Untitled Photography by Henri Brassai: His Secret Paris - Weekly Discussion #19

[jimadams]

<p>I'll try to keep my little introduction as brief as possible here for two reasons. One, I don't want to bore you, and two, I don't want my own thoughts and impressions to influence what others think. But if I'm going to do this, you have to know how I think about the subject I'm going to talk about.</p>

<p>In 1998, the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, held an exhibition of photographs by Henri Brassai. They also published a hard cover book to go along with the exhibition. I remember the book as being way too expensive for my budget then, but I ordered it anyway. I knew this was something I <em>had</em> to have. And thus began my fascination with Brassai's work and a different style of shooting than what I'd been doing before. I was on a hamster wheel of generic glamour and fashion photography and it was becoming a chore. Sixteen years later, I'm not sure I've escaped The Wheel, but sometimes I think I've made some progress.</p>

<p>I became enamored of Brassai's talent for capturing his "Secret Paris", a night time <em>mélange</em> of photographs that some considered as showing the seamy side of life, but which I saw as recording reality and truth. The word "<em>mélange</em>" actually has its roots in an older word that means "to meddle". That's what Brassai did...he meddled. He poked his lens into hidden places, and strangely enough, no one seemed to mind. It's as if his subjects were saying, "Feel free to photograph what you see here...this is what and who we are, and we make no excuses or ask for anyone's approval". I love Brassai's approach, and I love his results. Brassai was friends with Picasso, Matisse, and cited Toulouse-Lautrec as an influence. His photograhy was influenced by great artists and it shows, I think.</p>

<p>I've often thought of his work as casual documentary portraiture, although I don't like to categorize any photographer's work. I actually considered his work as an extension of E. J. Bellocq's photographs made in the bordellos of Storyville, the red light district of New Orleans in 1912. Bellocq is another photographer I admire greatly. I think Brassai's work foreshadowed a lot of Helmut Newton's work and style, and to a lesser degree, that of Richard Avedon and Herb Ritts.</p>

<p>You may find many examples of his work <strong><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=henri+brassai&client=firefox-a&hs=cAO&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=M0o3U4-GIevMsQTCzILYDg&ved=0CDMQsAQ&biw=1920&bih=866&dpr=1#imgdii=_"><U>Click Here</U></a></strong>. I couldn't include the photograph I wanted to show because the link wouldn't work, so you'll have to satisfy yourselves by looking at Google images. But look for the images where it's difficult to tell male from female. Brassai may have been the first serious photographer to faithfully document transgender people. His work is in black and white, of course. Black and white brings a clarity to his work that I think color would dilute. There's a danger of color making a photographer's work "pretty".</p>

<p>I've always thought that to be a successful documentary portraitist, you must be brave. Not physically brave, but brave in a visual sense. You <em>cannot</em> afford to look away. You frame the shot and whatever you see through the viewfinder, you shoot it, and damn what anyone else thinks of it.</p>

<p>So. My little (somewhat disjointed) essay comes to an end. Henri Brassai and his work. He passed away in 1984. Let's hear what you think of him and his work. He can't hear you. But if he could, I doubt he'd care. He did what he wanted, and he did it his way. What more can you ask of a photographer? What more can you ask of <em>yourself</em>? I think Brassai made photographs to please himself, to satisfy his own creativity. To me, that's what it's all about.</p>

[wogears]

<p>Which specific image are you referring to?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Brassai has been one of my favorites since I was a kid in the 1960s-'70s just getting into photography. I have one edition of the US version of Paris By Night, which turned out to be rather tame and omitted many of his studies of dancers, prostitutes and other interesting characters. I'm hoping to add some of his other books, and kicking myself for not buying one from Half Price Books several years ago.</p>

<p>I went through a brief spell of being disillusioned with Brassai when my own darkroom technique improved and I began to recognize indications of heavy retouching in some of Brassai's photos. I got over it quickly after my own experiments with nighttime photography using relatively fast film. His work was remarkable considering the s-l-o-w glass plates he began with. It appeared he would pose his primary subjects near available streetlights, or add his own supplemental lights, to ensure the main subjects were adequately illuminated. Then he or a darkroom assistant would retouch the plates, negatives or prints to enhance the details in darker areas - most notably in photos of ornate buildings, newsstands, etc.</p>

