The Henri Cartier-Bresson Show

I unshackled my leg from the desk yesterday and escaped to Chicago, where I saw the Henri Cartier-Bresson show with Ken Tanaka.

Ken, who started out as a fan and a booster of TOP, has become a friend. We first met at the first show we saw together, the great Eggleston retrospective earlier this year. Ken lives a hop skip and a jump from the Art Institute of Chicago (AIC), and he's involved with the institution in some sort of way I'm unable to accurately report, so he knows the curators and gets to attend a lot of the insider events and so forth—and I kid him that the AIC is actually his private collection, as by his own admission he spends so much time in the building. He was seeing the Cartier-Bresson exhibit for the ninth time when he saw it with me. Seeing photographs is always good, and seeing lots of photographs is even better, and a visit to the Art Institute is always a pleasure. But to see a show in the erudite, engaging, and yet completely unpretentious company of Ken Tanaka greatly amplifies the experience. A fun day, well worth the drive and the Chicago traffic.

Brass tacks
I'm afraid I have to give the show itself a decidedly mixed review. Although the public response has been extraordinary, it's really an exhibit "by scholars for scholars," rather than a show for popular delectation. From an aesthetic standpoint, the selection is deep but in some ways puzzling: despite being overlong by twice, a lot of the great pictures are missing, and a large number of second-rate ones are present. There are plentiful "extra value" components, most notably a completely magnificent map of the world showing Cartier-Bresson's lifetime travels in glorious detail, and a single Magnum print presented next to a good reproduction of its own backside, showing all of the publication marks, stamps, and notes that it accumulated over its lifetime as a press photo. Fascinating.

The biggest disappointment by far is that many of the prints are just horrible. It is "vintagism" taken to an absurd extreme when truly great—I mean great—masterpieces are presented only in early repro prints that were originally fully intended to be ephemeral, two paper grades too soft and fogged and dimmed by time. It's one thing when the photographer is an independent artist and you're showing his or her original thoughts about a new work; it's quite another to pretend that the initial work-product of a working photographer has any of the same import or presence, or adequately reflects his intent. Really, the fastidiousness of scholarship has overwhelmed the viewer's interests—and good sense—in many cases here. I wouldn't say that bad prints predominate—there are a lot of adequate ones and some good ones too*—but if you get the catalog, I think you'll find that the catalog reproductions are far preferable to many of the original prints on view! A strange reversal of the ordinary case.

From memory, this is my impression of what the print
of this picture looked like in the show.

So: recommended, but with real reservations. To reiterate: it's good to see photographs, and great to see H.C.-B. photographs. Lots of good and interesting things here; rewards on every wall. I'm certainly not sorry I went, and I doubt anyone else would be. But it's a deeply flawed show. It makes a weak case for H.C.-B. as a dominant artist in our field, although it's probably more interesting for those who already know he is. And it isn't what today's public deserves as a celebration of his greatness. Show me half as many pictures in their best printed form, even if it's not their earliest printed form. I'd take that any day.

Although I'd still want to see that marvelous map!

Mike

*I don't know this for sure, but, although there is a wide range of prints in the show that probably originated from many different sources, I'd bet there are very few Voja Mitrovic prints in this particular show: that is, they're not the prints M. Cartier-Bresson would have had made when a collector would wish to buy one from him or from one of his galleries.

Send this post to a friend

Note: Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site. More...
Original contents copyright 2010 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved.

Featured Comment by Ken Tanaka: "Indeed, as Mike and I discussed at the exhibit, many of the prints are unimpressive, particularly prints from the earliest pre-war periods. I suspect that few, if any, of these were originally intended for exhibition. Most of the later prints (1954+) are more exhibition-quality.

"But I think it’s easy for (us) photo enthusiasts to inadvertently mis-read the curatorial objectives of this show. We see Henri Cartier-Bresson as a icon of photographic artistic talent. But that’s not what Peter Galassi, the show’s curator, is principally attempting to illustrate. Rather, the principal conceptual theme of the show is to present a wide-angled view of the enormous body of work by an extraordinarily talented and energetic man with a camera. The gigantic travel history maps on the walls at the exhibit’s entrance serve to drive the point that visitors will see photographs of history at key points during 'The Modern Century' as captured by Cartier-Bresson’s camera. Art, in this case, is a delightful but secondary feature. Indeed, Cartier-Bresson himself repeatedly denied that his camera work was art. He considered himself to be, first and foremost, a journalist with a camera. That’s why he co-founded Magnum as a news photo cooperative agency.

