Henri Carteir-Bresson: The Man Behind the Lens

Martin Munkacsi Three Boys at Lake Tanganyika Henri Cartier-Bresson FRANCE. Ile-de-France. Yvelines. 1955

Acclaimed as a surrealist, his early work did achieve the intentions of the surrealist movement. The objective of surrealism is to capture the unexpected chances and juxtapositions in reality to create symbolic or significant imagery. His later and more mature images differed on a fundamental level from the intent of true surrealism. There was a more natural harmony in all of the parts in regard to one another. The decisive moment is the moment of subconscious equilibrium, not the mere improbability of chance presenting the desired result. He liked to refer to these moments as an encounter with reality and he rarely left things to sheer chance because as an artist he was in control. The ability to predict light – sun and shade, bright or dark – to anticipate movement – of people or nature – and to control what events at which he chose to be present, all lend that aspect of innate manipulation to the final outcome.

In beginning of his foray into photography, he would wander the streets with his camera, ready to seize the image of the world in its actual state of transformation and change. This was the first experience of his in the world of photojournalism. It was also the beginning of the way in which he revolutionized photojournalism practice. He did not start out photographing in his native land of France; rather he traveled to Berlin, Brussels, Warsaw, Prague, Budapest, Madrid and a short time later in the United States. The earlier years of his career were not assigned, there was no direct intention, and this freedom led him to just follow any whim and to photograph was interested him in purely ascetic terms. Generally, he chose to document the commoners, the poor and hardworking, the average Joe of the era. Perhaps they were more open or maybe because of their struggles there was a more human nature to their characters, but in any case this was Cartier-Bresson’s main subject originally.

After his experiences on the battlefield and being held as a prisoner of war for 35 months, the focus of his photography shifted. Though it was less of an actual shift and more of a general broadening of his social range and subject matter. Despite these changes, he never moved away from his interest in human behavior and the irreplaceable manifestation of an individual’s character. In his photos one can see with ease man and woman, young and old, rich and poor, powerful and weak, individuality and conformity, singular and group, group and crowd, but Cartier-Bresson makes it each viewer’s assignment to sort out the deeper message: of good or evil, of sorrow or joy, of contentment or restlessness.
It was also around this time that instead of narrating the human behaviors in photography, he started recording history. It was a new challenge. All it took was an instant. The vision and truth of each situation is grasped through an innate ability to read the conditions and act on instinct. He had fantastic luck in this area. It has been said that artists often have the greatest outcome in their works when they are at home, when it is easier to ascertain the meaning of fleeting symbolism, whether in speech, movement, a look or assembly. Henri Cartier-Bresson, it seems, was at home where ever he traveled. He was also always in the right place at the right time. He was in India at the time of Gandhi’s death, in China when Mao seized power, and others. To recount history one must be there to witness it. This interest in preserving and detailing history is what truly defined him as a photojournalist. His photographs, coupled with the written accompanying passionate explanations, allowed him to cross the boundary between superfluous artist and visionary. He was comfortable roaming; it was a kick back to the launch of his time spent with a camera in hand.

This was the true abandonment of literal surrealism. There was no pretentious ardor of capturing the spontaneity of life, and then ending up with a dead reinvention of reality. It was Henri Cartier-Bresson that took the ideals of surrealism and applied them with a subtle technique and genuine curiosity to the world in a manner that is inspiring. Through his travels and own experiences he was able to embody in his art the humanity of the world. The desire to travel and set down a historical legacy was driven by his desire to know himself. This is the reason he was so proficient at mastering the imagery of history.
Questions

1. What are the strong points/weak points in the presentation. Are there any unanswered questions you have and find important to the overall understanding of Henri Cartier-Bresson?
2. How do you perceive Henri Cartier-Bresson’s character and how is that seen in his photographs?
3. Look at Martin Munkacsi’s Three Boys at Lake Tanganyika and Cartier-Bresson’s photo from FRANCE. Ile-de-France. Yvelines. 1955. What of C.B.’s inspiration can you see in Munkacsi’s photograph? What similarities/differences are there? How do you think C.B.’s approach to photography differed from Munkacsi’s based on the compositions of these pictures?
   

Olympia's Look

There are always stories connected with artists. Some of these stories address the experiences of those closest to the artist; how little whims take over a painter’s life and their loved ones are left to deal with the actions and consequences. In Susan Vreeland’s short story, “Olympia’s Look,” the reader sees this same scenario. After the death of Édouard Manet, his wife Suzanne must face the reality of some of her husband’s choices. Manet died of syphilis, and this fact is confirmation of Suzanne’s suspicions of Édouard’s affairs through the years. The audience also reads of Suzanne staying with Édouard as his leg was amputated, of nursing him through this illness, of never feeling equal to his models of intercepting a love letter Édouard writes. All of these little occurrences beat down a person’s soul and strength. Yet through it all Suzanne Manet endures and survives.

