jankap
Established
Not - in another way -to forget Oskar Barnack.
Well Instagram gives you a good indication. Do you see it? Maybe once in a great while, but those people have had the benefit of seeing the history of photography play out over 90 years since HCB made some of his first famous images? Who was HCB looking at online? Which photobooks did he see? Which museums and galleries were showing him photography? The answers? There was no internet, photo books were rare and little to no photography was being shown because it did not sell. Big name photographers in the 60s were selling photos to the MoMA for $10 each. Photography did not for sell for $100s until the 70s. In 1975, photos by Ansel Adams which were selling for $400 were selling for between $4,000 and $16,000 by 1979. This is the beginning of the photography market in the art world being lucrative. If things do not sell, galleries cannot pay the bills. So in the 30s, what could he have been seeing? Photography galleries did exist but were extremely rare and were more labors of love or survived off of painting.
So, I guess magazines and newspapers were the place, but I am sure his style was not seen in them before him. You do not have to like his images, but he clearly has his place in history even if you do not approve.
It helps with equipment and an art history education, but money does not teach you how to see or make innovative photographs that have stood the test of time.
Last edited:
das
Well-known
I agree that being rich and well-connected (especially in Europe) allowed people like HCB, although indisputably talented, to get ahead. Part of being a famous and well-respected photographer is getting your work out. Before the internet, this was done in art galleries and print media. Most people, however talented, cannot just walk into those places and get their work shown. Being rich and well-connected helps get your work into those high-end and high-trafficked art galleries. Being well-off also allows you to take low-paid, on-assignment foreign photojournalist gigs, or to just wander the earth on no particular schedule. Existing in aristocratic circles also gives you access to rich, famous and/or beautiful people to photograph. So many great photographers of the pre-internet age, now lost to history, never got their due.
Today, we have a kind of similar landscape. The democratization of media has allowed some very talented photogs to jump out of obscurity; but marketing still reigns supreme. So many great photogs out there with 400 IG followers, while some mediocre talent has 10s of thousands of followers because they are keyed into YouTube, Tik-Tok, or whatever ("smash that 'like' button and follow me on _____"). Popular photography seems to be less about content these days and more about spectacle. Just like in HCB's time, someone influential telling you that an image is good is often just as important as the image itself.
Today, we have a kind of similar landscape. The democratization of media has allowed some very talented photogs to jump out of obscurity; but marketing still reigns supreme. So many great photogs out there with 400 IG followers, while some mediocre talent has 10s of thousands of followers because they are keyed into YouTube, Tik-Tok, or whatever ("smash that 'like' button and follow me on _____"). Popular photography seems to be less about content these days and more about spectacle. Just like in HCB's time, someone influential telling you that an image is good is often just as important as the image itself.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
There’s an interesting video (perhaps a documentary) of HCB walking around in a suit, waking leisurely, photographing the streets of Paris (it seems). His relaxed nonchalant demeanor appears to be one of a gentleman tourist rather than a very experienced street photographer.
I wonder if his gait, body posture, camera handling (strap wrapped around wrist and by his side - almost hidden, camera not dangling from his neck, and relaxed hands clutching the camera positioned behind his back) is a conscious decision on his part to blend, - perhaps almost disappear - so he may work almost unnoticed and pounce on the next shot. I’m sure he’s aware of the movie camera and I wonder if this is having an effect on his style. Or maybe not?
Longer version Part I and Part II.
I wonder if his gait, body posture, camera handling (strap wrapped around wrist and by his side - almost hidden, camera not dangling from his neck, and relaxed hands clutching the camera positioned behind his back) is a conscious decision on his part to blend, - perhaps almost disappear - so he may work almost unnoticed and pounce on the next shot. I’m sure he’s aware of the movie camera and I wonder if this is having an effect on his style. Or maybe not?
Longer version Part I and Part II.
Evergreen States
Pierre Saget (they/them)
His composure being like this is corroborated in eyewitness accounts, including times he did not know he was being watched by fellow photographers. I don't have a link handy, but Joel Meyerowitz has a story where he and Garry Winogrand were out shooting and saw someone who looked like HCB darting around with his camera with agility, at one point having to fend someone off by lobbing his camera at them (he had held onto it with the strap). When Meyerowitz and Winogrand approached him asking if he was Henri Cartier-Bresson, he first asked if they were police. When they said no, he confirmed his identity and agreed to meet them later to go shooting.
raydm6
Yay! Cameras! 🙈🙉🙊┌( ಠ_ಠ)┘ [◉"]
Wow! What a great story! I could actually visualize this account by your retelling. Thanks so much for this!
One thing I forgot to mention above is his ability to be anonymous and stealth. To actually see it is quite amazing.
