I recently reopened Cartier-Bresson's book "The People of Moscow", which was on my parent's bookshelf throughout my childhood, and which I recently 'inherited'. It's a 1955 book based on pix shot in 1954.

First observation: The pictures are surprisingly average - even weak at times. There are maybe 5-10 stand-out decisive moments in 100+ shots. It's very different from seeing a compilation of his 'greatest hits' - clearly it was a 'content-driven' book in which simply getting into Moscow and bringing back pictures at the height of the Cold War and the Krushchev 'palace revolution' was the paramount goal - not good photography per se.

And there was some weird editing - his famous picture of comrades dancing at a factory-workers' club was not there - but frames (nowhere near as good) from the same evening, and probably the same roll of film, WERE used.

By comparison, Smith's Pittsburgh pictures, or Manos' "Greek Portfolio" or Freed's "Made in Germany" all contain a much higher percentage of strong pictures - visually and in terms of content. But those were long-term projects where the very best could be chosen out of several years' work. HCB probably had a couple of weeks.

Second observation: there are quite a few pictures clearly taken with long telephotos - at least a 135, and some probably cropped from 135 to about 200mm or longer (based on grain). Someone (Dave?) mentioned on another recent thread that he'd never seen an HCB telephoto picture - well, here they are! Many were of sports events at the "Palace of Sports", but also some long shots of Red Square and its crowds.

My surmise, given the timing, is that this was his first project with the brand-new M3 with its telephoto frames, and he got a 135 to go with it, either a purchase or a loaner from Leica.

Anyway, it was revealing to look at a slightly different side of his work and realize that he had his off-days, as well.

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), March 15, 2002

Answers

HCB was a photo-journalist. The aim of this book was to document how moscovites lived, not to make art. As 1954 is right after Stalin's death, it might have been the first time in many years that Westerners were allowed to have direct access to Russians people. As a photo-journalist, HCB had to get the pictures by any means (telephoto, ...). The story of HCB using only 50mm lenses is a legend. It sprang from the fact that the very small percentage of his pictures he choose to retain as 'Art' were shot with a 50mm.

Your book is very interesting. It's probably more telling on the way HCB worked than his books of artistically selected pictures. I never had it my hands and would love to do so...

-- Xavier C. (xcolmant@powerir.com), March 15, 2002.

I don't know if any of the themed HCB books are very good, certainly not the ones I've seen. The India book is weak, for instance. This one I haven't seen. But his achievement over a lifetime of shooting is very impressive, despite the slavish gushing one sometimes gets about him. I think he was really an artist, not a PJ - i.e. someone who was best at taking pictures he liked rather than covering events. The best books are the retrospectives or big collections, IMO.

-- pol pot (rob@robertappleby.com), March 15, 2002.

Was,was,was. The guy is still alive and quite irascible, as far as I know.

-- Mani Sitaraman (bindumani@pacific.net.sg), March 15, 2002.

Andy's unfortunately correct. HCB's spectacular shots (12-20?) overwhelm the body of his published work, which is itself frequently of fairly poor imagery. When he was on, he was dead- on; but too often his shots are snapshot quality. I suspect bad editors, rushed publishing schedules, pressure to produce bankable theme oriented books. And HCB never printed his own negs, so much of the washed out & poorly focused imagery may go back to that as a problem... On the other hand, the photos he has signed & sold--at least those I've seen--are crisp, sharp, beautiful prints. I own an HCB image of Matisse w/ doves that stands up in quality to any silver print I've seen... So, much of the book quality (or lack of) may just be horrendous printing quality that we shouldn't attack HCB over. I've seen this repeatedly -- spectacular original silver prints that invariably blow away the identical printed images in books. That's why patronizing galleries on a regular basis is so important. There's nothing like original work----

-- Patrick (pg@patrickgarner.com), March 15, 2002.

OK, Mani, you're right, but he does seem a photographer of the past doesn't he? Does he actually take pictures anymore?