In the story there are two passages in particular that I feel highlight very well the strength of Suzanne’s character. When she sees Édouard give a letter to the maid for delivery and intercepts it from her and reads of his love and when see goes and confronts Victorine Meurent about the money and the reason for her husband’s death. In both instances, Suzanne is presented with an unpleasant situation and she deals with them. Perhaps in the scene with Victorine she goes a bit far, but who would blame a woman for seeking to fend off some of her own pain at the loss of her husband and vent to the woman she believes to have been the cause of his disease. She recalls in detail all the horrible nuances that syphilis caused Édouard. She does this as a way to force this woman to understand what an inkling of her pain feels like. And as a reader, you can see that she succeeds. Its not that she’s cruel, its more that no one understands what it feels like to love this man so extremely, and know that he was unfaithful and then to feel inferior to those that he cheated with. But it proves even more her conclusion that she was his love. She was more than a whim, or beauty to be lusted after, and that realization is the beginning of acceptance.

Most of Suzanne’s reactions to the situations are normal and human. To argue that it is or isn’t freewill is really personal opinion. She acts based on the situations at hand, in reaction to them but that isn’t to say that freewill is not used. She has to make a choice, the situation is the limiting factor, but there is always a choice. Based on the actions in the story, the reader can draw from it that she makes the best decision that she can at the time and that she will continue to survive after the death of Édouard. She is not one to give up or quit. And the reader can see that from her actions in the story. She creates confrontation so that she can achieve closure.

Vreeland does a good job of incorporating fact and fiction in a comprehensive story. Obviously it is fiction and one could comb through the story and find faults and problems, I actually like the fact that it is simplistic writing. It is easy to read and understand. An audience with very little knowledge of Édouard Manet, could understand the basic premise of the plot. The author does take liberties with the direction of the story and shaping the way the characters are presented, but that is one of the expectations and audience should anticipate with a fictional story.

Annotated Bibliography

"Mr. and Mrs. Clark and Percy." Tate Collection. Search Results 1. Tate Online: British and international modern and contemporary art. 3 Feb 2009 .

The painting “Mr. and Mrs. Clark and Percy” by artist David Hockney is unusual in the fact that neither of the human subjects are looking either and one another or out of the painting at the viewer. The perspectives of the subjects make the viewer a third party in eye contact as their gazes culminate at a single point. The subjects are dress designer Ozzie Clark and his wife, fabric designer Celia Birtwell and their cat, Percy. The couple were personal friends of Hockney’s. Clark and Hockney met in 1961 in Manchester and both went on to study at the Royal College of Art in London. When Clark and Birtwell married in 1967, Hockney was their best man. This painting depicts the couple in their flat in Notting Hill Gate, North London and is in their bedroom. The etching on the left side of the portrait is from an earlier series by Hockney and called “A Rake’s Progress”. Hockney actually described this painting as one of two works that came close to naturalism, even though many aspects have been flattened or dulled. He is also quoted saying the aim of the painting was “to achieve…the presence if two people in this room.”


"David Hockney." Artchive. 11 Feb 2009 .

David Hockney was born in 1937 in Bradford. By the age of eleven he had made up his mind to be an artist and at 16 his parents allowed him to attend a local art school. In place of serving in the National Service, Hockney spent two years working in the hospitals. In 1959 he began attending the Royal College of Art in London. His artistic style is the result of much experimentation and influence of other large names in the artistic society. He denies being a Pop artist, but much of the public sees him this way.

Children of the Screen

Growing up in today’s society people are exposed at younger and younger ages to influences that previous generations did not deal with on such a wide spread basis. It may be cliché to say that those earlier generations had it so much simpler, but life seemed to move at a slower pace. No cell phones, television was limited, computers were not mainstream and people interacted in a more personal way. Now people are being pulled a million different directions at once. With the capability to have a computer and telephone with you at all times and a thousand different activities and conversations occurring at once its no wonder that people of this day and age are more stressed and busy. Obviously not every person walks around always plugged into a screen but generally screen use and entertainment is extremely high.

I feel extremely lucky to have grown up in a household where we did not get TV until I was a freshman in high school. I now find that I am hardly ever bored and can keep myself entertained and having fun with just little and simple things. Movies and TV are nice escapes sometimes, but that’s not what I rely on to keep myself entertained. I am able to use my imagination and creativity. This is something that seems to be slipping from some people though. I used to nanny for a family that told me when the kids started to get cranky to just place them in front of the TV. Its sad that because kids get sucked into the screen their parents use that to control them.

In the essay Children of the Screen the author Hannah Baylon makes several interesting points. She brings up Charles Darwin and his work on evolution. Baylon claims that people are losing themselves to the environment of the screen or an industrialized setting. The innate ability of humans to adapt to their surrounding is no the cause of lost humanity. Self-fulfillment through social climbing and making money seem to be all that people strive for. She points out that this lost touch with nature and what each individual wants or needs is part of the reason people turn to television.