"So undoubtedly many photography enthusiasts will be disappointed with the flatness of many of this exhibition’s prints. It’s also true that several well-known images have been omitted from the show. (Although with 300 pieces they’re hard to miss.) And you may be correct that scholarship has sent art to the back-seat. But that was the intention. 'Henri Cartier-Bresson: The Modern Century' is designed principally to illustrate the remarkable events and inflection periods of 'The Modern Century' that this astonishing photographer witnessed and captured during his long career.

"I will say, though, that having seen the show so many times (with a few more viewings still to come) I believe that the pictures on the walls are, in this case, mainly evidential by-products. The wonderful catalog is the real gem of Peter Galassi’s curatorial work. I always encourage folks to see the show. But this is one example where, failing such an opportunity, the catalog text will more than fairly compensate you for your absence."

Featured Comment by timd: "I had a similar experience a while back at the Robert Capa exhibition at the Barbican in London—small dingy prints.

"I came away feeling that the show was neither here nor there; it was neither a show of images, because the prints were small and dull, nor an one of archival/historical materials, because there wasn't enough of that material on display and the materials that were shown weren't contextualized.

"It was very interesting to see the heroic photojournalist myth-making: old magazines featuring the work of the 'world's greatest photo journalist'; and to see how much the images were changed/manipulated when they appeared in print—e.g., elements from two photos merged into one image.

"It would have been interesting, given all of the discussion over the veracity of one of his photos, to have seen some of the exchanges between Capa and the publishers over the alterations they made to his photos—if there was any—but the magazines were just displayed without comment. (The images looked better in these old magazines from the '30s than on the wall.)"

Mike replies: I actually expend a lot of effort trying to figure out the best way to experience any given photographer—often it would be an "ideal" show, although those are rare and I get to attend very few shows in any event. Often it's an effort to find those books that have the best selection of images and the most appropriate and pleasing reproduction. Those are hard to come by too, but not as hard. Increasingly we are seeing better and better web presentations, and I'm awaiting the day when we start seeing full exhibits on the web presented purposefully. I'm always happy when I come across any "good enough" way to see a good representation of a photographer I'm interested in.

Featured Comment by John Camp: "I've known a lot of photojournalists, and I don't think any of them would want an exhibit of their photos, shown in a museum, to be selected from their first publication prints. For one thing, printers working for a newspaper or magazine or wire service tried to optimize the print for whatever printing technology was involved—and that often meant over-contrasty prints because of the poor materials (newsprint) on which the photo would ultimately be printed. And because the print itself would only be used for a few hours before winding up on a printing plate (and often ruined in that process), they frequently were barely fixed at all—just a quick shot of fixer and if it all went gray the next day, so what? You just make another. Those same photographers, when making prints for photojournalism contests (the state AP contests, etc.) would frequently spend hours making 'show' prints. Those prints, not their publication prints, represented the best they could do, and their best vision of the work....

"I think the emphasis on vintage prints is weird, and is basically just a way to monetize the product of a medium in which the potential identical copies of the product are virtually infinite. Critics and authorities argue that vintage prints best reflect the artist's original intent; but that's like arguing that Mahler would attempt to always conduct his symphonies with exactly the same inflection because otherwise, they would be inauthentic. That's absurd—any composer would try to make his compositions 'better' as the years pass, as Ansel Adams tried to make his prints better as technology improved.

"In other words, showing less than the best quality prints of HCB's work I'm sure wouldn't reflect his intent or his wishes—it simply reflects the quality of mechanical reproduction available at his time, and the need to make (deliberately defective) prints that would best utilize that machinery."

Comments

[Dennis]

I saw the HCB show in NYC. That's a rare thing for me - getting out to see prints. Something I hope to do more. It was a bit overwhelming - so much to see and so many people to see past. But it deepened my appreciation for the photographer. As for the prints, I'm still in the "haven't seen enough good prints or had them pointed out to me to know what's good" camp, but I'm occasionally impressed by the quality of a print, and I can't say the prints at the exhibition, in and of themselves, did anything for me.

[Dave Fultz]

Now that you mention it, it was an odd show.

I was pleased to see many old friends as prints rather than halftones, but I ended up sort of bemused by the total. Early working prints, yes, that's interesting (truly!), but there were such gaps. What happened to India, for example?

Dave

[Stan B.]

