Le Petit Parisien
Willy Ronis
Paris 1952
last year reading the post (as in the washington post), i came upon a full page spread with a picture in the center that captured me in fascination. The picture was so simple and candid, a french boy running, caught in mid-pace, in the streets of paris with a nice baguette in his arms. what a simple picture i thought, yet it brought out a full set of emotions in me and i couldn’t help but just enjoy this little picture for a bit longer.
i can explain visually why this picture is so captivating, knowingly to the viewer or not there are lots of elements going on that gives due to a great composition (rule of thirds, contrasts, the offset of the baguette naturally directing your eyes to the boy, etc. etc. [clearly i've forgotten a lot of photography lingo]).
but i think there is much more that is in play, apart from a perfect visual composition, and that thing is what completes the viewing experience. that thing is what creates the emotional tie that lasts much longer than the memory of the actual visual image. many times you’ll forget exactly what the picture was like, but you will remember exactly what emotions it brought out within.
so, this thing i mentioned is not something i really know how to put in detail. for this picture specifically, there’s a few trains of thought that i think leads to that, well… thing.
1. the boy himself – creating a heart for the subject
- why is he so happy/looks joyful?
- why is he running?
- maybe his family is poor?
- maybe that baguette will feed an entire family, his family
2. the era/time of the actual photo – there’s a strange tingly feeling when one comes into contact with something that is much older than they are, this picture was captured in 1952
- an era that there is no way the viewer can relate with
- an era of time that reminds them of their own childhood (i.e. a more innocent, naive, happier period in life)
3. direct correlation with the subject
- the boy reminds them of someone specifically personal to them
- it might remind them of themselves
now believe it or not, the above list of points are all conscious/subconscious dialogues the viewer has with themselves. there’s probably a few other ‘ways-in’ as a matter of fact. it might take a nanosecond or 10 minutes, but nonetheless this discussion does occur and this is what leads to the creation of the thing.
this is the reason why i tend to shoot portrait photography, candid or not (or fake candid i suppose), its easiest for me to develop and communicate that thing to viewers. don’t get me wrong, all categories of photography can exude their own sense of thing. a viewer can get just as much out of a picture of architecture, nature, science, editorial, experimental artistic medium (i made this one up), & etc.!
great visual composition + the thing (again whatever that may be) = a wonderful memorable picture