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 15, 2002.

speaking of photography books, i finally got the "Arnold Newman" (hardcover) and "Arnold Newman's Americans" books (new!) at dirt- cheap prices...from strandbooks.com ($15 and $10 respectively)...i just thought you guys might be interested...

-- Dexter Legaspi (dalegaspi@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.

OK, Mani, you're right, but he does seem a photographer of the past doesn't he? Does he actually take pictures anymore?

He does still take pictures, although not as extensively as he once did. He recently completed a paid magazine assignment (exactly which magazine, escapes me at the moment) and shot some new pictures for the book Magnum Degrees, which was published in March 2000.

-- Anon Terry (anonht@yahoo.com), March 15, 2002.

I have that Magnum book, I don't remember seeing any new HCB stuff. I'll have to look again... probably inattention on my part. But I agree with Rob, HCB does seem like a photographer of the past. Though I love his work, I kind wish people would take it a little easy with the HCB-worship.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 15, 2002.

I think that it's really great that books are finally being published full of the less-than-masterpieces of several legendary photographers. HC-B's "City and Landscape" is almost devoid of them, as is AA's "AA at 100," and the "Edward Weston, the Last years in Carmel." In general, their composition is perfect, while the subject matter is often pedestrian. A lot less inspirational, but much more educational than the "Best of...." books that have been available in the past.

-- Wilhelm (wmitch@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.

Bonjour:

HCB latest photos were for Vanity Fair Magazine a year or so back, when they ran a feature on Old Photogs 80+ yrs, featuring Newman, HCB, Leni Riefenstall, Duncan + more.

That was when Duncan took the snaps of HCB that he -HCB- got so upset about.

M Bresson took three shots of other photogs (I forget who at the moment)using a Leica P&S I think.

He is over 90 and does not get around much, but for the last 10-15 years he has done mainly watercolours & pen & ink sketches.

I saw his exhibition of Portraits in London a few years ago and the prints were as good as any others in a exhibit and many were 16 x 24 or so. Professional printing DOES INDEED make the difference between a good image and a GREAT one.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.

OK, I'll finally say this out loud; I've never been impressed with HCB's work.

Like music, TV and books, lots of promotion equals lots of exposure. And the public at large usually buys into what they get over exposed to, e.g., Brittany Spears, Back Street Boys, etc. - no redeeming talent but great marketing/promotion. Or take the Oprah Book Club. Oprah picks a book of the month (that no one, and I mean no one has ever heaqrd of) and it's an immediate best seller.

HCB was a rich kid who hung out with the avant garde types in Paris. He takes a few picutes and one of his gallery owning friends let's him have a showing.

It's my belief that without his parent's money and connections none of us would ever have heard of him.

-- Justin (justinw@hardtodo.com), March 15, 2002.

What does it matter that his parents had money? The man is responsible for some staggeringly good shots, that's all we need to know.

Even if some of his day to day work wasn't of the same standard, we shouldn't lose sight of his achivement. He's only a photographer, after all, not the messiah.

-- Paul (carterph@wanadoo.es), March 15, 2002.

Justin:

You are partially right, but whatever he had, it got him to places few others had been with a small camera and it got an audience for photojournalism that didn't exist in the Mass Market before. Yes, Mass Market. Yes Hype, but so what?

The percentage of his Great shots is not much better than mine, perhaps, but since I don't know any posh gallery owners, you remain right. He may well have been a less-than-Galactically Great Photog, but he was better than just about anybody else those days and was eager to be in China on the day of the Mao revolution, for one thing, Africa, India, etc before Lonely Planet came along- you know: f8 & Be There.

His work may indeed be as much record/documentary as Art, but what Art he did produce was very good, AND he inspired generations of photojournalists to follow- some better, many not. That alone puts him in Cooperstown.

Cheers

-- RICHARD ILOMAKI (richardjx@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.

I'm guessing that if you polled photographers around the world on "the greatest photographer ever," HCB would win hands down.

The notion that his family wealth bought him that acclaim is laughable.

