Social mechanics and honesty in portraiture

ilya1963

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
676
Format
8x10 Format
Cate,
"In any circumstances, if you can help it, but certainly not in the cause of art (or photography)"
IT sounds like you do not think that Photography is ART in this last statment.

In any case read this guys BIO http://www.saudek.com/en/jan/zivotopis.html

This guys work was in BW magazine this week , he had his website at the end of the article ,I've read his Curriculum Vitae it is quiet amazing the will
and strength one has to have to fight for what he feels is true to him/herself.

ILYA
 

wilsonneal

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
598
Location
Northern NJ
Format
8x10 Format
I think the best portraits show us something real about the person. I don't think you can do that with a total stranger that you haven't 'engaged' somehow. So, candid street photography in which the subject is unaware never interested me (in my own work). I do like candid street photography. I think Walker Evans 35mm work in the subways of New York and his street shots all over the world are great, as an example. They're great photos, but I don't consider them "portraits", more documents. They're somehow missing the active, intent connection between subject and viewer.

I want to do portraits because I like to make a connection. I don't need to go as far as Karsh, who said in his autobiography that he intended to 'strip the soul bare'. I also don't wish to create a fake-reality, as Avedon did with the suggestions that people should imagine losing their family at Auschwitz or telling them that he killed a dog on the way to the sitting. I endeavor to get something that's honest and real.

On my site, the Lifeguard portraits were of virtual strangers. I had introduced myself a few days prior and we agreed to meet at sunset later in the week. I explained my intent, and all I said to them before I made the exposure was in reference to the responsibility they had on their shoulders when they were watching kids in the surf. I think a little of that pride they felt shows in the portraits.

The portraits on my site of the Lama and the Shaman were also of virtual strangers. I met them for the first time at the shoot. English was not a primary language for either. I asked some questions about their technique, talked to them about my technique, particularly Platinum-Palladium, and tried to create a calming atmosphere. Both the Lama and the Shaman understood the concept of 'chi', and so on a few exposures I asked them to think about pushing chi through the lens. I felt that that focused their energy in a way that was detectable.

Sometimes when I do portraits, especially with subjects that aren't 'giving' me much to work with, I'll ask them to to close their eyes and think about their mother. Sometimes this gives me something interesting. Sometimes I'll ask them to think of some achievement that they're particularly proud of, or their kids, or the last great meal they had at a restaurant. Maybe we'll talk about that for a minute. I'll look for something to come alive in their eyes. I've always liked portraits of people, especially kids, laughing.

I see strangers from time to time that I would like to photograph, but since I prefer 8x10, I never have the camera with me to do it right then. And, approaching a stranger and talking to them about a shoot sometime in the future hasn't worked so far. Sometimes they say yes, but it doesn't get scheduled. I am thinking about making up some 5x8 postcards with an image on the front, and contact info, website, email, etc., on the back, and using that to persuade people that I'm sincere. There are places that will print these fairly inexpensively now.

Neal
www.nealwilsonstudio.com
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
2,193
Location
Mars Hill, NC
Format
Multi Format

The emotional reaction captured in the image is genuine. What difference the stimulus?

It flabbergasts me to read threads like this that impugn great photographers for stuff like this. There are, literally, millions more people who will see and admire Avedon's portrait of the Windsors than will ever see all of my photographs combined. And so it should be.

In photography, there is no "fake reality." There is no "real reality." There is only the photograph.

Sanders McNew
 

Cheryl Jacobs

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
1,717
Location
Denver, Colo
Format
Medium Format
I don't believe anyone is impugning anyone. I simply wouldn't want to work in the way that Avedon (and some others) have done and still do. Nothing wrong with that.

And "great" is a total matter of perspective and opinion, really. One person's "great" is another persons "so-so."

- CJ
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
2,193
Location
Mars Hill, NC
Format
Multi Format
Okay, Cheryl: If not "great," then how about, "Good enough to get two major retrospectives in the Metropolitan Museum of Art while still alive"?

Honestly, I get it that we live in a world of atomic dispersion and cultural anomie and infinite relativity. But if the merit of even a giant like Avedon (or Penn, or Mapplethorpe, or or or) can be reduced to "a total matter of perspective and opinion, really," then, really, we've arrived at a world cast so adrift from its moorings as to make any reasoned discourse on matters aesthetic nearly impossible.

