Re[4]: [Leica] RE: Cartier Bresson and the 6 exposures.

[Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil]

     I'd be glad to go on about this stuff forever, but I'm afraid I'd just 
     be boring the group, and so I'll limit myself to answering the current 
     round of messages.
     
     To Phong, my thanks for providing General Loan's correct name.
     
     To Hans, I seem to have been unclear.  I did not mean to suggest that 
     all photographs are, or must be regarded as, works of art, but only 
     that Cartier-Bresson's photographs---or at least the well known ones 
     I have seen---are TO ME works of art.  And although we are free to 
     concern ourselves with their means of creation if we wish, my point 
     was that we do not NEED to do so to appreciate them as works of art.  
     The photo of the man jumping is one I appreciate in this way, and if 
     it turned out to have been "set up," that would not make it any less 
     effective (i.e., the photo would remain unchanged by that new fact).  
     Apparently HCB is, as you said, "a photographer...that shoots real 
     things in the real world, the way he saw it happen."  And I too, like 
     you and many other people, "admire...his ability to produce his very 
     special pictures without manipulating...this reality."  But I must 
     disagree when you say that "This very thing makes them photographic 
     works of art."  Rather I would suggest that what makes ANY object a 
     work of art is, and must be, intrinsic to the object itself.
     
     And to Eric, I agree with much of what you said.  For example, I agree 
     that it is HCB's "esthetic that his pictures are unposed," and I too 
     "like...that they weren't 'made up'" and appreciate that "It's not 
     only art, it's history."  But clearly the significance of many of his 
     photos as records of history is small (the Aperture book doesn't even 
     identify the pictures until the end, and then merely with location and 
     date), and it is as works of art that they will have enduring value.  
     As someone once observed, a work of art is a self-contained organism; 
     and a corollary of that statement would be that any so-called work of 
     art that must rely on anything extraneous for its value or expression 
     is not really a work of art at all.  To sum up, then, I'm not arguing 
     against interest in history or in an artist's technique, biographical 
     information, or creative aesthetics;  I'm only pointing out that such 
     stuff is not essential to an appreciation of the artworks themselves.
     
     Finally, apologies all around for my lamentable verbosity.
     
     Art Peterson
     
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[3]: [Leica] RE: Cartier Bresson and the 6 exposures.
Author:  leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at internet Date:    12/2/97 
8:11 PM
     
     
At 10:06 AM 12/2/97 -0500, you wrote:
     
I was joking about Cartier-Bresson being a painter. He is, but I don' t 
know any painters out there doing spot news. So it's pretty far from my 
main point.
     
>     wants a news photo to be contrived.  But Cartier-Bresson's 
photographs >     are something other than photojournalism (even if 
photojournalism had >     been the happenstance of their creation!): they 
are works of art.  And >     as such, they are self-sufficient, and we 
need not be concerned with 
>     how they were created or with what the artist may or may not choose 
to >     call himself, because nothing in their means of creation and 
nothing 
>     about the artist himself can ever affect their inherent and enduring 
>     value as works of art.
     
I have to disagree. It is a part of his esthetic that his pictures are 
unposed. That they are a capturing of history (I don't say it nearly as 
eloquently as he does!) as he anticipates it. They are real pictures of 
real situations. For him, that's what's important, and thus what makes his 
pictures great to me. They are true to his intent.
     
Other photographers use the medium in other ways. Those, too, are 
legitimate uses of photography. But, I think the greatest strength in 
photography is that which differentiates it from other media, such as 
painting and music, poetry and sculpture. It's capturing fleeting moments 
of time forever for us to look at. That's what gives his pictures their 
special quality to me. 
     
I can appreciate everything you do about them as well. The tone, line, 
modulation of black and white. But in addition what I like is also that 
they weren't "made up." They were as they were. It's not only art, it's 
history. What greater tool is there that combines those two so well?
     
Dosineau's pictures, based on this argument, are not of the same value. 
They are pretty, nice, and all that, but they are NOT history. They're 
actors playing for the camera. Cool to look at, but not nearly as 
meaningful to me. 
     
Whatever turns your crank, I'm all for it. I like my stuff straight. 
==========
     
Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
     
Lives of great men all remind us,
We can make our lives sublime,
And, departing, leave behind us
Footprints on the sands of time.
                       -H.W. Longfellow