-- Terry (tcdvorak@aol.com), March 15, 2002.

HCB's legacy is not photojournalism, but surrealist street photography. That doesn't mean that he didn't come up with some powerful journalistic (i.e., storytelling) shots--just that his true talents lay elsewhere.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), March 15, 2002.

Photography is a loathsome art to be involved with. For any shot there are always a million people who can offer better ideas of how to "improve" it. You know, "get the person on the left to look off to the left not at the camera", "crop off the tree on the left", "go back at a different time of day" blah blah blah. This is the particular trouble with photography: everyone takes photos, so most have an opinion. In some ways photography is very easy. Better to pick something like ceramics or glass - that tends to shut people up as there is a real (and difficult) skill to learn.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.

Is it little wonder that HCB is judged so harshly by this group, when the intellect doing the judging is so mundane? When the Nazis captured France, HCB was imprisoned and tortured by them for several years. He managed to escape and spent the remainder of the war years fighting in the France Underground. At the end of the war, HCB was presumed dead. Hardly the life of leisure.

-- Glenn Travis (leicaddict@hotmail.com), March 15, 2002.

If Hank Carter couldn't shoot, if he didn't have the eye and sense of timing that he does, it doesn't matter if he was "rich". Maybe it helped a bit in the early days, not having to go to a "job" everyday. It might have opened a few doors.

But if his stuff was not good, rich or not, it wouldn't hold up over time and we wouldn't be having this little chat. I think he is an artist at heart, but as per Robert Capa's direction, he is known as a photojournalist. Remember everyone, he himself calls it the artless art of the snapshot.

-- jeff (debontekou@yahoo.com), March 15, 2002.

Back in the mid-50s, when Miles Davis was the hottest ticket in the Jazz world, and Duke Ellington was considered a has-been, Davis said that every musician in the world ought to "get together in the same place at the same time, get down on their knees and thank Duke". I'd say that the same could be said for HCB. His handful of classic street shots have had an overwhelming impact on how photographers view everyday scenes. It's amazing how far you can see when you're standing on the shoulders of a giant.

-- Pat Dunsworth (pdunsworth@aryarch.com), March 15, 2002.

Wow. Given the fact that HCB is such a deity among photographers (especially ones who use Leicas) I'm very surprised at some of the harsh statements. Where have they been hiding?

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), March 15, 2002.

Wow indeed,if you look at some of the other posts, as well, you will see some very strange comments.For a Leica user newsgroup it is very srange indeed.

-- allen herbert (allen1@btinternet.com), March 15, 2002.

"Photography is a loathsome art to be involved with. "

Loathsome, yes. Oh yes! Yes please...

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), March 15, 2002.

Loathsome, yes. Oh yes! Yes please...

Yeah, where is Hunter Thompson when you need him...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), March 15, 2002.

Some surprising views here indeed, HCB himself would probably deplore all of us here for our fanatical interest in a simple mechanical camera - remember his words as quoted on the back of "A propos de Paris" - "Photography is nothing, it's life that interests me".

Why are so many people giving him a hard time? Anyone who saw the BBC documentary ("Omnibus") a few years ago made to coincide with his London exhibitions would conclude he is a remarkable person - incredibly humble, charming and talented. There was a brief sequence of him at work on the streets - nimble and elegant.

To him photography was not about Leicas or aspherical lenses, it was simply a form of "instant painting" - his real love.

As he wandered through the London gallery surrounded by his life's work and was asked what it all meant, his answer? - "It is sh*t!"

Life and people is all important.

-- Giles Poilu (giles@monpoilu.icom43.net), March 15, 2002.

Being a fan of photography & photographers I have a fair number of books and more than a few by Bresson and I would have to respectfully disagree with the majority of opinions about his work. IMHO I think he was a brilliant photographer who inspired many more greats. I for one loved his India book and would be hard pressed to see better photographs from that part of the world.

His impact on photography is still seen today in much of the work being done.

Tom

-- Tom Gallagher (tgallagher10@yahoo.com), March 15, 2002.