Does the identity of the sitter matter?

[snusmumriken]

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.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

Huh?

 

[MattKing]

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.)

I am in substantial-to-complete agreement with you Sanders - on all your points.
It is just that they don't negate the role that knowledge of the sitter can have with respect to the viewer's perception of the portrait - whether that "matters".
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!

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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.

So much of photography, for me, is abstract -- geometry, composition of forms in a frame -- much more so than the things in the image. So portraits, landscapes, still life -- they are all the same to me in large part.

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.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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!

Sound to me like you need to book a flight to Asheville.

 

[snusmumriken]

Huh?

Not following my drift?

If you Google it, you'll find that most photos of Picasso have him staring very directly at the camera. Sometimes there are examples of his art in the background. Sometimes he has his shirt off, which seems quite a defiant gesture. In HCB's portrait he is still fastening his trousers. He must have been complicit in the other Doisneau portrait with petit pains fingers, if it wasn't his idea in the first place. It's all about Picasso, Picasso, Picasso. His personality dominates the session, even if he does nothing but look.

This other portrait by Doisneau dares to show that Picasso was also a funny little man with a bald head (camera angle) and poppy eyes (juxtaposition with the holes on the stove). It's not insulting, but it is extremely refreshing. I love trying to imagine the occasion. Maybe the bread fingers were still there, out of frame. Maybe this was an accidental shot as Doisneau staggered back over a misplaced item of cubist bravado - but he evidently recognised the shot for what it was, either before pressing the button or later.

 

[snusmumriken]

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.)

 

[cliveh]

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.)

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.

 

[gandolfi]

I am nobody - we all know that - but I have made portraits for 40+ years; just because I like it.
I have always had problems selling these. Outside the family of course.
I have seen a lot of portraits of famous people made by famous photographers - some great, even awesome, but a lot where I just shake my head. Maybe we all have had that feeling...

Back to my portraits.. someone suggested I printed some in really big size and see what happened..
What happened was, they sold really, really quickly - and for prices three times higher then I would have thought..

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?

 

[Pieter12]

Before "selfies," most ordinary people were very awkward and self-conscious in front of a camera, and candid portraits tended to look better. In today's "selfie: age, people have become used to their image, and make what I call a "self-e[face" for the camera, usually over the top and pretty annoying.

Celebrities, actors, models and dancers are comfortable and used to being photographed and are pretty much able to give much more to the camera, and the resulting portraits can be better than others.

 

[eli griggs]

Personally, I prefer portraits of "unknowns" to celebrities in just about anything, nudes, headshots, environmental and staged.

I almost always forget ND that a good photograph is interesting, no on a technical basics so much as the 'quality' of the sitter and their 'look'.

That is no to say I do no appreciate the technical side of the photograph, I do, but the sitter is of the primary interest I have in looking for interesting portraits.

Celebrity photographers "best" works can be fascinating, but just because Liberwitz (sp?), etc, takes a published shot, there is just as much a chance it'll be dull city as much as it might be inspirational in its creativity and technical aspects.

I much prefer well drawn, painted and photographic,
pictures & portraits of strangers, on my walls than any 'Iconic or Celebrated" Figure.

Godspeed to All.

 

[Ian Leake]

I prefer portraits of non-famous people. When I see a good one, I often find myself wondering about their life: how they got to this point, what happened to them afterwards and so on. It's a richer dialogue.

(And I'm always a little jealous of photographers like Emil and Sanders who create such wonderful portraits!)

 

[cliveh]

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.

 

[eli griggs]

So there is the answer to the OP. If they are not famous they are not worthy.

Only if the painter is famous, too!

 

[foc]

 

[MattKing]

So there is the answer to the OP. If they are not famous they are not worthy.

But that wasn't the OP's question.
Asking whether or not a characteristic "matters" is different from asking whether or not something is worthy (has value) if it lacks that characteristic.
Something "matters" if it has a material affect on the result. It can matter if it makes the result better, worse, more interesting, more mysterious, more banal, more controversial, more funny, more sad, etc.

 

[eli griggs]

Ascetics are far different that material worth or the cachet of the movement, photographer or sitter or social impact and are often, indefinable to another person

 

[snusmumriken]

View attachment 340355

I don’t agree with this. I think it’s wishful thinking on the part of Naima Green. Quite often the picture becomes the only memory. A good picture will supplant other memories anyway. This happens with things other than portraits too. Quite a few of my holidays and other travels I remember only as a series of still photographs.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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

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.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

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?

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.

 

[gandolfi]

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..

 

[warden]

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..

Wonderful portrait!

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

Do you feel this only applies to portraits? I’m inclined to think that any super-sized photo is more imposing.

 

[Sirius Glass]

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.

The concept was to show the attitude of the women to the soldiers.

 

[bjorke]

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.

...

So what did you submit for the prize?

...

IMO, for a portrait the identity is always known, otherwise it's just a picture of a hat.

Always known... to someone.

Context is everything. When my children were small I decided that while they are unknown to many people they are celebrities for my relatives and so I shot the kids that way. This led to other parents asking me to shoot their kids. Years later, my daughter has done shoots for other kids too.

Ironically, my mother visited, demanding "real" pictures like the kind you get from school, and dragged the kids off to Sears Portrait Studio for them to sit on a chair with a stuffed bear on a blue backdrop, just like George intended. She had a different cultural context of expectations. She wanted that wallet print to show to the other ladies-of-a-certain-age at church, and the success metrics of that format are very particular.

...

Without photography, there would be no cartes des visites and no modern celebrities. By the late 1800's there were already people who were unremarkable but famous for being famous, in photographs. As a photographer you can think about this with pride or shame.

...

At a showing of Edward Curtis portraits, a visitor realized that one of the images, given a generic name like "Eskimo Man," was made with his uncle, and it quickly transpired that many of the people Curtis had photographed were easily identified by their families, not all of whom were thrilled about this anonymous fame. The pictures have remained contentious: Curtis seems to have been well-meaning and a collaborator with many of his subjects, but when the photos reached the world of distribution (and sometimes retouching), that connection seems to have been lost.

...

The eastern wing of the Louvre is jam-packed with painted portraits of various nobles or government functionaries who no one really remembers, they were important once I guess.

...

Truth.