Thanks again.
boojum
Mentor
There is so much unsupported speculation on why Bresson was so successful/famous. Occam's razor. It happened because he was recognized as good, head and shoulders above the crowd. And not just at the country club or the polo field, no, everywhere photos were examined. Are there others who were not discovered? Maybe. Guess what? Life is not fair. If you thought it was I am sorry to disappoint you. We play the hand we are dealt. There are the whiners always. Whining may get mommy to give them a hug but not much else.
If you are not as famous and adored as Bresson or Maier you are maybe not playing in their league. If you think you are, keep trying. Grandma Moses was not famous until she was ancient and then she was famed and revered. So do not give up, tomorrow you may win that prize you so covet and get the fame you so crave. But not if you whine and do not try.
And if you do not like Bresson, fine. If you do not like Maier, fine. If you do not like any of the famed photographers, fine. If your work is better, show us what your work is so we can see it.
If you are not as famous and adored as Bresson or Maier you are maybe not playing in their league. If you think you are, keep trying. Grandma Moses was not famous until she was ancient and then she was famed and revered. So do not give up, tomorrow you may win that prize you so covet and get the fame you so crave. But not if you whine and do not try.
And if you do not like Bresson, fine. If you do not like Maier, fine. If you do not like any of the famed photographers, fine. If your work is better, show us what your work is so we can see it.
das
Well-known
Um, let's also not forget that everyone's favorite mid-century well-to-do photog heroes also had a dedicated staff or labs develop, crop, and print all of their photos. Give anyone with some talent unlimited capital to travel the world, access to the famous people of the day, and have other people do everything for that person but click the shutter, and he or she will take photos of comparable quality as seen 70-80.years later, or whoever else one wants to put on a pedestal. And, many, not all, of those "spontaneous" looking photos were most likely staged to appear that way. Also, we have no idea how many photos they took IRL to arrive at the 30-40 we think are so great.
It's also not entirely fair to challenge hobbyists with full-time jobs and other commitments to match what highly talented people accomplished whose vocation was solely photography. There are probably any number of Nat Geo photogs who took technically better and more compelling photos than many of these mid century folks.
It's also not entirely fair to challenge hobbyists with full-time jobs and other commitments to match what highly talented people accomplished whose vocation was solely photography. There are probably any number of Nat Geo photogs who took technically better and more compelling photos than many of these mid century folks.
boojum
Mentor
Were your premise true there would be scads more great photographers. Vivian Maier was a nanny. How much of a hobbyist can you be?
GMOG
Established
Sometimes people who aren't trying so hard get the best results.
Retro-Grouch
Mentor
This topic has wandered far afield from HCB's favorite lens, but it's too juicy not to continue..
Back when I was in Art School (another topic ripe with possibilities!), I had one instructor who took a dim view of the "art world", a milieu that has only increased in insanity since that time in the seventies. His view, perhaps a bit Manichaean, was that there were two categories of people involved with artmaking: those who needed to make art, and those who needed to be Artists (with a capital "A"). Those who needed to make art were self-motivated, their compulsion to make art fueled by a desire to know the world, and themselves, better. The Artists were motivated by the permissions granted by their status, the opportunity to live outside societal norms, to act out their rebellion, to challenge the world. Theirs was a mode of being brought into existence by the nineteenth century invention of the avant-garde as an ongoing phenomenon.
Now, I don't know that this dualism is quite true; I think it's more a question of two opposite poles on a spectrum. But it does give us one valuable tool for understanding and critiquing a body of work. Examples: Vivian Maier at one end, someone who, to the best of my knowledge, remained completely unknown during her lifetime, but was utterly devoted to her work. At the other end, think Mapplethorpe, star-f***er extroadinaire, hob-nobbing at the Chelsea with the aristocracy of New York's demimonde and the celebrity fashionistas of his day. (I think it's obvious whose work I think has more value and staying power.) Then somewhere in the middle, perhaps, Weston; certainly an artist who lived for his work, but also one who was caught up in the conventional Bohemianism of his milieu, to the detriment of his long-suffering family and sometimes, I feel, his work.
So, it's the old question: are you in it for the love, or the money? A gross oversimplification, of course, and the real question is, how does one navigate between those two (possibly conflicting) poles and conduct a career, and a life, with integrity? I don't pretend to have an answer, and, really, it can only be decided by each individual.
Back when I was in Art School (another topic ripe with possibilities!), I had one instructor who took a dim view of the "art world", a milieu that has only increased in insanity since that time in the seventies. His view, perhaps a bit Manichaean, was that there were two categories of people involved with artmaking: those who needed to make art, and those who needed to be Artists (with a capital "A"). Those who needed to make art were self-motivated, their compulsion to make art fueled by a desire to know the world, and themselves, better. The Artists were motivated by the permissions granted by their status, the opportunity to live outside societal norms, to act out their rebellion, to challenge the world. Theirs was a mode of being brought into existence by the nineteenth century invention of the avant-garde as an ongoing phenomenon.