FWIW, if a living artist gets his own show in the Met, that qualifies as "great" in my book.

Sanders.
 

catem

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
1,358
Location
U.K.
Format
Multi Format
Cate,
"In any circumstances, if you can help it, but certainly not in the cause of art (or photography)"
IT sounds like you do not think that Photography is ART in this last statment.
ILYA

No, not what I meant at all
 

catem

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
1,358
Location
U.K.
Format
Multi Format
The emotional reaction captured in the image is genuine. What difference the stimulus?

In photography, there is no "fake reality." There is no "real reality." There is only the photograph.

Sanders McNew

No 'fake reality' perhaps - but the difference IS in the stimulus.

It's a question of manipulation, and when the photograph begins to say more about the photographer (their desires and intentions) than the subject (their particular, unique humanity or circumstance). It becomes, at the extreme, a dialogue between the photographer and the viewer, and the subject is reduced to little more than a prop.

Yes, manipulation is a continuum, and possibly we all do it to some degree.

So it is a question of degree. And awareness of the photographer of how far they are going. And, of course, what their intention is. Much of modern photographic portraiture is about the photographer rather than the subject, so that has to be (I suppose) a legitimate intention.

It doesn't mean we all have to work in the same way, or to the same degree, or have the same intentions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

catem

Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2006
Messages
1,358
Location
U.K.
Format
Multi Format

Just because someone has reached the state of 'greatness' as you put it, or fame, doesn't mean their work and ideas should not be analysed and questioned, and diverse opinions formed.

In fact I would have thought the opposite is true
 

ilya1963

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
676
Format
8x10 Format
Cheryl/Sanders/Cate and company,
This has been a nice chat.
I am trying to grasp ,get my mind around ,understand a personal fullfillment to a professional photographer of capturing a successfull image of a
walk in/assigment/a job
is it getting paid for a job well done?
I mean, you will never see this person again, you don't know their life only for that brief moment, they are not part of your life...
I guess I just answered my own question,correct me if I am wrong-
The final print is realy about you , is it not?
They get a capture of that moment and you get to show what you did,true?
Help me understand this...

Kind Regards... ILYA
 

ilya1963

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
676
Format
8x10 Format
Neal
"I see strangers from time to time that I would like to photograph, but since I prefer 8x10, I never have the camera with me to do it right then. And, approaching a stranger and talking to them about a shoot sometime in the future hasn't worked so far. Sometimes they say yes, but it doesn't get scheduled. "

May be this is just another way to answer my above question

To Me, working( not for money) with a peorson unknown is just that-
The UNKNOWN ... I am addicted to that spontaneous reaction , that momment of revelation...
NEAL, you say you try to "schedule" ... This actually brings me back what wrote earlier , I would leave everybody around me before I would live my 8x10 behind, (some around me feel that it is problem...)it is always with me 24/7 ready to go off at any moment
ILYA
 

wilsonneal

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
598
Location
Northern NJ
Format
8x10 Format
Sanders:

As I said with the Walker Evans example, I didn't feel that it was right "in my work". I love Avedon's work, and have too many of his books, because I just love studying his pictures. But for me, in my work, that kind of technique doesn't resonate. All of my work is made for purchase by the subject, or the subject's family, and as such the likeness has to be at least somewhat flattering. The idea that I would get an out of the ordinary response by some kind of provocative stimulus isn't something I've wanted to do in my work.

I don't think there was anything in my post that could be construed as impugning one of my heroes.

 

wilsonneal

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
598
Location
Northern NJ
Format
8x10 Format
Ilya:

That kind of dedication is terrific and I applaud it. If I'd made different choices when I was younger, I could work that way, always having my 8x10 with me, wherever I went. My reality is that I squeeze my photography work in around my fulltime job. I'm not complaining, just stating my reality that I do this because I love it, but I have limitations that I have to recognize.
Neal

 

ilya1963

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
676
Format
8x10 Format
"Ilya:

That kind of dedication is terrific and I applaud it. If I'd made different choices when I was younger, I could work that way, always having my 8x10 with me, wherever I went. My reality is that I squeeze my photography work in around my fulltime job. I'm not complaining, just stating my reality that I do this because I love it, but I have limitations that I have to recognize.
Neal"

I sell cars for a living Neal and that gives me an edge , people come to me , I have a steady flow of faces in front of me and I have a lot of opportunities, the camera comes to work with me and leaves with me when I leave and never out of reach...

