Social mechanics and honesty in portraiture

Jonathan Brewer · Jan 26, 2007

It must be about the photographer/artist as it is about the subject matter.

Think about this statement of yours.............

.............. 'What makes her pictures so great is the way she is able to portray the powerful presence of the people she photographs, and I would dispute, as I believe would she most certainly, that the picture is as you say Scott "absolutely more about the photographer than the sitter.".................

.........and this part of it...........'What makes her pictures so great'.............which if you accept this, means something about the image which she incorporated into the process that's there in the image.

.......and this part of it.................'the way she is able to portray'.........

..........or this part..........the powerful presence of the people she photographs.........................

Did you realize that you talked about the photographer and how great she was, and what she was able to bring to a portrait, and you characterized all this in a way, which at least to me, was where the most important thing about all of this, was her doing the photographs as opposed to what she shot.

You're talking about how great she is at what she does,.............I suggest that in terms of eliminating as much as you can of the process, concious or unconcious, that you'd have to go in the opposite direction, where for instance, you have a birthday party with relatives over, everybody is relaxed and carefree when whoever's appointed to take snaps with their point and shoot takes whatever shots they take.

And I do believe that snapshots/candids by folks involve taken by non-professionals/folks who don't know the first thing about technique, can have an almost legitimate feeling(still an illusion) of immediacy, warmth, that you don't see in more so-called more structured work. These folks can't impose their will on an image, they don't know how.

I bring up the statement of yours, because you talk mostly about the artist producing work, yet you use this statement as an example to dispute that this is more about the subject matter than the artist.

I'm suggesting that what your saying actually goes along with what we're saying, and the logical extension of this would be as I've suggested, which is free up the subject from your involvement and let them do whatever they would like, then you're not in it, and then it can't be about you, it can then only be about the subject, as in a self portrait, which also can lie.

Jonathan Brewer · Jan 26, 2007

Let me pose a question to you, suppose you see someone with an interesting face and you approach them to shoot their portrait as part of your personal work, .................you do the shoot, and you do the best work of your life, anyone you show the portraits to, including some folks who want to hang the work up in their gallery, say it's some of the greatest photography they've seen in their lives.

The folks from time magazine want the one of the images from the shoot on the cover.

You show the images of the shoot to the individual you shoot, they don't lke any of them, they tell you..........'none of these are me, I don't like any of them'.....................'these haven't captured me at all'.................and I want you to destroy them'..............Now would you do that? Are these images yours, or his/hers? Knowing this is great work according to everybody, would you try to change his/her mind? ............Or would you say, this is mostly about him/her, so I'm dumping this in the trash, forget the gallery show, Time magazine, and everything else?

What do you think would be the right thing to do?

catem · Jan 26, 2007

All right, let me say just one more thing.

a portrait photograph is about three things -

The photographer
The subject
The medium

The portrait photograph exists indisputably as an interplay between the three of these.

To say that a portrait photograph is, - by definition - MORE about the photographer than either of the others is something I simply cannot accept.

Now, there's little point in me expanding on my view any further, as quite frankly it becomes like hitting the same balls back over the tennis net.

Have a great weekend

Jonathan Brewer · Jan 26, 2007

I didn't see any balls come back over the net.

Nicole · Jan 27, 2007

I'll jump in. Photography IMO is all about manipulation and direction by the photographer. I choose what I want to shoot, when, which angle, time of day....

Everything I do is with thought and I'll manipulate or direct the conversation along to give me the mood or energy I'm looking for from each particular session. This of course is determined by the clients own character as well but it's all up to me to set the course to reach the goal I want. I then decide which pictures the client sees and how each image is presented.

Honesty in portraiture to me is about being true to my own vision.

catem · Jan 27, 2007

Nicole said:
I'll jump in. Photography IMO is all about manipulation and direction by the photographer. I choose what I want to shoot, when, which angle, time of day....

Everything I do is with thought and I'll manipulate or direct the conversation along to give me the mood or energy I'm looking for from each particular session. This of course is determined by the clients own character as well but it's all up to me to set the course to reach the goal I want. I then decide which pictures the client sees and how each image is presented.

Honesty in portraiture to me is about being true to my own vision.

Yes, I agree, "photography" and "being a photographer" is ALL about those things. But done with a different dynamic by each individual photographer.

The "photograph" - the 'portrait' - which is what we end up with of course - is something different, and more complex.

Aplogies for jumping in again. I really think I've said enough now.

Cheryl Jacobs · Jan 29, 2007

Nicole said:
I'll jump in. Photography IMO is all about manipulation and direction by the photographer. I choose what I want to shoot, when, which angle, time of day....

