It is a rare piece. I had an opportunity to buy it ages ago, and passed because I couldn't afford it. It's now in the MoMA permanent collection but not on display. The famous image from that session was of Picasso sitting at a table, with croissants arrayed like Picasso's fingers on the table. But I much prefer this one.
It may be coincidental or accidental or sheer brilliance, but what I like about it is that for once Picasso’s personality is not dominating the scene (unless he was complicit, though that seems unlikely). Instead he is gently being made fun of.
I suppose that would be true whoever he was, but given all the other reverential portraits of Picasso where it feels like the photographer was visiting the oracle at Delphi, it does seem to matter who the sitter was on this occasion.
Matt, you flatter me. Of course that portrait of Melanie (my wife) means the world to me -- I made it at a pivotal moment in our life. Still, I wonder what (if anything) it says about her. Ultimately, I think a portrait succeeds when it fairly reflects the photographer's understanding, such as it is, of his subject. (Which presumes that the photographer bothered to gather some sense of his subject before shooting.)
It may be coincidental or accidental or sheer brilliance, but what I like about it is that for once Picasso’s personality is not dominating the scene (unless he was complicit, though that seems unlikely). Instead he is gently being made fun of.
And if nothing else, that portrait of Melanie says to me that she would be someone who I would be very interested in meeting!
Of course, that is complicated by the fact that I would be interested in meeting you too!
Huh?
I'm sure it's unconscious, and maybe even instinct. I recall watching an interview with HCB in which he described shifting the camera in tiny increments until everything came right. It is a question of millimetres, he said. And sometimes there was no shot, he added. (I am paraphrasing from memory.)When I look at Doisneau's photograph of Picasso, I find myself pulled back to how Doisneau managed to line up Picasso's eyes with the holes in the table behind him. And I wonder whether he did it intentionally, or whether some intuitive impulse led him to trip the shutter when the circles aligned.
I think much of photography is intuitive. HCB was adept at pressing the shutter when an image "clicked" for him. But did it rise to a conscious design decision on his part, to align the image elements with a Fibonacci spiral before committing the image to film? A lot of times, an image in the moment feels right because it somehow aligns with our sense of design, with a syntax that we have internalized and know so well that we don't have to think about it any more. Muscle memory.
I'm sure it's unconscious, and maybe even instinct. I recall watching an interview with HCB in which he described shifting the camera in tiny increments until everything came right. It is a question of millimetres, he said. And sometimes there was no shot, he added. (I am paraphrasing from memory.)
Given the National Portrait Gallery needs visitors, is this really a surprising conclusion? How many "unknowns" would really attract the public's attention?
pentaxuser
So there is the answer to the OP. If they are not famous they are not worthy.
So there is the answer to the OP. If they are not famous they are not worthy.
You are quite correct. Millimetres can make or break a shot. A superb example is shown here where HCB has compromised composition with perfect timing and position. Look at the head of the girl on the right and look beyond at the lady in distance. There is a fraction of a millimetre separation between the two heads. This is what makes HCB the Messi of photography.
View attachment 338789
Someone said, if the portrait exceed a "normal" size, it kind of transforms - it becomes to be about something other than the models name and so on..
Try it out! It might be true where you are too?
Here's one of mine - made using paper negative - then enlarged to 75x105cm size which is big in my world.
(Liquid emulsion on heavy paper)...
A man said (and he actually knew the model..) it transferred him back to the Russian revolution... go figure, but it tells a little about the change of the portrait..
I made two prints and they sold almost before they were dry.. never experienced that before..
Emil, you might be onto something. Avedon’s portraits on the wall at the Metropolitan were revelatory and size had something to do with that. Not just the big murals: I remember standing transfixed in front of his portrait of William Casby, a 106-year-old former slave, for a very long time — the reflections in Casby’s eyes captured his surroundings and the overall effect was unlike anything you could create with an 8x10 print.
Luck. The idea that he timed the shot so that the woman's face in the back wasn't blocked by the foreground woman on the right is specious. Why did he block part of the face of the soldier on the right? That's not to say you don't plan shots. But when there's so much going on in a scene, it's tough to get all the elementals so none are blocking others.
So what did you submit for the prize?Genuine question. I honestly don't know what to think, and I'd love to know your views. I ponder this every year as the Taylor Wessing competition comes round.
...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?