ILYA
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
i really don't see the difference between telling someone they have a nice tie ( exec headshot ) having kids jump on the bed or a group hug or taking a lolipop from the tike ( kid shot ) or doing what karsh or avedon did .. they are all the same to me, and all is done to get the wanted expression from the person having a portrait taken ... they are all different extremes of the same thing.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
2,193
Location
Mars Hill, NC
Format
Multi Format

Exactly. In fact, I would go one further. When Avedon lies to the Windsors, and tells them his car hit a dog on the way to the shoot, their elicited reaction are, at least, their genuine response to the remark. Isn't that more "real," or "honest," than to ask a sitter to say, "Cheese!" to create the illusion of a smile?

In rereading my earlier posts to this thread, and the comments they elicited, I wanted to apologize if my words seemed harsh, or if I've misinterpreted what others have said. I respect the views of the people in this thread, otherwise I wouldn't bother to participate in it.

I do take issue with the idea that a photographer like Avedon somehow was producing a "fake reality" or was "manipulative," more so than any other portraitist. Portraiture is an exercise in mutual manipulation. The sitter is trying to get the photographer to perceive him in a certain way that corresponds with the sitter's sense of self, or, more likely, the sitter's aspirations of how the world might perceive him, on a good day. The photographer is trying to find a way to capture the person in front of her in a fresh or original way.

So, yes, Avedon did manipulate his subjects. But every portraitist does, whether they are aware of it or not. It is that manipulation that distinguishes a portrait from a security camera capture. And, in the end, it is my belief that a well-made portrait, being the product of countless aesthetic decisions by the photographer (film or digital, color or B+W, studio or environmental, tight or loose, smiling or serious, choice of focus, camera angle, frame placement, lens length, depth of field, the selection of the moment to capture, and the selection of which negative to print, inter alia), ultimately says more about the photographer than it does about the subject.

Sanders
 

Cheryl Jacobs

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
1,717
Location
Denver, Colo
Format
Medium Format

Ilya,

What you describe above is not at all the case for me as a portrait photographer. I see my subjects over and over, and they come back to me not just because of the pictures, but because of how it felt to be photographed. It would do me no good at all to make them uncomfortable for the sake of a nice shot, because their memories of the uncomfortable experience will transfer to how they see the images.

I DO know the subjects quite quickly, even during the first session, because I talk to them about the things that are important to them. I spend a lot of time listening. When I photograph children, I don't stop at asking what their favorite hobby is or what they like to do at school. They talk to me about so many things: feeling forgotten when the new baby comes along, wishing their parents would take them more seriously, fears of the bully at school who picks on them. All sorts of things. My goal is never the photograph itself, and that's why the photographs work.

The final print is not just about me, and is not just about the subject. It's about the relationship and connection we established in our time together.

That's why, for me personally, I would FAR rather talk about what's on the sitter's mind than tell them to imagine a certain scenario or pretend to be someone else. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, but it is very contradictory to what I like to do.

FWIW, I like Avedon's work in many ways, but I don't relate to it at all. I have to say, though, that just having shows in major museums or whatnot doesn't make anyone great. I see threads on APUG and elsewhere quite frequently where people are aghast that so-and-so with their terrible work is being featured at such-and-such museum. Fame and talent do not always go hand in hand. See the recent discussions on Annie Liebovitz as one example.

- CJ
 

Cheryl Jacobs

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
1,717
Location
Denver, Colo
Format
Medium Format

Perhaps. But not all portrait photographers instruct sitters to smile. I have never told a sitter, adult or child, to smile. I either give them a reason to smile, or simply work whatever mood the sitter presents. That's perfectly honest.

Portraiture is an exercise in mutual manipulation.

I'm not nearly cynical enough to agree with that. It's certainly true of some photographers, but it's an enormously broad brush to apply to all portraiture. The day I start believing that is the day I stop making portraits.

- CJ
 

ilya1963

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
676
Format
8x10 Format
Thank you,Cheryl
When I grow up I want to be like you...
Thank you ...
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
2,193
Location
Mars Hill, NC
Format
Multi Format
I'm not nearly cynical enough to agree with that. It's certainly true of some photographers, but it's an enormously broad brush to apply to all portraiture. The day I start believing that is the day I stop making portraits.

