Re: Cartier-Bresson article

[kencameron]

Ken, Enlighten me. Define "aesthetic value" in a photograph. And please don't start talking about technical details. Give me some examples of what you're talking about. Seems to me aesthetic value is entirely subjective, but you claim it can be defined objectively.

I think what is good or bad about a photograph or other work of art can be discussed meaningfully, at least between people with a degree of common culture and education. I don't recall raising the subjective/objective distinction myself and if I did I misspoke. Both sides of that distinction seem to me problematic. "Entirely subjective" would be problematic because it would seem to exclude meaningful discussion and the kind of rough consensus that there is in practice about which works of art are the greatest. I not unaware of the problems around "defined objectively". My own starting point for discussion is usually with the relationship between form and content, the ways in which the look or shape or sound perfectly expresses the content or meaning. I know all those terms are problematic. The examples that comes to mind right now are some of Cezanne's still lives, as explicated by Meyer Shapiro, perhaps because I have just been reading his great book on that artist. Or some paintings by Rubens. I can't immediately think of any photograph that is a great work of art by those standards but I am not saying they don't exist. Perhaps you could enlighten me with an example, and tell me what you like about it. If you did, your statement would be subjective, of course, but maybe not entirely subjective, as you might present reasons which persuaded me or others. I  don't expect this has enlightened you and I am not going to spend any more time down this particular rabbit hole because I don't believe enlightenment is to be found down here.

[kencameron]

Is there something particular in those 10,000 words that you would claim constitutes an absolute measure applicable to the question "is a great Cartier-Bresson better than a great Atget?"

Certainly not. Not an "absolute measure". We have to do without that in discussing the value of art and I can't find where I am supposed to have claimed that one exists. The point of the link was to simply to suggest that the topic of aesthetic value is hard but not impossible to discuss.


Correction. I did of course use the word absolute. It was a poor choice. I meant to enquire whether it is possible to meaningfully discuss the level of achievement of  Atget and Cartier-Bresson given the different technical resources available to them. I didn't mean to imply that such a comparison could be made against an "objectively definable" "absolute measure".

[kencameron]

It's certainly possible to discuss without any hope of coming to a resolution.

That is certainly the spirit in which I embark on many, if not most, discussions on LuLa and elsewhere.

[kencameron]

So how are we supposed to answer -- Are the resulting images superior in an absolute sense - is a great Cartier-Bresson better than a great Atget?

We look carefully at them to see what we admire and what moves us, then we have a conversation, which might or might include something about relative merit. As between these two, I would personally see their achievement as being at about the same level because they move me to about the same degree. You might or might not agree, or you might see the question as meaningless.

[kencameron]

We could have a conversation about relative merit. How could that answer - "Are the resulting images superior in an absolute sense …" ?

As I think I may have mentioned before, "absolute" was an ill-chosen word. The job I was asking it to do was to distinguish between differences arising from scientific developments in photography,  and artistic quality. The conversation about relative merit would be about which photographer we thought was better, and (if applicable) why. My sense of this discussion is that we are getting further down the rabbit hole, and it is getting darker, so I am out of here.

[Rob C]

As I think I may have mentioned before, "absolute" was an ill-chosen word. The job I was asking it to do was to distinguish between differences arising from scientific developments in photography,  and artistic quality. The conversation about relative merit would be about which photographer we thought was better, and (if applicable) why. My sense of this discussion is that we are getting further down the rabbit hole, and it is getting darker, so I am out of here.

Ah Ken, déjà vu?

It's the best way to handle these things: walk. I finally learned that too.

And thanks for the comment elsewhere on my pix; appreciated.

;-)

Rob

[AreBee]

Keith,

There are painters whose works have moved me to shed tears of joy.

An analysis of why they move me to shed tears of joy would be joyless.

It may, however, be productive.

[Isaac]

An analysis of why they move me to shed tears of joy would be joyless.

And yet it may be something kencameron would find interesting and even enjoyable.

De gustibus non est disputandum.

[RSL]

I think what is good or bad about a photograph or other work of art can be discussed meaningfully, at least between people with a degree of common culture and education. I don't recall raising the subjective/objective distinction myself and if I did I misspoke. Both sides of that distinction seem to me problematic. "Entirely subjective" would be problematic because it would seem to exclude meaningful discussion and the kind of rough consensus that there is in practice about which works of art are the greatest. I not unaware of the problems around "defined objectively". My own starting point for discussion is usually with the relationship between form and content, the ways in which the look or shape or sound perfectly expresses the content or meaning. I know all those terms are problematic. The examples that comes to mind right now are some of Cezanne's still lives, as explicated by Meyer Shapiro, perhaps because I have just been reading his great book on that artist. Or some paintings by Rubens. I can't immediately think of any photograph that is a great work of art by those standards but I am not saying they don't exist. Perhaps you could enlighten me with an example, and tell me what you like about it. If you did, your statement would be subjective, of course, but maybe not entirely subjective, as you might present reasons which persuaded me or others. I  don't expect this has enlightened you and I am not going to spend any more time down this particular rabbit hole because I don't believe enlightenment is to be found down here.

Hi Ken,

In other words, "aesthetic value" can't really be "defined." I'd agree that subjective aesthetic value often corresponds more or less among groups of people -- sometimes majorities. But that doesn't make it less subjective.

