[Leica] Cartier-Bresson Could Be One Weird Dude, Though He Didn'tHave To

[buzz.hausner at verizon.net (Buzz Hausner)]

Well, Jim, at least we agree on the DeCordova!  (I'll meet you by the
brick sphere.)  When I was in graduate school for city planning, our
class motto was, "Process Is Our Most Important Product!"  I think that
sort of sums up surrealism, too.

        Best regards,

        Buzz

-----Original Message-----
From: lug-bounces+buzz.hausner=verizon.net@leica-users.org
[mailto:lug-bounces+buzz.hausner=verizon.net@leica-users.org] On Behalf
Of Jim Hemenway
Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 7:55 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Cartier-Bresson Could Be One Weird Dude, Though He
Didn'tHave To

Buzz:

>>> It is a common misconception that surreal means "weird." 
Generally, that idea derives from the fact that most people know of only
one Surrealist, Salvador Dali, who most assuredly painted some weird
stuff.<<<

Wait a minute... only Dali?

Are you implying that the following examples are not just as
weird/strange as his?
http://www.bonnibenrubi.com/Parkeharrison/parkeharrison.html
http://www.parkeharrison.com/
http://www.decordova.org/decordova/exhibit/parkeharrison/parkeharrison04

>>> To oversimplify, surreal art, be it painting, poetry, photography, 
music, et alii, is "about" a particular manner of approaching the world
without preconceptions of what one will perceive and being able to
express a different reality from that taken in by the ordinary citizen.
  Cartier-Bresson definitely considered himself a surrealist first and a
photographer second, with the camera was his medium.  B.D. is quite
correct that Capa told H.C.-B. to call himself a photojournalist rather
than a surrealist photographer because a p.j. would find a much larger
audience for his work than a surrealist would. <<<

I adhere to a stricter definition of surreal art.  I don't consider 
myself to be a surrealist photographer but that's just what I would be 
in some cases under your "loose" :-) definition as expressed above.

On another list, the following photographs were described by one list 
member as "aesthetic failures" because of the lenses that I used.

I stated that almost any type of photography that is different than
that which most people expect to be presented to them, calls attention
to itself... until enough viewers realize that the photographer has
simply shown them an alternate way to see the subject.

Here, taken with an R8 and R-Fisheye, I'm calling attention to the 
vastness of the ocean.  I don't think that it would be as effective with

a straight wall:
http://www.hemenway.com/Hull-august/pages/08-FisheyeView.htm

Here, with Rollei and F-Distagon, I'm calling attention to the fluidity 
of the water.  I've had people from three different continents tell me 
that it felt as though the water was about to flow over their keyboards:
http://www.hemenway.com/AFewMore/pages/SummerPondSwan.htm

And here I was calling attention to the "massive" of the lighthouse in
its "heroic" :-) stand against the sea:
http://www.hemenway.com/More-Maine/pages/PortlandHead-4.htm

Under your definition these photographs would be surreal, but I don't 
view them as such.

I never doubted that HCB considered himself a surrealist... it's just
that I don't agree with him. Neither do I disbelieve BD's account of 
Capa's advice to HCB... good advice I think.

 >>> That said, Jim, if you've never seen anything weird in 
Cartier-Bresson's photographs, it is time to hit the books!  H.C.-B. 
took and published some decidedly weird pictures, albeit no melting 
clocks or flying horses or portraits of Gala Dali. <<<

Sure I see some weirdness in his work, they wouldn't be as good 
otherwise. But that property is only one part of surrealism... don't 
forget those "incongruous juxtapositions". :-)

I find Graham's latest, #007 almost surreal... especially due to the
light.


Jim, "see you at the DeCordova" Hemenway

:-)