Charlie Rose Science Series
Click here to watch previous episodes of the Charlie Rose Science Series
The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How The War on Terror Turned into a War on American Ideals
by Jane Mayer
Buy it
by Jane Mayer
Buy it
07/06/2000
Henri Cartier-Bresson
A conversation with Henri Cartier-Bresson
Keywords:
A conversation with photographer Henri Cartier-Bresson about his successful career and the many influences who have inspired him along the way.
DVD
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Charlie Rose DVDs on Amazon.
Audio
Audio available through Audible.com.
Audio available through Audible.com.
Transcripts
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Transcripts available through Voxant.
Be true to yourself; be sensitive; and if you are intelligent (property of being born with) you will achieve greatness. Not possible to have a long interview - but yet he said evrything that was there to be stated. Everything else is a meaningless frame.
This is a fascinating interview, not so much for what Cartier-Bresson says, but for what he seems incapable of expressing. He appears here as someone who is very aware of the purely instinctive nature of his work, but also as someone who is unwilling or unable to give an in-depth intellectual examination of it. This makes for a really tough interview because the thing we all want to know is precisely what he can't answer: "How do you do it?". Cartier-Bresson resists this. He deflects it by speaking of being an anarchist, which comes across as a platitude about living well, living in the moment, etc. (and the word, given so much meaning by French thinkers, understandably confuses Charlie Rose who assumes he means something political). But I think he really avoids answering the important questions because he honestly doesn't know, and doesn't really want to know! This is what comes across here, and is really a revelation about Cartier-Bresson as an artist. Further proof of this is that the only part of the interview where he starts to become engaged is where Rose flips through the book and asks him to comment on his photographs. There are interesting stories about the taking of the photographs, but no useful insight into why something works or not: "it's geometry", "it's about timing and space".
What small, yet nice & refreshing, set of conclusions about artists and art, from one of them. Neither false modesty nor empty pedestals, just the right measure of those seen from a master-practitioner of b&w geometry.
To respond to the very well-meaning and well thought out response below, I would simply say: compare the passion and the encyclopedic memory and vivid imagination Charlie exhibits when interviewing curators, stock analysts, historians, actors, directors, sports figures -- any category, except photographers and chefs, he (and his staff, one must presume, who at least have access through his earpiece to whisper a suggestion) fall flat. And there is no sin in that....just get someone to advise you. to clue you in! "Simple, earnest, and human" are not the qualities I think of when I recall a superb Charlie interview. Though they are fine qualities to have, and I do think he has some of all of these, what separates him from the rest of the talking heads is his passion, his intellect, his encyclopedic memory, and, yes, his down-to-earth nature. He was visibly animated during the Bresson interview, yes, but it was more of a sense of Oh-megosh!! we're actually interviewing Bresson kind of animation with too many giggles. I was deeply disappointed in the lost opportunity for great questions to the master of 20th century photography. I'll just leave it at that. No, I can't leave it. There's more...Charlie waves the book of photos in the air, no matter which photographer he interviews, he's shaking the book in the air with the pages flopping around. Editors, can't you cut that out? Charlie understands the syntax of film, of theater, of books....but he doesn't get the syntax of photographs. The point is, there are so many experts they could call in for help. OK, that's it. I'm outa here.
Not to grouse or argue, but solely to present an alternative point of view... I would say extraordinary segment, and I'd also say great show. Are the "right questions" to ask the artist really those from an expert or aficiando of photography? Or would the "right questions" be not only those for Charlie's more mainstream audience, but far more importantly be the kind questions that reflect not only Charlie's genuine curiousity, but all of ours as well? I'd submit that although there may be a disappointment from investigations seemingly not aimed at getting deeper under the skin or further into the synapses of a great artist through more poignant and targeted questions, that there may be a greater loss of missing the obvious. Often a questioner with subject knowledge expertise misses the simple, the genuine, and the glaringingly essential that leads to beautifully insightful revelations. An expert may be too emabarassed- or "professional"- to ask a master of photography what makes a great photograph, but Mr. Rose can ask with tremendous sincerity and with gracious results. I'm much happier that Mr. Rose follows his interviewees model; that is, he doesn't overlook the obvious and miss the extraordinary in the ordinary. For a deep dive there are the analysts, critics, theorists, historians, etc. that can illuminate Bresson through various modes of construction, deconstruction, and illuminatation. But isn't it a gift to have the simple, earnest, and human approach by Mr. Rose that can illicit such responses as Mr. Bresson's humble claim that all the sublime mastery of his vision is modestly in the tip of his finger?! Find the interview of Richard Serra (I believe in part 2) where Charlie Rose asks another stellar artist what makes a good work of art. You may not expect this question from a critic in contemporary sculpture, but listening to the answer I think you may agree, we'd all be less off if such a simple question weren't posed, and we didn't get to not hear Serra's answer.
As far as being an extraordinary segment, yes, well, it was a major coup for the Show to gain access to the great photographer of the last century. As far as being a great show -- not really. As in all previous master photographer interviews, Charlie fails *miserably* at asking the right questions of the photographer. The 'right questions' would be those that a real aficionado of photography would have asked. What a shame. There were so many questions I would have wanted to hear him ask HC-B. Ditto for his several Avedon interviews (despite having been one of his good friends), ditto for his Liebovitz interview (I've only seen one). It's like "hello!" isn't there anyone on the staff who can point Charlie in the right direction? You know which photographers to pick, you just don't know what to ask them. Truth be told, there is no bigger Charlie fan than I am....but I just have to say it honestly, as far as his interviews of photographers (or chefs) go, I have observed to my great dismay, that neither Charlie nor his otherwise superb staff have a clue about either photography or food. Which is a shame. Mind you, I would be more than happy to oblige as a cheerful consultant. I leave these comments not to grouse, but to hope improvements are made especially in these categories . What do you think?