<p>It also opened my eyes to the concept of collaborating with subjects as models rather than the hunter/gatherer approach to street photography that I'd adopted from being a fan of Weegee and Winogrand. So far I've tried the more collaborative approach only with friends and acquaintances from theater. But I'm nowhere near Brassai in terms of creating a vision that conveys a sense of place and era.</p>

<p>Brassai's mastery of the zeitgeist continues to influence other photographers, notably Peter Turnley's "French Kiss" book project. I follow Turnley on Facebook and he revisits Paris often (I think he's had an apartment there since the 1970s) and usually posts photos several times a week that are a fine homage to Brassai's sensibility.</p>

[jimadams]

<blockquote>

<p>Brassai has been one of my favorites since I was a kid in the 1960s-'70s just getting into photography. I have one edition of the US version of Paris By Night, which turned out to be rather tame and omitted many of his studies of dancers, prostitutes and other interesting characters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Lex...<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Brassai-Paris-Anne-W-Tucker/dp/0810963809">this</a> is the book you probably want to get. It's the original book that went along with the exhibition at the Museum of Fine Arts in Houston. The cover is different from my original, but it should be the same book inside.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I very much enjoy Brassai's work. I love that the photos are more about the subjects and less about Brassai. His subjects are certainly (usually) aware of his presence with camera, but neither he nor his camera intrude upon the moment. I try very hard to do this myself, and it is not an easy thing. It is easy to photograph people posing for the camera. It's even somewhat easy (albeit a bit risky) to sneak photos of people without their knowledge. But it's another level of photography to join the subjects' world with presence and intent well understood, but without the subjects having much regard for the presence of the camera.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Sorry, but boring.</p>

<p>Lack of humanity in his photos... just someone taking some photos. A name to be idolized nothing else.</p>

<p>Happy snapper.</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Sorry, i have sinned and im a heathan.</p>

<p>But what is he saying what is the communication.</p>

<p>What is it.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

I had at one time seen most of the photos that had been chosen for these Weekly Discussions. This would have been one of Brassai's that I had seen:

 

http://www.classic-photographers.com/wp-content/gallery/brassai/brassai-bijou.jpg

 

I would like to see the one that Jim Adams couldn't provide a link for. For the most part I am not familiar with Brassai or his work. It would be easier for me to comment on a single photo than on a body of work of a person whose work I am not familiar with.

[jimadams]

<blockquote>

<p>For the most part I am not familiar with Brassai or his work. It would be easier for me to comment on a single photo than on a body of work of a person whose work I am not familiar with.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you should begin by viewing as much of Brassai's body of work as possible. Then you could narrow your focus to individual photographs that truly interest you, thus gaining a better understanding of the depth of feeling Brassai put into a lot of his work.</p>

<p>I'll be the first to admit that some of Brassai's photographs simply don't work for me. They don't say anything to me. But when they do work, I think they're the equal of anything done by Cartier-Bresson, Robert Doineau, or Helmut Newton.</p>

<p>I wish I <em>could</em> find the photo I originally picked for this discussion. I had the link in my original draft of this essay, but when I clicked on it to test it, it was broken...and I haven't been able to locate the photograph again since then. Sorry.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Technically, Brassai couldn't possibly be categorized as a snapshooter, at least not in his night photos. The glass plates and film available were too slow for nighttime and indoor "snap" shots. I'm guessing his shutter speeds rarely were faster than around 1/60th.</p>

<p>While many of his photos appeared dynamic, they were often staged - <A HREF="http://www.americansuburbx.com/2013/10/brassai-surrealist-observer-excerpt-1998.html">although he claimed they weren't</A>. I suspect he was splitting hairs over the differences between static posing and more dynamic theatrical blocking. The few that weren't show some motion blur - see his photos taken at dances: <a href="http://www.pinterest.com/shoreline68/brassai-halasz-gyula/">Le Bal Des Invertis</a>, <a href="http://deviatesinc.tumblr.com/post/39333984336/magic-city-drag-ball-1932-photo-by-brassai">Magic City</a>, <a href="http://www.artvalue.com/auctionresult--brassai-gyula-halash-1899-1984-untitled-le-bal-des-quat-z-art-2539680.htm">Le Bal Des Quat'z Arts</a>.</p>