[Zorki5]

Aesthetic value, quality, depth, concepts like that. Hard (but not impossible) to define, and to me indispensable, if I am to tell myself a plausible story about my own experience of the arts and my knowledge of their history.

There are painters whose works have moved me to shed tears of joy.

An analysis of why they move me to shed tears of joy would be joyless.

Speaking of common grounds and joy... It would be very interesting (if not joyful) to see someone trying to convince Schewe that HCB should not be judged based on blown highlights 

[Zorki5]

Already done by Sophia and accepted by Schewe.

Isaac, I did read the rest of that thread, and Schewe didn't really say anything new in response to Sophia (except the "be there" stuff). Even in the post I linked he said he liked HCB's images.

BUT when it comes to the definition of a "good photographer", that's not what he thinks about first. Well, not on that occasion, anyway. That's my point. Now, I'm not implying that there's anything wrong with Schewe's notion of a "good photographer". It's simply different.

Look, we can't even agree on what was or wasn't said in a particular thread of this forum, so the idea to find common ground for more esoteric stuff is well and truly hopeless.

[Isaac]

… and Schewe didn't really say anything new …

That's correct, he just tried to make clear what he meant by "not a great photographer" -- "I was referring to his technical skills not his ability to make great images."

Look, we can't even agree on what was or wasn't said in a particular thread of this forum…

We can all see what was or wasn't said; and we can choose to read forum posts as-if they were intended to be definitive statements, and we can choose to read forum posts as-if they were were a conversational work-in-progress.

[RSL]

His technical skills were astonishing, Schewe to the contrary notwithstanding. If you don't believe that, find an early Leica -- say a Leica II, and load it with film of about ASA 30 (for you kids: that's the same as ISO 30.) I'm not sure what speed film he had early on, when he did his most interesting work, but I'm pretty sure it didn't reach ASA 50. (There was no ASA rating in those days.) Now, go out and shoot some street and see what you come up with. Ain't as easy to get technically superior results as you thought is it?

[Zorki5]

His technical skills were astonishing, Schewe to the contrary notwithstanding. If you don't believe that, find an early Leica -- say a Leica II, and load it with film of about ASA 30 (for you kids: that's the same as ISO 30.) I'm not sure what speed film he had early on, when he did his most interesting work, but I'm pretty sure it didn't reach ASA 50. (There was no ASA rating in those days.) Now, go out and shoot some street and see what you come up with. Ain't as easy to get technically superior results as you thought is it?

I agree with you in that it wasn't easy, at all. I shot hundreds of rolls of GOST-65 (pre-1985 standard) Soviet film, called FOTO65 and having sensitivity equivalent to ASA/ISO 65, using rangefinders with f/3.5 and f/4 lenses, so yeah, I can see that.

As to technical skills required to make proper exposure (in a broad sense) with 2x slower film, I wouldn't go as far as calling those of HCB "astonishing"; he most certainly had enough of those skills to support his acute sense of composition/timing and, of course, that sixth sense allowing to "be there".

Those latter parts are (IMHO!) much more important; but, ultimately, all these assessments are cans of worms...

[Rob C]

I agree with you in that it wasn't easy, at all. I shot hundreds of rolls of GOST-65 (pre-1985 standard) Soviet film, called FOTO65 and having sensitivity equivalent to ASA/ISO 65, using rangefinders with f/3.5 and f/4 lenses, so yeah, I can see that.

As to technical skills required to make proper exposure (in a broad sense) with 2x slower film, I wouldn't go as far as calling those of HCB "astonishing"; he most certainly had enough of those skills to support his acute sense of composition/timing and, of course, that sixth sense allowing to "be there".

Those latter parts are (IMHO!) much more important; but, ultimately, all these assessments are cans of worms...

And little worms can catch big fish for dinner. (I'm still trying to work it out too, so don't worry about it. Iyt¡sloike my ty`ping.)

Rob C

[Rob C]

His technical skills were astonishing, Schewe to the contrary notwithstanding. If you don't believe that, find an early Leica -- say a Leica II, and load it with film of about ASA 30 (for you kids: that's the same as ISO 30.) I'm not sure what speed film he had early on, when he did his most interesting work, but I'm pretty sure it didn't reach ASA 50. (There was no ASA rating in those days.) Now, go out and shoot some street and see what you come up with. Ain't as easy to get technically superior results as you thought is it?

Reminds me of my first days with photography when I was totally obsessed with the idea of the value of fine grain, something gleaned from the amateur photography press. I was trying to do stuff with Pan F and Panatomic X, and an important thing I learned was that if you made the neg thin enough, it printed quite well. The next thing I learned, the most important one, was that worrying about such things as grain was a diversion from reality, the reality of making a picture that means something. Even then, the techies cornered a lot of press...

Rob

P.S.  Just realised: as I often add fake grain to digital stuff, I suppose I can say that I have stood firmly by my earlier convictions, proving that fundmental beliefs can hold their own through the decades. Of course, for some pro work, grain wasn't allowed to  "intrude", and add its own dynamic, so one shot accordingly. Shows very clearly the strength of character of one Sarah Moon and relative weakness of my own in the face of such commercial pressures! Another such pressure came my way one fine day as I stood in a fashion store's AD's office looking at some snaps I'd just delivered, when one of their top dogs walked in and remarked: that's not a good fashion picture: there is no eye contact. AD and I stood silent, glanced at one another, and waited for Big Dog to wander back to the upper kennel. The shot ran, immaculately grainless.