Cheryl, I suspect that, if we were sitting together having this conversation, it would have a much different tenor. I think you are getting hung up on the word "manipulation." Your earlier posts indicate that you do, in fact, manipulate your subjects. Here: "I would FAR rather talk about what's on the sitter's mind than tell them to imagine a certain scenario or pretend to be someone else."

You choose to engage your subject in a conversation. You choose to play to the subject's interests. You hope that, by talking about the things that matter to the subject, you will animate him or her, and that the spark will lead to a worthy portrait. There's nothing wrong with that. It is, in fact, the key to a portraitist's success. But it is manipulative. You are leading the subject to a disposition that will make the portrait possible.

Everybody gets to the shutterclick in a different way. FWIW, my own approach is yours. I take my cues from my subject, and hope that it leads to something interesting. I think where we part is the disapproval you seem to feel about others who get there a different way, or your belief that your (or my own) approach is not manipulative.

I like your work. I do not mean to criticize you. I am just trying to parse through your thoughts here, which I find engaging.

Sanders.
 

ilya1963

Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2004
Messages
676
Format
8x10 Format
I like this discussion for the simple reason that I would love to do what you are both doing , that is - to do it all the time- 24/7 , but always had a reservation about it becoming a JOB , I love and cherish photography so much that I do not want that to happen, you guys giving me something I have never thought of

hmmmmmmmmm..............

I have to digest this , we are all different , but how do you deal with a sitter that you can not get exited about for what ever reason , weather their looks or personalaty, are there times when you wish you hadn't taken the job?
Thank you ,
ILYA
 

Cheryl Jacobs

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
1,717
Location
Denver, Colo
Format
Medium Format
Sanders,

The word "manipulate" has a very negative connotation, which is why I take great exception to it being applied to my methods. If you mean that I engage my subjects, then that I can agree with. But manipulate? No. How is it manipulative to provide a listening ear for my sitters and let them talk about what they're feeling? There is no "wile and cunning."

Two definitions of the word "manipulate" from my trusty Webster's dictionary:

1) to handle with skill

2) to make dishonest changes so as to suit one's purpose

I would assert that most people, myself included, infer the second definition, which is why I strongly disagree with you.

There are many times when the importance of the sitter's emotions require me to put down the camera and simply be there for them, to listen and empathize. That is what is important.

You're still maintaining that I disapprove of the way other people work. I believe I've stated numerous times that there's nothing wrong with how others work -- it just doesn't suit what I like to do and how I like to treat my subjects. It's not all about the end result for me.

- CJ
 

Cheryl Jacobs

Member
Joined
Jun 10, 2003
Messages
1,717
Location
Denver, Colo
Format
Medium Format
Ilya, that certainly happens from time to time, fortunately rarely. As a human being, I can't always establish a deep connection with everyone, but I can try. Sometimes that's the best that can be done. It's those times that frustrate me, but make me more determined to find a way the next time.

It's never a sitter's looks that make things difficult; it's usually that the sitter is simply not interested (i.e. the session was commissioned by a parent, and the kid is not happy about it.) Still, there's almost always a way to make it work. When it doesn't, I do a follow-up session and stretch myself to find a way to make a connection.

- CJ
 

SuzanneR

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Sep 14, 2004
Messages
5,977
Location
Massachusetts
Format
Multi Format
I've never had a sitter I didn't like! I'm always excited to make portraits of someone new.

Manipulation has a bit of a negative connotation, and I think the best portraits spring from getting to know your sitter, and finding a connection. At least for me. Am I manipulating them? Maybe, but if I didn't have the camera with me, and I was getting to know them without making a portrait, I 'd still be having the same conversation.

I sometimes get put off by Avedon's tactics with sitters, but at the end of the day... he was getting to know them, and produced very fine portraits. It seems he was able to pick up on the Windsor's love of dogs and animals and use that to his advantage, and I think it's quite an extraordinary portrait. Full of regret, somehow.

Great thread, btw, thanks for all the contributions.
 
Joined
Mar 22, 2005
Messages
2,193
Location
Mars Hill, NC
Format
Multi Format

Ilya, if you were referring to me, no, photography is not my job. I'm a lawyer with a camera problem. Sanders
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…