Doesn't this statement assume that every photographer works the same way? Some photographers actively direct while others passively observe, and there's an entire range in between. A photojournalist would primarily be an observer and therefore not a director at all, yet he/she can still make decisions as to angles and subject matter.

And of course there's the fact that manipulation and direction can be totally different things. I can manipulate a scene without ever directing it.

- CJ

bjorke · Jan 29, 2007

If I may recommend: check out the podcast Dead Link Removed which has a number of photographer interviews including several portraitists who address exactly this manipulate/direct/observe/collaborate issue.

ilya1963 · Jan 29, 2007

Jonathan Brewer:
"No matter what I think of, it doesn't work, nothing works, after a while, Frank says, I'm sorry Jonathan, maybe we ought to take a 'raincheck', .....I snap my fingers and tel himl I've got the answe!!!!......................and start dialing on my cell phone, he asks me who I'm calling, and I tell him.........'I'm calling a landscape photographer I know 'cuz you got the personality of a rock'"

Cheryl Jacobs:
"Doesn't this statement assume that every photographer works the same way? Some photographers actively direct while others passively observe, and there's an entire range in between. A photojournalist would primarily be an observer and therefore not a director at all, yet he/she can still make decisions as to angles and subject matter"

This two quotes have me thinking about the difference between Landscape work and Portraiture , and Nude and how different they are in a way of responce from the subjects ,it is amazing ,like Cheryl said one you react to and the others are- you control every aspect of and I can tell you first hand that the control could be overwhelming and scary to the point of numbing... but how exiting ...
ILYA

Nicole · Jan 29, 2007

Cheryl Jacobs said:
Doesn't this statement assume that every photographer works the same way? Some photographers actively direct while others passively observe, and there's an entire range in between. A photojournalist would primarily be an observer and therefore not a director at all, yet he/she can still make decisions as to angles and subject matter.

And of course there's the fact that manipulation and direction can be totally different things. I can manipulate a scene without ever directing it.

- CJ

IMO everyone sees photography through their own eyes. CJ, I never assume anything for anyone else. I guess I should've said "My photography, IMO..."

Of course I observe and do all the fluffy nice things during a shoot, searching for the right moment, the soul, the look, the heart ache, the joy..... but when I tear apart all the emotional side of my work, I'm left with the mechanics - which is manipulating and directing to get the images I'm after. It may not be what dreamers like to hear but that's what it is.

How about a PJ who sees a riot but chooses to photograph a particular scene? I remember in the UK ... the police I think were outnumbered on horses and instead of photographing the people attacking the police, the photographer photographed the police using a batton to fight off someone, so it looked like the police was attacking a pedestrian. This of course is manipulation even as an observer.

Art speaks of diversity and freedom of interpretation (IMO).

Cheryl Jacobs · Jan 29, 2007

Nicole, exactly on both points.

Part of the trouble I see is that most of us assume everyone either does or should work like us. I see blanket statements in magazines all the time that drive me up the wall. For example, I read from a photographer in B&W something to the effect of, "I can always tell when a photographer has had difficulty with the subject because the subject is looking off camera." Didn't sit well with me at all, given that one of my most popular images (many of them, actually) is of a little girl staring off into space. The writer may see the reality of his statement in his OWN work, but he's making gross assumptions about others' work. Others insist that it takes X amount of time to get something really soulful out of a subject, while the reality is that some photogs may need five minutes where others need a week. We can't place our personal limitations and methods on others with any degree of accuracy.

Regarding the riot image you've mentioned, that's exactly the sort of thing I was referring to when I mentioned the difference between manipulation and direction. Manipulation can be simply choosing to omit context or create an illusion, to show what they want to be believed rather than what is.

That's why I dislike seeing the term "manipulation" applied to my own work; I'm not looking for a subject to fulfill my vision, but rather looking for what the subject chooses to reveal to me.

- CJ

Jonathan Brewer · Jan 29, 2007

Yes Nicole, I think you've touched on some very important issues, a photograph can lie by telling the truth about a certain moment, that is out of context when considering the circmstances that led up to that moment(of which you don't see a photograph of).

When I see a photograph of somebodies 80 plus great grandmother, wrinkles and all, I wish that that so called truth would always be acoompanied by a photograph of her when she was a young and beautiful woman.

As an aside, I was thinking of all this when I did my website, I was told not to include my anscestors in a website that's primarily a showcase for my work, but it's my website, and I thought it would be nice to include them since to me it would be an extension of an 'About Us' section, and I've gotten some good positive feedback from folks as far as Bejing China that thought this was a nice touch. When I did my heirlooms gallery, I used images of my ancestors as young people, vital and alive, the pulse of their time period, as opposed to 'old folks, waiting to die', ..................choosing photograhs of them in their youth, was my way of pointing at a different aspect them as opposed to images that might depict them as old and/or infirm.

