Henri Cartier-Bresson Photography Analysis

Henri C finesseier-Bresson motion-picture showgraphy AnalysisCritical commentary on the picture-Henri Cartier-Bresson Michel Gabriel, Rue Mouffetard, 1952The photo that I am going to analyse is taken by the famous french photographer, Henri Cartier-Bresson, in 1952. He was famous for his natesdid photography, which was later developed as another physique of art Street photography. His contri providedion towards photography art finally helped him own the name of the father of modern photojournalism.The photo principally aims a son, Michel Gabriel, who is holding two magnums with his arms, and his face is actually exuding a kind of happiness and confidence which could supposedly be seen on a get along mans face. There are in addition two little girls captured in the photo, but their presence is a point blurred since the boy holding the booze bottles is the main character.As mentioned in the previous paragraph, the boy was portrayed as a man who was proud to be a imbibeer . In fact, the family consanguinity between the boy, Michel Gabriel, and the photographer, Henri Cartier-Bresson, was very subtle because actually the boy and the photographer did not know each other the photographer practiced shot the boy in a open(a) way. Therefore, it atomic number 50 be said that the affinity between them is very subtle, which is the photographer vs. the model, or the man with a camera vs. a boy with wine bottles.In this photo, the theory, Affective fallacy, suggested by W.K. Wimsatt and Monroe Beardsley advise be applied. Affective fallacy is supposedly defined as a confusion between the poem and its results, but later this theory is also generally used to apply to viewing photographs, meaning that readers interpret the photographs through with(predicate) his/her personal emotion or affectionateness. The boy is holding two wine bottles with satisfied facial expression readers like me may view this photo on the basis of intuition that the boy is happ y because he could drink alcohol like an adult. However, this indication may be wrong since we do not know the intention of the photographer. To be to a greater extent objective, the boy may just run across something which was intriguing on the street, and the photographer just captured the meaning.Another interpretation would be the boy is just carrying two wine bottles filled with water (or empty) around for fun, which can be inferred from the background of the photo. First, the apartment and street implies that the place where the boy walks is a working screen out distract. Therefore, wine is possibly not affordable for a child like him he may just play what popular within the working class area at that time. Second, the ambience of black and white of the photo, the clothing drift of the boy, the impressed girls behind him, and the date can also help convince the readers that the boy is playing at the moment.However, if readers refer to the statement of Cartier-Bresson, the interpretations will be variant. As Henri Cartier-Bresson said photography is a way of shouting, freeing oneself, not of proving and asserting ones originality, so photography is a mean of telling the fib or truth in which it captures the conversation, facial expression, gestures and presents them in a ocular way which can be for later reflections. The meanings that are being shouted or freed by the photographer would be the concern about the boy drinking alcohol, about the drinking habits of his parents, and even about the way that the boy lives under the influence of his parents. The statement of Cartier-Bresson is thus in line with the stand of Benjamin stressing that photograph can release meaning that was not comprehend at the time.There is no doubt that photography can capture an object it can also capture time in which the moment will last forever. Therefore, the viewpoint from Kracauer is true because he stress that photography captures time- memory outlast time, mean ing that the image together with the meaning would get going memory which can be recalled. Taking this photo as an example, it does written document the time when people were living in Rue Mouffetard, and also the atmosphere of surrounding area. Therefore, it is a wide-cut documentation recording the community flavor during that period.Yet, reading an image sometimes goes problematic as the photographer (creator) does not always provide a lucid explanation or his/her interpretation for the photos therefore, disparate interpretation can be resulted. Using this photo as an example again, whatever the photographer, the boy, his parents, or even the girls behind the boy, they may bind their own interpretations towards this photo. That is wherefore sometimes reading images goes problematic. But I put up to say that this problematic reading can, to a certain extent, stimulate the mood of readers, from the surface to the underneath of photos.With no doubt, the prevalence of street photographs or candid photographs can be attributable to Cartier-Bressons contributions. However, nowadays, this kind of art seems to be abuse because you can see a lot of candid photographs through different social networking websites, blogs, etc. However, it has somehow become a flood because intimately of the photos taken, especially in my hometown Hong Kong, have no meanings the photographers themselves even do not know what meanings they want to express or deliver to the readers, thus, it is a bit sad because what the readera can access may be just the piddling meanings.The reader, as well, should also view a photograph in a deeper way in which he or she can access to different dimensions of the photographs. Nowadays, people are inclined to glimpse photographs instead of reading them. He or she may only get the very superficial meanings of the photographs. That is why sometimes we need to view a photograph with theories.For me, the photographic theories do help me to view a photograph in a deeper and more complex way. I am impressed by what Cartier-Bresson said taking photographs is a way of life of understanding which cannot be separated from other means of visual expression 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 cannot deeply understand the object by just glimpsing it. A good photographer captures time a good reader captures the meanings behind.Benjamins theory on photograph said photograph can confirm ideological thinking, I absolutely agree to the statement as I think a photograph itself can establish communion and semantics in its own world that is why a photo can decode the culture, values whatever of an object or of a incident place. Therefore, I think that reading a photograph is quite sympathetic to reading a text in which readers need to undergo the play of decoding. In a text, readers have to decode the words into image age in a photograp h, they have to decipher the inscrutable meanings (images) into words. It can be said that readers can fully understand the photographs unless they immerse themselves in the hidden dimensions of the photographs. If a reader only views the photo through a glimpse, what he/she can get is superficial.Referencehttp//www.biographybase.com/biography/Cartier_Bresson_Henri.html