Personally, I think some of these accusations or claims are a bit overdramatic, but I can see some validity in their formation. Looking at the activities of the average American will surely convince anyone that screen use and absorption into pop culture is all anyone knows. People seem to be losing their own outlook on life and merely conforming to what is presented to them in the media and other outside influences. I think its time for people to step back and re-assess what they want and need from life and if TV and other media sources are really and truly that important.

The Dorian Gray Assignment

Dorian Gray is a young and handsome man who has a secure place in high society. The movie opens with the scene of artist Basil Hallward painting Dorian’s portrait and introducing him to Lord Henry Wotton. Wotton certainly has his own ideas about the world and life and in their first interaction he starts sharing these ideas. The beauty of Gray’s face and the enthrallment of the artist with that face lead Wotton to state that the only things of worth in the world are ageless beauty and self-fulfillment. Gray, upon realizing that his beauty will fade and dull over time, makes a fervent plea that his visage remain unchanged and the painting instead will age and take on the characteristics of his person.

This is the key issue and controversial point. A man is willing to trade his soul for earthly splendor and fulfillment. That strikes the question of how far people are willing to go to get ahead in this world. I think that both the author of the novel and in turn the director of the film, were attempting to make people want to re-examine their motives and actions in life and see if the result in the end, whether sacrificing your soul or destroying another’s life was worth it.

The movie continues with Dorian Gray’s life. At first all is well and normal. He finds love in a young actress named Sybil Vane and asks for her hand in marriage. But, again he falls victim to Lord Henry Wotton and his ideas. Wotton asks Gray to conduct a small experiment where he asks Sybil to stay the night and when she says no, as is expected, act disappointed to see if society’s standards and expectations would be upheld. He does so and she reacts conventionally, but then she returns and Dorian’s disappointment in her action results in the rash decision to break off their engagement. Her sorrow is tangible, but to no avail with Gray. Then he looks at his portrait and sees that the face has become cruel. This immediately spurs him to action and he writes a letter to Sybil begging her forgiveness and asks that the marriage be planned again. This comes to late though. Sybil kills herself and from that point on Dorian lives his life exclusively for himself.

He hides his portrait, but visits the locked room where it is kept so as to look upon his own tarnished soul. His acts, though vague and not elaborated on, are atrocious. He has been responsible for the fall from grace of many in the upper class. It even comes to the point where murder is committed. Each and every one of his acts are visited upon the face in the painting. His likeness becomes almost unrecognizable as his soul becomes more and more contorted and tainted.

There is a scene in the film, towards the end and just before the climax of the plot, which foreshadows Dorian’s end. It is just after Sybil’s brother confronts him in the alley and then lets him go because of his ageless face. Then another man comes and tells the brother that Dorian Gray has looked that age for the last twenty years and it was in fact the man for whom he had been looking. The man then draws a hangman’s noose and Gray’s name on a wall. The lighting of the scene spotlights the noose and the name, while leaving the men in the shadows. The drama and context of the scene make the viewer realize that Gray is in no way destined for a happy ending.

And it proves to be true. Dorian commits one good act and that is to free his new fiancé, Gladys, from his cycle of despair. He returns one last time to see if the painting displays this one good and final act before he destroys the portrait. It is there if barely perceptible. Dorian Gray then attempts to wipe away the receipt of his deeds and vows to live a live of humble repentance, but as the knife in his had pierces the painting, he too is killed. The portrait contained his soul and in destroying the painting he also destroys himself. The sin is washed from the portrait and finally visited upon the visage of the doer.

Who Is That Person?

When first looking at this painting nothing really stands out as unique or unusual, but if you spend a little more time taking it in a couple things jumped out at me. First, neither of the individuals is centered in the portrait. In fact they seem to be framing the window. For a portrait I find that odd. Generally I assume that the people are supposed to be the central focus. This made me curious as to what the artist’s intentions were, who or what was he/she attempting to make the viewer take notice of and that though made me want to take a better look at the painting.

For me the first thing that comes to mind is the scene out the window, as it holds the central location in the painting. Though it is central, nothing strikes me as outstanding. The open window seems to be more of a locating device and could possibly be used to denote wealth or social standing. The exterior of the building across the way looks to be a well-kept town house. And in a large city, such housing is in no way cheap. Another aspect that signifies a wealthier standing is the size of the apartment in which the people live. The clothing also carries a similar significance. He is wearing a cashmere sweater and nice slacks. She, though I do not actually know what it is, is wearing purple, which was at one point worn by royalty and I still associate with wealth or at least a pompous assumption of superiority.

If you take a closer look at the people, other things jump out as well. Both the man and woman are looking directly at you. And it’s not just a mildly interested look. The woman seems to be saying, “who are you and what do you want?” The man has a look I would describe as amused by his own superiority. With the slightly cocked eyebrow and smirking smile, I feel like he’s mocking me. He’s also a smoker.

A couple of things threw me off though. Like the cat, it’s just sitting there, with no acknowledgement of anything. You don’t even see anything of interest. It seems random to me. Same with the phone and lamp on the floor, I do not see any significance or relevance to anything else in the scene.