

</div>

Allen Herbert · October 3, 2009

<div>

00UePI-177800184.jpg.89214e78e33635c64fe754e6eb2a38dc.jpg

</div>

inoneeye · October 3, 2009

Tool, descriptive label, state of mind, philosophy, larger than life, paradox, serendipity, misleading .... I have to subscribe to all of the above. At some point it does mean each of these things to me. First it does seems that to many it means that it was the best moment. Wow! you have caught and organized an extraordinary moment in the mundane chaos of the ordinary. Life is full of those moments, but it is rare to see it in the terms of a decisive moment. Rare only that a photographer combines it together to be recognized as The moment. It can happen fast, and does for the easiest to recognize decisive moments. Speed is frequently a factor in labeling a decisive moment.I think that it is easy to recognize The decisive moment when it is a well captured frozen highly energized kinetic moment. HCB Man jumping puddle, Eisenstadt Times Square KIss, (staged or not...),Eddie Adams Execution of Vietcong. It is not as readily recognizable when the photo is of an apparently stagnant or slower moment(s). After all the longer moment could have possibly been shot seconds later. Is it less decisive?. Perhaps in the strictest usage but it still may reveal a moment in time less precise than a fraction of a moment but still be as significant, as decisive, as any frozen highly energized moment. Lange Migrant Mother, I have seen unattributed lynching photographs, or photos of the Hindenburg at different moments that are stand alone decisive moments. Is it more decisive if it is the moment it ignites in flames or the moment someone is caught jumping or the moment it comes in contact with the ground. All decisive but with a slightly different message obviously. The decisive moment for some implies The proper moment. As it often is for me. The moment that i feel best illustrates and energizes my intent. I, like an archer do have an purpose.. The most harmonious moment. The bullseye.? I can go there but only in terms of the context i am given. I think it would be entirely possible that there may have been an equally or more powerful moment behind me or 3 minutes later. That does not stop me from recognizing and acknowledging that a particular photo captured a decisive moment. And when i do go there i don't give thought to any other moment that may or may not have happened. I am entirely captivated and focused on the moment captured in the photo.

There is an inescapable act of creation to consider. The act of being prepared, your state of mind, intent, pre visualization , positioning, framing, projections,narrative, visceral, cerebral, serendipity, reflex, mechanics... all individual to the photographer.... By nature it varies for you and me. I have noticed that the decisive moment is often used to make observations that go to compositional ingredients, the construction of a photo. I tend to use it most often to describe and assess the narrative feature of a photo. In that regard a decisive moment is a very useful tool for me. ... As others have noted, when it all comes together in perfect harmony, guided by your vision, it becomes a decisive moment for you and then, there is the viewer. When your viewer is tuned in to what you were doing and wowed by it, it is often called The moment.

I think it can be practiced and used how we see fit. Besides hunting for a decisive moment takes me to places within and outwardly that is fun and rewarding in so many ways.

sam_motskin · October 3, 2009

HCB definitely had a way with words. He expressed his ideas very eloquently. To me, in a simple way, it boils down to two points. An event that conveys your message and the picture design that helps communicate it. In his early work, heavily influenced by surrealism, I sometimes have hard time understanding the message, but may be it's just me But in his later work his message just shouts at me and that was the major reason that inspired me for candid photography. In his book "about Russia" documenting his trip to the USSR in 1972-73 he was able to come away with pictures that conveyed the tensions and undercurrents that, in my mind, no other photographer has ever come close to. And that in spite of the fact that he traveled with a government supplied interpreter/minder. I think combining the event that communicates a deep message with the picture design that supports that message is what sets him apart and what made him a hard act to follow. I also think he did not invent "the decisive moment". If we take a look at some paintings of Degas, Toulouse-Lautrec, Daumier's drawings we'll see "decisive moments".

fi_rondo1 · October 4, 2009

More Disconnects:

I

Ton, Regarding the anecdote I posted about Bresson's mode of shooting... It may be more relevant to how he got his photographs than any philosophy regarding "decisive moments". The Zen analogy is a good one. When the process leads you to those moments, self-consciousness is like a poison. And, I do believe you can have those moments without producing photographs of any worth.

II

Philosophy will only take you so far. It's a way of preparing the eye to see, but seeing is not capturing. Capturing is being in the moment, in the act of shooting, and if Bresson had to knock someone out of the way or throw someone to the ground, it shows how determined he was and how ruthless he could be, in the pursuit of the shot... I'm sure this wasn't the only way he shot, but it's an interesting glimpse into the man's character.

III

Even if I'm off the mark with the above, I'll always take a man's actions to be more revealing than his words.

IV

The Decisive Moment may be such an important part of photographic literature because 1) it's a well written and well thought out piece, 2) because the author is a photographer worth taking seriously, and 3) I can't think of any other major photographer who wrote a Manifesto on photography.

If anyone can name another I'd love to read hear about it.

V

In response to Marc Todd's observation that we should see "acutely"...

The Biblical injunction: A people without a vision will perish.

What hope would there then be for photographers?

VI

I know this isn't about Bresson but here's another anecdote:

Bresson didn't care for Martin Parr's "decisive moments"

After getting genuinely pissed off by looking at Parr's photographs, Bresson said to Parr, "I have only one thing to say to you, you are from a completely different planet from me!" A reporter nearby asked, "Does that mean you don't like his work?" Before Bresson stormed off he shoulded, "I never, never repeat myself!"

