Am I a Philistine because I don't appreciate HCB?

[kristian dowling]

Take a look at Eugene Smith's work. Now that's incredible. But HCB's work does take time to appreciate, and some of his work sucks, compared to today's standards.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

<I>No vacation, no baby, no wedding snapshots in his portfolio,

just the meat and potatoes of life.</I><P>

 

Ahem, easy enough to do if you are the heir to a vast industrial

fortune (C-B were the largest makers of sewing threads in

France at the time!)

[sergio_ortega6]

In my opinion Willy Ronis, a contemporary of HCB and by comparison relatively unknown, produced work that overshadows HCB's. It's often perplexing to me how one artist achieves superstar status while others, often more deserving, don't receive similar public acclaim.

[art__]

Seeing the actual print makes a big difference, rather than just viewing them in books, magazines or via the net. Especially with someone like Ansel Adams (which is not the kind of photograph I get much pleasure out of looking at), but I would have to admit the real thing is impressive.

 

Liking the work of current and former �Leica Masters� is not a prerequisite to owning, enjoying and perfecting your craft with a Leica.

 

Arturo

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

HCB is our greatest living photographer. His work is a treasure. I am

depressed by some of the comments in this string. Also a little angered, not to

mention embarrassed. I would suggest looking at more photographs. Study

the history of photography. Study the masters. Shut off the computer and look

at some photography books. I would also suggest spending less time

gnashing ones teeth about whether a certain lens is the "best" lens or the

correct version. It doesn't matter. Ramy's message about Atget was brilliant.

Re-read it and learn. Please.

[ray .]

You can call HCB's photograph 'Behind the Gare Saint-Lazare, Pont de l'Europe, Paris, 1932' a cliche or anything else you want, but if you can't see anything in it that's not my problem. Everything of beauty goes unappreciated by someone. So what?

[Robin Smith]

Well "de gustibus non disputendem est" of course, so there is not really much point telling someone to "look and study and then you will appreciate it" as if the person has been a naughty boy or girl. People tell me the same thing about Renoir or Twombly or quite a few other artists who I just do not much like. An appreciation of a fine technique is not the same thing as an appreciation of artistry. Atget was a very fine technician, but artistically he does not appeal to me. You can tell me I am wrong, but I don't have to agree with you. As I said earlier, my opinion is that his pictures are largely interesting because of their age: give me Steichen or Weston, HCB, Ansel or Harry Callahan anyday. There is not really much point arguing about this really. The point is if Ray fails to see the big deal about HCB it does not necessarily mean anything, he may well appreciate someone else more than all of you who believe HCB is god.

[msitaraman]

Liking Cartier-Bresson is not a prerequisite for any sort of photographic activity, and he has become a sort of boring gold standard of photographic perfection in his extreme old age.

 

I do agree with Sergio that Willy Ronis is as much a pioneer of European street decisive moment photography as Cartier-Bresson, but perhaps H.C-B is the better known, partly because of his monumental talent, but also because of his not inconsiderable personal charm, presence and social connections in the European photography and art circles in his prime.

 

So why does one person become a legend and the other nearly forgotten now? The answer has little to do with photography but everything to do with fame, celebrity and human nature, I guess...

 

Now, as for the photographs themselves, some of them are weak by today's standards, but only perhaps because we live in louder, less nuanced times. Take a walk through one of his exhibitions, Ray, if you get a chance sometime in the future. The strength of the images definitely leaps off the wall more than out of some small reprint book.

 

And as for his images becoming cliches, surely that is to his credit and not discredit?

 

It is easy to forget we stand on the shoulders of giants, as we look down upon their achievements from our superior height.

[stb]

HCB has redefined photography. His work is inceredibly good but, I

admit, not the easiest to grasp. His family was rich, but that

created more of a fight than anything else for him. The best help he

got from that propbably was the purchase of his first Leica and the

fact that he did not need to earn money to eat. But, that would have

done nothing if he was not an exceptional person. He took thre

years, three years full time, just to learn to use his Leica. It

might seem strange to us who believe we can use it after having

burned a few rolls, but it is only because we satisfy ourselves with

very little.

 

HCB photography is a unique blend of painting, Zen arc shooting,

geometry, talent, dedication and work, work, work. HCB does not see

photography as an art, but as a craft. His craft is shooting. In

french, he actually says "tirer", and that word, in French generally

does not apply to photography but to guns. HCB can, in the blink of

the eye, frame and shoot. I did not sat point and shoot, but FRAMe

and shoot. His work is NOT cropped. Actually, cropping an HCB

picture is a breach of contract. He specifically forbid any

publisher to crop his pictures and to omit the legend. The black

borders we see in books are not faked.

 

He is the master of a style. One can not like that style, of course.

But to dismiss the value of HCB work is simple ignorance.

[bobtodrick]

Andrew, please check out the quote I am enclosing from the US government website on Yosemite National Forest. Ansel DID use glass plates in the early part of his career.

 

People often told Ansel not to give up his music�that photography could not express the human soul. But in 1927, he hiked to the diving board on the shoulder of Half Dome, carrying a hefty 6.5" x 8.5" view camera, and 12 glass plate negatives. There he photographed Monolith, The Face of Half Dome, now one of his most revered photographs. As he clicked the shutter on his camera, he saw in his mind's eye how the photograph would look as a print. This new-found ability to visualize the finished image as he was recording it on film served as a turning point for Ansel. Soon after, he decided to focus his life around photography.

