Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2005/01/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Buzz: >>> It is a common misconception that surreal means "weird." Generally, that idea derives from the fact that most people know of only one Surrealist, Salvador Dali, who most assuredly painted some weird stuff.<<< Wait a minute... only Dali? Are you implying that the following examples are not just as weird/strange as his? http://www.bonnibenrubi.com/Parkeharrison/parkeharrison.html http://www.parkeharrison.com/ http://www.decordova.org/decordova/exhibit/parkeharrison/parkeharrison04 >>> To oversimplify, surreal art, be it painting, poetry, photography, music, et alii, is "about" a particular manner of approaching the world without preconceptions of what one will perceive and being able to express a different reality from that taken in by the ordinary citizen. Cartier-Bresson definitely considered himself a surrealist first and a photographer second, with the camera was his medium. B.D. is quite correct that Capa told H.C.-B. to call himself a photojournalist rather than a surrealist photographer because a p.j. would find a much larger audience for his work than a surrealist would. <<< I adhere to a stricter definition of surreal art. I don't consider myself to be a surrealist photographer but that's just what I would be in some cases under your "loose" :-) definition as expressed above. On another list, the following photographs were described by one list member as "aesthetic failures" because of the lenses that I used. I stated that almost any type of photography that is different than that which most people expect to be presented to them, calls attention to itself... until enough viewers realize that the photographer has simply shown them an alternate way to see the subject. Here, taken with an R8 and R-Fisheye, I'm calling attention to the vastness of the ocean. I don't think that it would be as effective with a straight wall: http://www.hemenway.com/Hull-august/pages/08-FisheyeView.htm Here, with Rollei and F-Distagon, I'm calling attention to the fluidity of the water. I've had people from three different continents tell me that it felt as though the water was about to flow over their keyboards: http://www.hemenway.com/AFewMore/pages/SummerPondSwan.htm And here I was calling attention to the "massive" of the lighthouse in its "heroic" :-) stand against the sea: http://www.hemenway.com/More-Maine/pages/PortlandHead-4.htm Under your definition these photographs would be surreal, but I don't view them as such. I never doubted that HCB considered himself a surrealist... it's just that I don't agree with him. Neither do I disbelieve BD's account of Capa's advice to HCB... good advice I think. >>> That said, Jim, if you've never seen anything weird in Cartier-Bresson's photographs, it is time to hit the books! H.C.-B. took and published some decidedly weird pictures, albeit no melting clocks or flying horses or portraits of Gala Dali. <<< Sure I see some weirdness in his work, they wouldn't be as good otherwise. But that property is only one part of surrealism... don't forget those "incongruous juxtapositions". :-) I find Graham's latest, #007 almost surreal... especially due to the light. Jim, "see you at the DeCordova" Hemenway :-) buzz.hausner@verizon.net wrote: > ...well, B.D. did ask me to jump in, and so... > > It is a common misconception that surreal means "weird." Generally, that > idea derives from the fact that most people know of only one Surrealist, > Salvador Dali, who most assuredly painted some weird stuff. > > To oversimplify, surreal art, be it painting, poetry, photography, music, > et alii, is "about" a particular manner of approaching the world without > preconceptions of what one will perceive and being able to express a > different reality from that taken in by the ordinary citizen. > Cartier-Bresson definitely considered himself a surrealist first and a > photographer second, with the camera was his medium. B.D. is quite > correct that Capa told H.C.-B. to call himself a photojournalist rather > than a surrealist photographer because a p.j. would find a much larger > audience for his work than a surrealist would. > > That said, Jim, if you've never seen anything weird in Cartier-Bresson's > photographs, it is time to hit the books! H.C.-B. took and published some > decidedly weird pictures, albeit no melting clocks or flying horses or > portraits of Gala Dali. > > Buzz Hausner > > >>From: Jim Hemenway <Jim@hemenway.com> >>Date: 2005/01/04 Tue PM 01:31:54 EST >>To: Leica Users Group <lug@leica-users.org> >>Subject: Re: [Leica] WAS: Intro NOW: HCB. >> >>Calling Sir "Buzz of Belmont"! :-) >> >> >> > shape, form, shadow, odd juxtaposition of objects..... >> >>But BD, did you see _incongruous_ juxtaposition when you saw those >>large prints? >> >>And... there isn't any "weird" in HCB's work... at least none that I can >>remember. I've always thought that any surreal art needs to be a little >>bit weird. >> >>I don't mean the now common usage of the word surreal to mean almost >>anything unexpected and/or different. >> >>Jim >