Anyhow, the two men (Parr and Bresson) later came to an understanding. "We're still from other planets," Bresson wrote, "But what of it?"

V

Norma Desmond · October 4, 2009

Fi-- My philosophy is after, before, and in the (f)act. As it is after the fact, it precedes, informs, and effects the next one. It's not static, distant, or objective. It's lived. It is process. It can be my seeing, my capturing, and what I see and capture. I have shot according to my philosophy and I have shot my philosophy. My captures wouldn't be what they are without my philosophy/ies. I can be thinking about philosophy in the moments or not, mostly not. Moments, for me, happen within my philosophy, not without it. I don't turn philosophy on and off. It just is. It's kind of a heartbeat and a drumbeat. My acts are both results of and creators of my experience, history, evolution, maturation, intention. They come from my past and lead to my future and take place in the moment. Were my acts not enmeshed with my consciousness, my self-consciousness (by that I mean self awareness), and my intentions, they would seem to me purely chance and random, which most often they are not. I imagine that for some, the moment is just the moment. For me, the moment is more than just the moment. Philosophy takes me all the way and back.

khi · October 4, 2009

the decisive moment is when you "see" something and you take a photograph. it's really that simple. pictures don't mean-they show.

nickjeftic · October 4, 2009

Ton, the first association that came to my mind when I read your post was the brilliant TV advertisement for The Guardian showing the same street scene viewed from different angles and depicting a completely different story every time. For me this wonderfully portrays the essence of the “decisive moment” as well as its inherent relativity.

inoneeye · October 4, 2009

Keith. "pictures don't mean-they show." cryptic as it is for me, i would like to hear more. To some, photos show what you saw and nothing more. To some they express meaning, convey. Therefore images can be used to express, be more than just what you see. As a medium of communication, I sometimes choose to let photos convey more than what i saw. Like words can tell you what I mean, think and feel (not just line, light and shadow on a page)... The specific word and arrangement of the words can be important. The outcome is more or less effective depending on choices i make.. Photos can refer to ideas or emotions, with narrative or visual meaning. I don't think that this excludes using the phrase decisive moment from considerations of a purely structural aspect of a photo. Like words or music or dance, etc - photographs can communicate and become more than a collection of lines, light and shadow that you saw. They have meaning. Since we have some ability to make choices that impact the effectiveness of our communication there are bound to be decisive moments. Or not of course, but it can be a tool, an option. There probably was a way to say, express what i just did, that i would no doubt consider to be more to the point, resolute, without hesitation and effective. decisive. and when you say "the decisive moment is when you "see" something and you take a photograph." i do get it. . "pictures don't mean-they show." Your few words give me little to go on but i think may represent an attitude that is prevalent. I wouldn't be surprised that some here would agree with the spirit of what you say, when talking about there own work. I hope you or others of like mind can expand on it.

khi · October 5, 2009

Josh, i hope i can explain (what is just my opinion) in a constructive and clear manner. First of all, the quote "pictures don't mean-they show" is from a great old-timer Mr. David Vestal. I happen to agree with his statements.

I quote: "a still picture shows everything that is in it, all at the same time." "A picture shows a whole complex of things together, all seen at the same arrested time in a given space. It might show a cat or cats together with any number of non-cat things. Sequential it's not. Photos tell no stories. They show visible things and conditions in great complexity, but they don't have time for any telling." "Words must be strung one after another to say anything more complicated than "cat." "In the beginning was not the word, but the experience-seeing, hearing, and the rest-or there would be nothing for the word to say. Photos, in particular, are far more exact, direct, and specific than words." "Photos don't have the same kind of meaning as words. They present experience directly. Words can only be indirect."

Since we are talking about the "decisive moment" I will use Ton's image as an example. (no offense Ton) Would I say that Ton's image represents a "decisive moment"? Yes. I think it does. The subjects in his image fell into place-Ton "saw" the moment and took the photograph. Does this image have a deep hidden philisophical meaning? Does this image tell a "story"? I think not. As Mr. Vestal said, it shows things together, all seen at the same arrested time in a given space.

I could use almost all of Henri Cartier-Bressons images as examples. Look here: <a href="http://www.gr8photos.ic.cz/images/cartier%20bresson%20-%20france.%20paris%201968.%20doulevard%20duderot..jpg">http://www.gr8photos.ic.cz/images/cartier%20bresson%20-%20france.%20paris%201968.%20doulevard%20duderot..jpg</a> Does this image tell a story? Is there a deep hidden meaning here? No, what we see are two young people kissing at a sidewalk cafe table while a dog looks up at them. What has Mr. Henri done here? He has captured "things together, all seen at the same arrested time in a given space." Is he telling a story? No. To tell a story here, you would have to string together words, one after another to say anything more complicated than "kiss." So Josh, when you say that photographs are like words, I cannot agree with you (again-MHO) I think the two could not be more different. However, we are all different, and that is what makes life interesting.

I feel that as photographers (myself included) we tend to "overthink" the philisophical meaning of our photographs and their importance to humanity. Some of the worst photography I have ever seen and continue to see is the "conceptual" image. Maybe it is because I spent so many years in advertising that I feel this way. IMHO, if someone looks at a photograph of mine (or any photographer for that matter) and the first thing they think is HUH?, it means that I have failed as a photographer.

It is much too easy to confuse our "emotional" response to a particular photograph with the idea that this photograph is "telling" a story. It is not without the addition of words, (an explanation, if you will) that the image communicates a "story."

Sign In

S&D PUB: The Decisive Moment, fact or fiction?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in