 

I'd appreciate an apology.

[Troll]

Ray, you are not a Philistine because you don't like HC-Bs pictures, but because you fail to grasp that their real impact is to teach us to observe and appreciate the significant ordinary moments of life, as it occurs around us. The entire "Family of Man" show of the 1950s was dedicated to that purpose. Cartier-Bresson just happens to be the outstanding practicioner of the lighter (and in a sense more pictoral)view, whereas others of his generation such as W. Eugene Smith and Dorothea Lange show a darker picture of the human condition.

[al_kaplan1]

6 1/2 x 8 1/2 was a common plate and film size through the early 20th century. It was referred to by the British as "full plate". The common 3 1/4 x 4 1/4 format used in press cameras was called "quarter plate". Of course the Americans preferred 4x5 inch film and the Europeans used 9x12 cm in their press cameras. The outside dimensions of 9x12 and 4x5 film holders are the same, only the film sheath inside varies.

 

Ansel Adams also did some photography with a Hasselblad. I wonder which direction his work would have taken if today's Leica lenses and Technical Pan and T-Max films had existed when he was a young man.

[andrew n.bra hrefhttp]

(HCB and cropping):<P>

 

<I>His work is NOT cropped. Actually, cropping an HCB picture

is a breach of contract. He specifically forbid any publisher to

crop his pictures and to omit the legend</I><P>

 

Maybe, but how does that explain HCB's contributions to the

original "Family of Man" exhibition? Have a close look at these

shots and you will quickly notice that not all of them are precisely

2:3(!)<P>

 

As I've mentioned elsewhere, there's a big, real-world difference

between all the things HCB said and what HCB actually did!

[ilkka]

St Ansel also used a 35mm Contax camera for several decades. So he was not unfamiliar with 'Leica-style' cameras or photography. But the fact remains, you can get better landscapes with an 8x10. Even compared with today's Leica glass. The Hasselblad he used in his later years when carrying 8x10s on regular basis was getting a bit too much.

[ray_moth]

Just a few words of thanks to all who have responded to this thread. Please keep 'em coming. I tried to choose the words of my question carefully: by saying that I didn't appreciate HCB, I meant that I failed to understand the value of his contribution to photography. Many others obviously do and it's interesting to read their explanations.

 

[bill Mitchell, thanks for putting me straight: I thought I was probably a Philistine, I just didn't fully understand why. Now I know!] :-)

[Troll]

Ray, you're welcome. It takes one to know one, they say.

[Robin Smith]

As Ikka said Ansel used a Contarex system too - there are a few images taken with them in his books. I think his 35mm work is rather undistinguished from what I have seen, but I have not seen much of it. He was a man whose best work addressed large spaces. A man so obsessed with precise framing I think he would have been unlikely to warm to rangefinders, but I don't know.

 

As to cropping HCB: sure you cannot crop any of HCBs pictures in his canon, but that is quite normal and indeed is the height of poor taste - you can't reproduce most artists work and crop them how you might like, copyright holders usually insist on this - and who can blame them? This is a different issue altogether from whether HCB cropped them himself before presenting them to the world. I think he did do this on occasion, even if he did not like to do so.

[john_r._fulton_jr.]

>>>Take a look at Eugene Smith's work. Now that's incredible. But HCB's

work does take time to appreciate, and some of his work sucks, compared to

today's standards. -- Kristian Dowling , August 13, 2002; 08:04 P.M.

Eastern<<<

 

 

Kristian--I'm curious about your statement.

 

Could you discuss "today's standards" and what they are and who sets them?

I'd like to have some names of current photographers that set "today's

standards". Since Eugene Smith died in mid-1970's you couldn't be referring

to him.

 

My second question would be about what "sucks" about HCB's pictures in

regards to those standards. Perhaps you could elaborate on "sucks" and how

it is used in relationship to some of his photographs. Which of his

photographs "suck"?

[cd thacker]

<I>This is a different issue altogether from whether HCB cropped them himself before presenting them to the world. I think he did do this on occasion, even if he did not like to do so.</I><P>

 

I distinctly recall reading an interview with HCB, given late in his career, wherein he said that he had yet to see a single frame of his that could have been improved by cropping. This was in the context of his larger statement that he had <I>never</I> cropped anything. I'd be interested in seeing it if there is any indication that he ever did crop something.<P>

 

As far as the question - philistine or not? - goes: I'd say that's certainly your call - different people aspire to different things. Personally, I agree with the posters here who recommend taking a second - and a third - look; you might find that to be the most rewarding.

[philip_partridge2]

I recently spent several hours at a HCB exhibition; his work leaves me ambivalent. I dislike the way society assigns iconic status to certain individuals, hence, I suspect, your defensiveness. To make matters worse, the photographs reinfored the cult of celebrity in the west.

 

The work was more memorable, imo, for the historic elements of the settings, the grainy textures (many of the works were very large, 20x24 or so) and the surroudings of many of the portraits. Very easy on the eye, although the decisive moment looked decidely less than decisive in many portraits...then again, many of the subjects were either personal friends of HCB, or public figures who were overly accustomed to being photographed, thereby depriving any image of 'freshness'.