Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1997/12/02

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re[3]: [Leica] RE: Cartier Bresson and the 6 exposures.
From: Peterson_Art@hq.navsea.navy.mil
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 1997 10:06:15 -0500

     
     Eric,
     
     By "great photographer" I meant to suggest "great artist," not "great 
     photojournalist."  That the Eddie Adams photograph of General Lo's act 
     would have, as you say, "no impact" if it had been a mere posed event 
     illustrates my point.  The impact of it is photojournalistic and not 
     necessarily artistic.
     
     You later wrote (or at least I THINK that it was you) that "HCB is a 
     PAINTER!  His pictures just LOOK like photos.  He will not say 'I'm a 
     photojournalist.'  Or 'I'm a photographer.'  Or even 'I'm a painter.'  
     But he WILL say 'I am a surrealist.'  Now who but a painter would say 
     that?"  Painters paint posed subjects or even imaginary scenes all the 
     time, and we do not depreciate them for doing so.  Of course no one 
     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.
     
     Art Peterson
     
     
______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re[2]: [Leica] RE: Cartier Bresson and the 6 exposures.
Author:  leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us at internet Date:    12/1/97 11:32 PM
     
     
At 01:48 PM 12/1/97 -0500, you wrote: 
>     
>     If we were to admire Henri Cartier-Bresson for his supposed technique, 
>     we should be disappointed to learn that it was something other than we 
>     had been led to believe.  But a great photographer is not the one with 
>     a great technique, but the one who produces great photographs whatever 
>     his technique may happen to be.  And I know of no photographer who has 
>     produced greater photographs than Cartier-Bresson.
     
This I have to disagree with. If a person claims their photos are of "real 
life" that is, unposed unmanipulated situations, and then it turns out that 
they aren't, then those photos lose their value.
     
Eddie Adams' picture of General Lo killing the man in Vietnam would have no 
impact at all if the "dead" guy turned up as the cook in the General's 
pizza parlor in Washington D.C. years later.
     
Technique, when it comes to photojournalism, is one thing. Art, well,
that's another thing. As long as it doesn't pretend to be something it's not. 
==========
     
Eric Welch
St. Joseph, MO
http://www.ponyexpress.net/~ewelch
     
When there's a will, I want to be in it.