<p>If his photos appear to have been taken discretely or without the knowledge of his subjects, that's mostly a testament to his interpersonal skills and talent as a director. I suppose that's another reason I admire his work. Despite my background in live theater as a director, I've never really used that same approach in photography. It's something I intend to explore some day.</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Lex, Thank you for that link. That certainly has many photos which make a deep impression of Brassai's work. A Google Images link has too many photos of other photographers (John Loengard, Henri Cartier-Bresson, George Brassai, etc.) mixed in. There certainly is a grittiness to Brassai's work of Parisian night life balanced out by soft misty landscapes. I imagine he did his cityscapes with a view to money making sales but I get the feeling he preferred working in the seamier side of Parisian night life. Or, perhaps he got tired of the sordid night life scene and needed a break which he indulged in by taking photos of Paris. It is a diverse body of work.

[dhbebb]

<p>Sorry but I cannot find a link to a picture! Would recommend that OPs to this thread put a link as close to the start of their post as possible and with a blank line before and after - pictures do after all speak for themselves!<br>

PS: Just found a link to a page of pictures - did the OP mean any particular one?</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Thanks for the info. This<br>

<a href="https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=brassai+paris+night&espv=2&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=6us3U4uSHO-B7QanjIDoAg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=709">https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=brassai+paris+night&espv=2&es_sm=93&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=6us3U4uSHO-B7QanjIDoAg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1280&bih=709</a><br>

is a slightly better selection of Brassai’s pictures – the other page has many images not by him. Oddly enough I discovered only the other day that “Paris By Night” was available again in a reprint at considerably less than the $3,000 being asked for a first edition (in fact $2,940 less), so bought a copy.<br>

In terms of creativity I think the night pictures are his best work – really atmospheric, well composed. Jim uses the phrase “casual documentary photography”, I don’t think I agree with “casual”, since Brassai obviously worked hard to get his pictures, but would otherwise say this term is appropriate.<br>

Evaluating his pictures is made more difficult by the fact that he clearly posed many pictures and used flashbulbs – standard press technique at the time, not considered quite kosher today. I think the characteristic of documentary photography is that its main interest for the viewer is a feeling of knowing what somebody or something looked like – with the exception of the night cityscapes, I don’t get any feeing of personal viewpoint or artistic message, but I am nonetheless grateful to Brassai for allowing me to take an armchair trip through a lost world.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Great choice Jim, and very timely, even for Parisians. A big exposition of his photos have been open to the public for five month in the Town Hall of Paris with thousands of people waiting in lines in all weather, to get in and enjoy "For the love of Paris" (Pour l'amour de Paris) which was its title. It just closed yesterday. </p>

<p>Brassaï was however not only a photographer of nightlife in Paris. He started rapidly after having arrived in the city in 1924 becoming deeply involved in the surrealistic movement and started very early on drawing and later on shooting graffiti on the walls of the city (<a href="https://www.google.fr/search?q=brassai+graffiti&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=gx84U7vyBomN7Qbw7YCABw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ&biw=1824&bih=970">You find a large sample of his graffiti shots here)</a>. He also became friend of many in the artistic world of Paris in the 20'a and 30's and took thousands of snapshots (many of them preserved) of them in cafés and in their ateliers or homes throughout his whole life. One of his best friends was Henry Miller. He even made a film on the Zoo of Vincennes ("As long as there are animals) which won a price at the Cannes film festival in 1956.</p>

<p>I have no special favorite among his many photos of the city and its inhabitants. I love his work in general. He inspired generations of people by his love of the city and its light, at daytime of at night. You can meet them throughout the city even today. They are all "flâneurs" in the streets of Paris like him (strollers) with or without cameras. I'm one of them. </p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>I love Brassai! I also have his <em>Paris by Night</em>.</p>

