MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3174945591 · doi:10.22034/ra.2020.241716

A Study on Geometry in Cartier-Bresson’s Decisive Moment Geometry Based on Dynamic Symmetry……. Research Paper

2020· article· en· W3174945591 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amir Ebrahim Khalili, Ghazal Eskandarnejad

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhotography and Visual Culture
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaintingMeaning (existential)PhotographyMoment (physics)ArtContemplationArt historyVisual artsPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Henri Cartier-Bresson is among the most considered and also the most debatable artists and photographers of the modern era. Shifting from painting to photography and from photojournalism into surrealism as an artist makes his career a bit vague and his personal approach of photography ambiguous as a practical approach. Known as the ‘decisive moment’ his practical theory is based on reaching the most harmonic point possible between the form and the meaning in a single photo and that photo should necessarily be captured in an unrepeatable moment that is a unique one. The ‘decisive moment’ was proposed by Cartier Bresson through the publication of his book under the same name in 1952. The book contained a selection of Cartier Bresson’s photos and a brief introduction in which he explained some features of his artistic vision and photography approach. The book was soon titled as the ‘Bible of Photography’ by Robert Capa, his friend, his colleague and a co-founder of Magnum Photos. The decisive moment has two major components; first a complex, meaningful composition that Cartier-Bresson himself calls it ‘Geometry’ and the second, is ‘Spontaneity’ in action meaning that the photographer should skip any kind of contemplation and hesitation while capturing the moment that is due to Cartier-Bresson’s admission to surrealism as an artist. Cartier-Bresson’s emphasis on the geometrical composition as the major and fundamental component of the decisive moment roots back in his tendency toward painting However, the contradictions between Cartier-Bresson’s role as a photojournalist or documentary photographer and his artistic vision and his artistic stem caused some ambiguities in the quality and the possibility of applying the geometrical ratios used in the realm of painting as a rule for composition in photography specially in photojournalism where every second has the potential to lead into a photograph and therefore such obsession with composition might result in missing important moments in an event. In 1920, contemporary to young Cartier-Bresson, Canadian Jay Hambidge invented ‘Dynamic Symmetry’ armature as a system of geometrical composition based on the Greek Golden ratio which became popular among his contemporary visual artists. The ‘Dynamic Symmetry’ consists of two major diagonals named the ‘Baroque Diagonal’ and the ‘Sinister Diagonal’ and the rest of the armature or the grid named as the ‘Reciprocals’ are drawn, at a ninety-degree ratio toward the major diagonals. Hambidge believed that applying the Dynamic Symmetry has the benefit to promote balance, flow and rhythm in a composition and the whole idea is in contrast to static symmetry therefore it can bring more dynamicity, and in result movement and life in a frame. This article initially studies the components and the qualities of the decisive moment and its roots and then explains the dynamic symmetry as a system of composition based on the geometrical proportions and then by applying the dynamic symmetry armature or grid to some of Cartier Bresson’s photos evaluates the amount of concordance between Cartier Bresson’s arrangement of the visual elements in his composition with the order of the Dynamic symmetry armature.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.036

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.009
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.137
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.233 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPhotography and Visual CultureFrench-language works237,207