That makes little sense as far as presentation, unless there was some kind of novel point to it all. And then still...

[dolphin]

HCB foundation also authorized the horribling photobook (catalogue) of Henri Cartier-Bresson on Chinese Language issued in China in the early of 2010. : )

http://img14.imageshack.us/img14/4086/bressono.jpg

A poor printing Chinese book of Henri Cartier-Bresson issued in China and authorized from HCB Foundation.

What is happening for the photobook?
Try to buy the photobook, you will
like the one of poor HCB photobooks in the world.

I thought that HCB Foundation want to protect the brand of HCB, so we saw that the poor photobooks, show appeared in the world after the death of HCB. >.<

[John Roberts]

Thanks for an honest, critical appraisal of this show. Too often, exhibitions by big names like Cartier-Bresson get only the fawning "fan-boy" type of review. Despite your reservations, were I anywhere close to Chicago, I would still like to give this show a look. Knowing ahead of time that the show has some flaws would keep me from being too disappointed. That's what a good review should do.

[Michael Martin Morgan]

OK, shooting in the dark here - but couldn't it be that it's the museum's subliminal way of putting across the message "These are the subjects on show for free, if you want to see them properly buy the book."
The fact that you mention the catalogue has better reproductions points me in this direction.
Sad.

[timd]

I had a similar experience a while back at the Robert Capa exhibition at the Barbican in London - small dingy prints.
I came away feeling that the show was neither here nor there; it was neither a show of images, because the prints were small and dull, nor an one of archival/historical materials, because there wasn't enough of that material on display and the materials that were shown weren't contextualized.
It was very interesting to see the heroic photojournalist myth making: old magazines featuring the work of the "worlds greatest photo journalist"; and to see how much the images were changed/manipulated when they appeared in print - eg. elements from two photos merged into one image.
It would have been interesting, given all of the discussion over the veracity of one of his photos, to have seen some of the exchanges between Capa and the publishers over the alterations they made to his photos - if there was any - but the magazines were just displayed without comment.
(The images looked better in these old magazines from the 30s than on the wall)

[David Boyce]

I assume it is the same show that was at MoMA in New York recently? I had a very mixed reaction to it when I saw it, part of which I put down to jet lag at the time. But on review I to found it surprising that a lot of the prints seemed. well. lacking.

I also felt the hang was very, very tight. There just wasn't space for the work to breath. n edit would have been good, but I can also understand the desire to get as much up as possible, something I am noticing more and more with shows these days. What is the hang like in Chicago?

As to your comment about the catalouge, yes, I would recommend it.

[Mark S.]

I saw the show in New York in June, and my impression of the show mirrors yours. There are too many photos to digest in one visit. I went with someone unfamiliar with HCB, and he was bored very quickly. The overall print quality was a major disappointment. However, I did very much enjoy seeing some of his later work, particularly the photo essay on the Great Leap Forward.

[KeithB]

Which raises an interesting question: Should the name of the printer and a few sentences on *his* vision be included in an exhibit like this?

[Mike Johnston]

Keith,
I suspect that in this show there were a great many "printers," including H.C.-B. himself (Ken says he sometimes printed his own work before WWII.)

Mike

[Bruce Appelbaum]

Your comments on the quality of the prints mirror mine in a previous post referring to my experience seeing the exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art in NYC.

I have a copy of the old New York Graphic Society book from 1979 (can't believe I spent $50 back then!) and the reproductions in the book were much better than the exhibit.

I didn't bother laying down another chunk of cash for the museum exhibition catalog.

[Ken Tanaka]

@ David Boyce: "What is the hang like in Chicago?" Fine here...how's by you? ;-)

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

I did not see the show at MoMA but colleagues who did (including the representatives of FHCB) remarked that the show has much more breathing room here. The pieces are not crowded. The folks who did our (AIC) installation took time and extraordinary care to organize the experience very thoughtfully.

For those who visited our recent Matisse show, this exhibition is set in exactly the same gallery suite as the Matisse. In fact, we sent the Matisse show to MoMA and they sent us Cartier-Bresson. Trucks that pass in the night.

So it hangs coo'.

[Paul W. Luscher]

Know about the issue re printing from my own experience. I was once asked to put some of my photos into an exhibit--the people making the request took total control of the printing, etc, however.

The results were very disappointing. Pictures were way too contrasty (all B&W), and looked really harsh--all dead blacks and glaring whites. Final insult was that I had to pay for all this bad work...