<p>This is wonderful stuff. Thank you, Jim.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>It is easy to photograph people posing for the camera. It's even somewhat easy (albeit a bit risky) to sneak photos of people without their knowledge. But it's another level of photography to join the subjects' world with presence and intent well understood, but without the subjects having much regard for the presence of the camera. --Sarah Fox</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm still trying to learn that. It sounds easy but isn't, in my opinion.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>I'm still trying to wrap my head around the apparent situation here:<br /> Some people dislike or are unimpressed with the likes of Brassaï, Ansel Adams, and Karsh, but like <em><strong>Mortensen</strong></em>?</p>

<p>No wonder people don't like the photographs at Classic Manual Photography.</p>

<p>I'm going to have to dig out my old trunk full of gypsy costumes and the like, I guess.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[AJG]

<p>JDM--I share your puzzlement. It's tempting to draw analogies with politics, but I'm not going there...</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Some people dislike or are unimpressed with the likes of Brassaï, Ansel Adams, and Karsh, but like <strong><em>Mortensen</em></strong>?<br>

I really don’t understand your perplexity! As I remarked earlier (I think about Karsh), I and many others distinguish between personal liking and professional respect of craft skills. On the latter criterion, Mortensen ranks highly, at least level with Adams, I would say probably higher. WM’s work may well have been considered corny at the time, I find his approach to film exposure and development eccentric (although it seems to have worked for him), but he was a HELL of a printer and retoucher. None of the four photogs you mention is my personal favourite, my top 3 being Minor White, Cartier-Bresson and William Eggleston, but I find something of interest in all of their work.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I would be very careful about trying to make league tables out lists of photographers like : <em> Minor White, Cartier-Bresson and William Eggleston, Brassaï, Ansel Adams, Karsh, Mortensen etc. </em><br>

We end up with a list like "The ten most impressive bridges in the world" and the like, filling the pages of the popular press these days. The type of discussion we have had in each of the various Weekly discussions is more concerning specific photos and/or photographers are way more qualified, in my eyes.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>What I've always found fascinating about Brassai is that his photos seem to show me so much more than just what's there even as he seems to be so photographically in touch with precisely just what's there before his camera. He seems, in so many of the photos I like, to suggest a presence, an intangible something. What meets his lens, it often seems, becomes more than what meets the eye.</p>

<p>In <a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_eXc_EwBohOg/TFGAIa9OjZI/AAAAAAAAB84/8dLOYqVyoz4/s1600/brassai-4.jpg">THIS PHOTO</a>, he portrays that presence I'm talking about and couples it with an understated surrealistic, even humorous, gesture.</p>

<p>He also seems able to make <a href="http://cdn2.all-art.org/yapan/History%20of%20Photography/10_files/8.jpg">MOOD AND ATMOSPHERE</a> more tangible, and I've always thought this is one of the special abilities of a camera, if used a certain way and with a particular sensibility and adeptness.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>It is easy to photograph people posing for the camera. It's even somewhat easy (albeit a bit risky) to sneak photos of people without their knowledge. But it's another level of photography to join the subjects' world with presence and intent well understood, but without the subjects having much regard for the presence of the camera. --Sarah Fox</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I guess I think any approach to photographing can be or can be made easy or hard or taken to another level. It depends on the photographer, the photographer's willingness, knowledge, aesthetic, talent, skill level, and the situation involved. I don't think one method is harder than another or necessarily takes photography to another level. I do agree that some photos take photography to another level, but think that can be accomplished by all means conceivable.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>I would be very careful about trying to make league tables out lists of photographers like : Minor White, Cartier-Bresson and William Eggleston, Brassaï, Ansel Adams, Karsh, Mortensen etc. </em><br>

You can be as careful as you like, Anders - I have the perfect right to state my favorites. I'm not telling anyone else what to like!</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Great, David, then we are both happy :)</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>Gee, Anders,<br>

people do "Top 10" lists for almost everything. A Google for "top ten" yields 22,800,000 results just now.</p>

<p>I look back at the recent discussions of this set of threads, and I don't see them as </p>

<blockquote>

<p>more concerning specific photos and/or photographers</p>

</blockquote>

<p>On the other hand, maybe <em>I</em> really don't belong here? I can accept that.</p>