Critical commentary on the picture-
Henri Cartier-Bresson: Michel Gabriel, Rue Mouffetard, 1952
The exposure that I am traveling to analyze is taken by the celebrated Gallic lensman, Henri Cartier-Bresson, in 1952. He was celebrated for his candid picture taking, which was subsequently developed as another sort of art – & A ; lsquo ; Street picture taking ‘ . His part towards photography art eventually helped him have the name of & A ; lsquo ; the male parent of modern photojournalism ‘ .
The exposure chiefly captures a male child, Michel Gabriel, who is keeping two magnums with his weaponries, and his face is really exudating a sort of felicity and assurance which could purportedly be seen on a mature adult male ‘s face. There are besides two small misss captured in the exposure, but their presence is a spot bleary since the male child keeping the vino bottles is the chief character.
As mentioned in the old paragraph, the male child was portrayed as a & A ; lsquo ; adult male ‘ who was proud to be a drinker. In fact, the relationship between the male child, Michel Gabriel, and the lensman, Henri Cartier-Bresson, was really elusive because really the male child and the lensman did non cognize each other ; the lensman merely shot the male child in a blunt manner. Therefore, it can be said that the relationship between them is really elusive, which is the lensman vs. the theoretical account, or the adult male with a camera vs. a male child with wine bottles.
In this exposure, the theory, Affective false belief, suggested by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley can be applied. Affectional false belief is purportedly defined as a confusion between the verse form and its consequences, but subsequently this theory is besides by and large used to use to sing exposure, intending that readers interpret the exposure through his/her personal emotion or fondness. The male child is keeping two wine bottles with satisfied facial look ; readers like me may see this exposure on the footing of intuition that the male child is happy because he could imbibe alcohol like an grownup. However, this reading may be incorrect since we do non cognize the purpose of the lensman. To be more nonsubjective, the male child may merely run across something which was fascinating on the street, and the lensman merely captured the minute.
Another reading would be the male child is merely transporting two wine bottles filled with H2O ( or empty ) around for merriment, which can be inferred from the background of the exposure. First, the flat and street implies that the topographic point where the male child walks is a on the job category distract. Therefore, vino is perchance non low-cost for a kid like him ; he may merely play what popular within the working category country at that clip. Second, the atmosphere of black and white of the exposure, the vesture manner of the male child, the impressed misss behind him, and the day of the month can besides assist convert the readers that the male child is playing at the minute.
However, if readers refer to the statement of Cartier-Bresson, the readings will be different. As Henri Cartier-Bresson said & A ; lsquo ; picture taking is a manner of shouting, liberating oneself, non of turn outing and asseverating one ‘s originality ‘ , so picture taking is a mean of stating the narrative or truth in which it captures the conversation, facial look, gestures and nowadayss them in a ocular manner which can be for ulterior contemplations. The significances that are being shouted or freed by the lensman would be the concern about the male child imbibing intoxicant, about the imbibing wonts of his parents, and even about the manner that the male child lives under the influence of his parents. The statement of Cartier-Bresson is therefore in line with the point of view of Benjamin emphasizing that & amp ; lsquo ; exposure can let go of intending that was non perceived at the clip ‘ .
There is no uncertainty that picture taking can capture an object ; it can besides capture clip in which the minute will last everlastingly. Therefore, the point of view from Kracauer is true because he stress that & amp ; lsquo ; picture taking captures time- memory outlast clip ‘ , intending that the image together with the significance would go memory which can be recalled. Taking this exposure as an illustration, it does document the clip when people were populating in Rue Mouffetard, and besides the aura of environing country. Therefore, it is a good certification entering the community life during that period.
Yet, reading an image sometimes goes debatable as the lensman ( Godhead ) does non ever supply a limpid account or his/her reading for the exposure ; hence, different reading can be resulted. Using this exposure as an illustration once more, whatever the lensman, the male child, his parents, or even the misss behind the male child, they may hold their ain readings towards this exposure. That is why sometimes reading images goes debatable. But I have to state that this & A ; lsquo ; debatable reading ‘ can, to a certain extent, excite the imaginativeness of readers, from the surface to the underneath of exposures.
With no uncertainty, the prevalence of & A ; lsquo ; street exposures ‘ or & A ; lsquo ; blunt exposure ‘ can be attributable to Cartier-Bresson ‘s parts. However, today, this sort of art seems to be abused because you can see a batch of blunt exposure through different societal networking web sites, web logs, etc. However, it has somehow become a inundation because most of the exposure taken, particularly in my hometown Hong Kong, have no significances ; the lensmans themselves even do non cognize what significances they want to show or present to the readers, therefore, it is a bit sad because what the readera can entree may be merely the superficial significances.
The reader, every bit good, should besides see a exposure in a deeper manner in which he or she can entree to different dimensions of the exposure. Nowadays, people are inclined to glimpse photographs alternatively of reading them. He or she may merely acquire the really superficial significances of the exposure. That is why sometimes we need to see a exposure with theories.
For me, the photographic theories do assist me to see a exposure in a deeper and more complex manner. I am impressed by what Cartier-Bresson said & A ; lsquo ; taking exposure is a agency of understanding which can non be separated from other agencies of ocular look ‘ ; it is true because once you press the shutter of your camera, the relationship between the object and you has been set up. However, you can non deeply understand the object by merely glimpsing it. A good lensman gaining controls clip ; a good reader captures the significances behind.
Benjamin ‘s theory on exposure said & A ; lsquo ; exposure can corroborate ideological thought ‘ , I perfectly agree to the statement as I think a exposure itself can set up discourse and semantics in its ain universe ; that is why a exposure can decrypt the civilization, values whatever of an object or of a peculiar topographic point. Therefore, I think that reading a exposure is rather similar to reading a text in which readers need to undergo the procedure of decrypting. In a text, readers have to decrypt the words into image while in a exposure, they have to decode the concealed significances ( images ) into words. It can be said that readers can to the full understand the exposure unless they immerse themselves in the concealed dimensions of the exposure. If a reader merely views the exposure through a glance, what he/she can acquire is superficial.
Mention:
hypertext transfer protocol: //www.biographybase.com/biography/Cartier_Bresson_Henri.html