[Mike Johnston]

I'll second what Ken said about the "hang" (an expression I've never heard before, BTW). The show is beautifully presented in Chicago. It really is a magnificent museum, a fact I appreciate all over again each time I visit.

Mike

[Rob Atkins]

For anyone living in or near Vancouver, Canada, there is a small show of HCB the West Vancouver Museum. The prints date mostly from the mid to late 40s, and while the show is small, it fantastically represents Cartier-Bresson's oeuvre. I'm made four visits already to spend time with the works in the intimate gallery; looking forward to at least two more visits before the show closes on August 28.

More info: http://westvancouvermuseum.ca/

[rcp]

Mike,

fowardthinkingmuseum.com does present web only photographic exhibits.

For me the online viewing experience pales compared to a museum or gallery visit but FTM does attempt to curate and promote their exhibits like a physical space would. So I think they're on the right track at least.

[Steve G, Mendocino]

Mike:

I had a chance to see a Cartier-Bresson show in April '09 at Maison Européenne de la Photographie in Paris. The Maison is a must see for any photographer stopping in Paris, BTW - I saw a fine show of Larry Clark's 'Tulsa' there the previous year.

In any case, those were all excellent prints, quite possibly all Mitrovic prints and there were also showings of short films of the Spanish civil war shot by Cartier-Bresson.

I'm looking forward to seeing the HCB show when it comes to the San Francisco MOMA later this year. Went to see 'New Topographics' there a couple of weeks ago and thoroughly enjoyed it.

[Allen L.]

I visited Chicgo last weekend for a 4 day weekend with my wife, brother and sister-in-law (photographic civilians). Saw the H C-B exhibit - nice, but everyone was kind of under-whelmed. Then we all went literally across the street to the Chicago Cultural Center to see the W. Eugene Smith Jazz Loft Project exhibit and were blown away. Kick butt exhibit.

[Christopher Lane]

Thanks for this "review". I don't think I'll be spending the money to drive down to Chicago. Sigh. I suppose I owe you the money though. Sigh, again.

[Bron]

Mike, OT, but one of my favorite paintings for many years is the "St. George ..." by Martorell at the Art Institute. Well worth looking up, if for no other reason than to see what a 15th. c. painter can do when he quietly throws his entire repertoire at you.

Very much in the spiirt of the "printing" posts.

Bron

[David Boyce]

Interesting, so "hang" is not used in North America to describe the way an exhibition is organised? It's the commonplace expression in my area of the world. A good reminder on the many variations of English and regional idiomatic speech.

What is the appropriate word in North America, installation?

[Gianni Galassi]

This revamps the debate about which is (or should be) the specific final medium of a photograph. Let apart any thoughts about most curator's attitude, that is too often self-referential and too often forgets that a show intended for the public should be a show in the first place rather than a lesson (schools are there for this purpose), I can't help musing about what seems to be the same issue in music reproduction: vintage vs. remastered, vinyl vs. digital, etc.
What can't be overlooked is that art, like any form of communication, is based on the encounter of the medium and the viewer, and viewer's expectations (in terms of perception, habits, culture, home technology, etc.) continuously evolve . If the viewer changes, the photograph changes as well. Nothing remains the same, ever.
The same old piece of silver bromide paper can be considered a piece of visual art or the historic document of a visual artwork, depending on circumstances.

[Edward Bussa]

I found the selection of prints a bit underwhelming as well.

The travels room decorated with wall-to-wall details of his travels in chronological order was priceless. I was stunned. An energetic man, and a brave one, indeed.

Another gem from the exhibit for me were the selection of images of China, especially given the context China represents today.

Overall, the experience was worth the 2.5 hr. drive.

[lyle allan]

Then the question becomes where did AIC obtain the prints? This spring I was asked to go to Sotheby's and Christie's to evaluate HCB prints up for auction. As with the AIC show, they varied widely in quality. A few were obviously damaged and 'restored'. I believed all were signed. Perhaps, this is the material that is has come and is coming on the market with the prime examples safely tucked away in collections.

[QT Luong]

Couldn't it be that the prints shown in the exhibit are soft because HCB liked them that way ? In the afterword of "The Decisive Moment", Simon (of Simon and Schuster) wrote "[the US printers] ... were amazed at the softness of quality Cartier-Bresson insisted on in his prints; but when they saw the final, mounted prints on the walls of New York's Museum of Modern Art, they knew that he was right."