Now, I don't know that this dualism is quite true; I think it's more a question of two opposite poles on a spectrum. But it does give us one valuable tool for understanding and critiquing a body of work. Examples: Vivian Maier at one end, someone who, to the best of my knowledge, remained completely unknown during her lifetime, but was utterly devoted to her work. At the other end, think Mapplethorpe, star-f***er extroadinaire, hob-nobbing at the Chelsea with the aristocracy of New York's demimonde and the celebrity fashionistas of his day. (I think it's obvious whose work I think has more value and staying power.) Then somewhere in the middle, perhaps, Weston; certainly an artist who lived for his work, but also one who was caught up in the conventional Bohemianism of his milieu, to the detriment of his long-suffering family and sometimes, I feel, his work.
So, it's the old question: are you in it for the love, or the money? A gross oversimplification, of course, and the real question is, how does one navigate between those two (possibly conflicting) poles and conduct a career, and a life, with integrity? I don't pretend to have an answer, and, really, it can only be decided by each individual.
boojum
Mentor
This thread has wandered into some silliness and undeserved criticism of HCB for picking the wrong parents. I agree that there are artists and there are poseurs. They are everywhere. I just finished watching a film about Kesey, The Merry Pranksters and the Magic Bus. They did not look like hippies. Others did but were not. As a kid there were folks who lived in "The Village" and the nervous types who came in from the suburbs on Saturday night. This is life, those who are and those who want to be. Maier is the classic tale of the unknown artist slaving in obscurity. Look at Van Gogh, he never sold a painting. They started selling only after he had died. And I prefer Maier to HCB because her work is more immediate and touching while HCB is more intellectual.
If we want to get those good photos take a lot of them to practice the art. Even the most gifted practiced just as in music. Those with talent will improve. And you can use a 50mm lens.
If we want to get those good photos take a lot of them to practice the art. Even the most gifted practiced just as in music. Those with talent will improve. And you can use a 50mm lens.
boojum
Mentor
From the evidence we have Maier tried very hard. She had reams of undeveloped film along with developed and printed. She labored daily at her dream. And she had a pretty high it rate. It is an immense and unsupported speculation to say the she was not trying hard.
Retro-Grouch
Mentor
Agreed. Maier never achieved "success" and recognition in her lifetime. I can't say for certain, but it seems she didn't try. Some may see this as self-sabotage; I see it as self-preservation. Whether a good choice, and worth the costs, only she could say.
boojum
Mentor
Her secretiveness was part of her mystery. She apparently had some emotional problems from what I have seen in the films about her and what I have read. Regardless she was, in my opinion, a great photographer. Perhaps the finest of her time. I have a few of her photo books and admire how she could coax magic from the mundane. John Maloof, who owns most of her images, has a lifetime's work cut out for him in addition to having a goldmine of art and of, of course, gold. What is interesting is the relatives who neither knew nor cared about the woman when she was alive or when she died have now developed an interest in her wallet. Such is life. If you want to know who your friends are get them all in the same room when the will is read.
Pál_K
Cameras. I has it.
Although she didn’t seek recognition, I’ve always wondered whether Vivian herself knew just how good a photographer she was.
boojum
Mentor
She had to be taking herself quite seriously. She was entirely devoted to it. But how can we appraise ourselves? Even HCB pooh-poohed any adulation he got from what I have seen of him in films. At the same time I suspect that I am not the only person on this board who secretly believes he is way greater than acknowledged. It is the nature of the beast. And I'll bet that even though HCB may have pooh-poohed all the adulation and praise he thought himself to be quite good. And he was.
But Maier is my favorite. Direct and honest. No cuteness or intellectual frippery, she shot straight forward honest images of all and sundry, so many of the forgotten and ignored. Those so much like her. She spoke for them. She shot life.
GMOG
Established
What I was referring to when I said “not trying so hard” is not something that comes easily. It is, essentially, “being in the moment”, unencumbered by having to think about what we’re doing, able to react to things as they happen.
boojum
Mentor
It is especially hard to divine what was motivating Maier. She is a true enigma. If I am right you are referring to working intuitively which could well be how she worked. I think all of us do to a greater or lesser degree. We can look at the photos, we can read the books, we can take the courses, we can watch the videos but when we grasp the camera the moment comes when our mind nudges us with the quiet suggestion, "This is it. This is the moment." The moment when our creative juices flow. The moment when we understand the scene. Some of us are better at this than others. Just as there was only one Van Gogh and so on. Maier could coax the magic from the mundane. To see a young boy in the back of a draft horse riding under the El in a large city, how many of us would have seen that photo and how fewer would have framed it and caught it when it made sense? The image is surreal yet it seems quite acceptable and calm, agreeable and almost normal.
And she took only one picture. That's working intuitively. She saw it, she captured it and knew that not a dozen more would make a fig's worth of difference. She had the right one already. Remarkable. There are some folks who can release the magic inside those tiny boxes we carry around. I take my hat off to them.
agentlossing
Well-known
I really like everything about this post.