Analysing famous pictures

Hi All,

On Sunday night I watched the first episode of a series called "The Genius of Photography", which I believe was previously shown in the UK on BBC4.

The first episode (Called "Fixing the shadows") described the birth of photography and showed works by many of its early pioneers.

It was or is a very interesting program to watch and I was engrossed all of the way through it. But it raised a few questions in my head about the conclusions drawn from some of the images and the one tha I struggled with the most and I just dont get/understand or apprciate its Henry Cartier-Bresson – Behind the Gare Saint Lazare, 1932. See here if your not aware of it

It was described as capturing the essence of europe. With the broken rings in (bottom l/h side) symbolising a broken Europe after the first world war and the man jumping as Europe taking a leap in to the unkown of the future. I dont see any of that, or at least I didnt until the commentator told me to! All I saw was a bloke about to get wet feet.

We were also shown other works by Bresson most if not all had jumping in them, which makes me wonder if he intended to make such a statement as described by the narrator (and various photographers/ artists) made with the luxuary of hindsight of the last 60 years or if he was just trying to capture another jump?

I really cant see what is so great about, does this mean I will never be a great photographer?

Can somebody help me to see what I am missing please

Regards
PaulM

I think HCB's a bit of a Marmite character - you either "get" him or you don't. I'm with you in the latter camp, but I know there are plenty of the former around here so be prepared for the onslaught of the HCB faithful...

This is heresy!... And we will both be burned at the stake for it. - But, I've never seen the 'genius' of Henri Cartier Breson and all that 'Decisive moment' cobblers! Any time he wanted to press the shutter buttom was the decisive moment, as far as I can see. I can do that! As you hint at, I reckon a lot of the myth of HCB's pictures is made by intellectual arty types assigning meaning to a picture that just wasn't intended or noticed by the photographer.
There are many photographers that I would place above HCB. I cannot abide the hushed reverential way his work is spoken about, by over educated 'experts'. I guess using a Leica, being French and living in Paris in the 1930s gives you a certain something.

I love Marmite. I can see why others don't. I also love HCB but cannot for the life of me work out why other photographers fail to recognise the man's talent. HCB was a bona fide, solid gold photographic genius. Period. And it has nothing to do with being French or owning a Leica.

I got an HCB retrospective ('The man, the image & the world') before Xmas. After reading the OP I went to leaf through it to look at the St. Lazare shot again, and was once more staggered by the number of astonishing images the book contains. He simply had an extraordinary gift to recognise opportunities for memorable images in the real world. And I don't find his images 'arty' in any way - they seem to me to epitomise the very essence of photography as a medium and are not generally contrived images in the way much art photography is. After all, he specialised in street photography above all.

I find looking at this book both inspirational but also slightly depressing. While I probably have equipment that far exceeds his in sophistication I recognise that I will be hard pressed to capture images that come anywhere near the best of HCBs. Though I live in hope.

Regarding the St. Lazare shot. I wouldn't let the cobblers that was uttered in the TV programme put you off it. Art critics/theorists have a tendency to see what they want in an image. I'm sure HCB - either at the time of composing or in retrospect - had no such thing in mind. I've looked at that image on countless occasions and 'broken Europe' has never come close to sugggesting itself to me. It's simply a brilliant example of street photography - and the capture (dare I say it) of a 'decisive moment'.

BTW your connection didn't work - you can see the photo here - link - although the reproduction is much poorer than that in my book.

What makes it great for me? The perfect reflection of the man. The anticipation of what is about to happen (but forever won't as people look at this image). The figure looking on. The glassy quality of the water. The gritty urban context. I could go on, but I'll stop there. And IMO, though highly memorable, this isn't even one of his better photos.

Of course, taste is subjective, HCB may not be everyone's choice of savoury spread. There are many other great photographers. However, for those of you who don't get HCB - check out this book at a bookshop/library, and see if you're still untouched by his images. For those who aren't - alongside the anti-Marmite brigade - as far as I'm concerned it's their loss.

I was about to write a lengthy response but Dr Mhuni has done it for me, thanks Andrew.

You see the images; you remember them for ever. That's greatness.

A.

I'm afraid it looks like a slightly motion blurred image of a man about to get very wet feet to me.

Hefty,

But - MARMITE???

I disagree that HCB was a genius, he was simply a competent photographer, right place, right time and knew when to press the shutter.

As for the critics, we all know they make up 99% of ahat they say, Broken Europe my a**e

That sounds like a pretty accurate description of a great photographer, to me.

Mind you, I absolutely agree with your comments about critics:
Quite.

Regards,

A.

Many years ago, I read an old magazine interview with a man who printed many of HCB's pictures. He said that the negs were appalling. Either grossly overexposed, to the point of being opaque, or very underexposed. Most of them difficult or impossible to print.
I suspect that the one deemed to be the 'decisive moment' was the one of the half dozen that he took, that was printable!

I am not saying that the man was a bad photographer. I would be very happy to take a picture half as good as some of his. No. - I am saying that he was nothing special. I see pictures every day on Flickr, that I think are much better than anything he did. The man himself has been lionized and his images and methods have been spun into myth over decades.

I love Marmite... Not so keen on the inferior Aussie stuff, Vegimite, tho'

art always [was|is] in the eye of the beholder and TBH, the rest is marketing or otherwise. That applied, too, in the 30s; someone influential liked his style and away he goes.

What's changed?

Bret

But I said not a "genius"

IMO it was HCB's uncanny ability to be in the right place and time and know exactly when to press the shutter that made him the 'photographic genius' that he was.

Bret - I don't think art is an entirely subjective matter. For eg., most of us would agree that Police Academy V has less artistic merit than Lawrence of Arabia. Not all perhaps. But I wouldn't want the person who didn't controlling programming on the BBC.

Re. the hype about HCB. I'm not sure who exactly might benefit from building an undeserved reputation for a photographer such as HCB? It is surely more logical that he has developed the reputation he has because he was bloody good at what he did.

Personally I came upon him when I took up photography as a serious hobby a couple of years ago. I've actually read very little about him - so I wouldn't say I was exposed to any hype (particularly not in Addis Ababa or Colombo, where I've lived for the past two years). But for me the quality of his photos is self evident when I look at them. Not all of them, of course, but an extraordinarily large number of them.

Who might benefit?

Hmmm! - The Magnum machine, perhaps?