I accept what I see in an image for what it is, a visual that may or may not be interesting, anything more than that is the observer of the image projecting their feelings onto the work, which entirely ok, as that is actually the point of most art, if you don't feel anything about what you're looking at, then what's the point? ..........................Yes, you can be a passive observer, but as some point, you'll make a decision to fire the shutter and CREATE an image. If it's a photomechanical print, it's frozen in time, it will never move, never change, and in this sense, it's as removed and as stylized as a sculpture, and you will have created that moment, not the people or places or things that inhabit your image, you.

In terms of what you said about other photographers, I always subsitute 'THAT'S BULLSHIT!!!!' with 'I definitely prefer another way', art would be boring, and lifeless, and souless, if we all shot the same way, and no one really wants it that way anyway, becasue if everybody shot like you, your work wouldn't be different.

ilya1963 · Jan 30, 2007

I may be overstaying my welcome , but if I may ask a question :

Do you all consciously avoid landscape work? Why?Do you feel it's boring? Or is the way that landscape caught on film not the way you work or see?
Edward Weston/Paul Strand/Steiglitz/Stichen did both , Adams did some portraiture. Could you think of a photographer that is as known for his portraiture as he is for his landscapes today?

In my own work I find that I need to do both to feel complete , I find that one feeds off from the other...

"I'm not looking for a subject to fulfill my vision, but rather looking for what the subject chooses to reveal to me." CJ

Cheryl, if you were driving down the road in Denver and the nature revealed itself to you in it's full glory would you compeled to reach for you camera?

Please do not take this as someone trying to start a fight or an argument, I am merely trying to understand myself in comparison to others, so thank you in advance for sharing your thoughts and insight...
Regards ILYA

wilsonneal · Jan 30, 2007

I love landscapes, but frequently when I compose one I look around for a person to include. It doesn't make the photograph a portrait, but I keep trying to put people in the frame.

Rolleiflexible · Jan 30, 2007

I never shoot landscapes. (Or bodyscapes.) Anything I might do, has already been done, better, and printed on a postcard. It is the human connection that animates my photography, for better or worse.

Sanders

TheFlyingCamera · Jan 30, 2007

I do both, but my first love is people, specifically the human figure. To me, trees and rocks, while they can make interesting compositions, are more about my own personal reaction to what I see. Working with a person as the subject, it is very much about the interplay between photographer and subject, since I am directing them to bring out some aspect of their personality and express it physically. Sometimes it is something I observe, other times it is something I see that they do not.

ilya1963 · Jan 30, 2007

Thank you Neal,

I am wondering about what people like Bill Shwab or John Sexton or Michael Kenna or Brian Kosoff(earlyriser), Michael Smith and Paula Chamlee think about portraiture?
Do they find that conroling ( manupulating ) subject that could respond to every want or need is overwhelming and they are used to responding to the sceens rather then it responding to them?

And on the other hand, what do people like Nicole and Cheryl and Sanders and McBlaine feel in the presents of natures landscape?
Is there a place in art photography for portraiture, could you market a portrait in a galery or museum as a simple portrait without a need for knowing that it is a portrait of someone famous or taken by someone famous or is portrait photographer works for assignments to make a living

Just thinking out loud...

ilya1963 · Jan 30, 2007

Thank's guys.
Ingmar Bergman once said that he would like to have a full feature film with just one face infront of the camera entire time , that is hom much he loved faces , but his films are full of beautiful landscapes that he shot during specific time of day and specific time of year to fill the mood of the film...
He loved landscapes as much

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jan 30, 2007

ilya1963 said:
market a portrait in a galery or museum as a simple portrait without a need for knowing that it is a portrait of someone famous or taken by someone famous or is portrait photographer works for assignments to make a living

Of course there is. Just like there was space for Dutch painters to make "outrageous" portraits of "non-exceptional" people in the 16th century. The girl with the pearl earring was not a patron of the arts or a prominent political figure, nor even a professional model. Speculations abound, but the fact that she was not a prominent socialite meant a lot in these days when portraits was mainly for the powerful ones.

As to the fact of not being a famous photographer and being exhibited, your mileage may vary...

Michel Hardy-Vallée · Jan 30, 2007

ilya1963 said:
Thank's guys.
Ingmar Bergman once said that he would like to have a full feature film with just one face infront of the camera entire time , that is hom much he loved faces , but his films are full of beautiful landscapes that he shot during specific time of day and specific time of year to fill the mood of the film...
He loved landscapes as much

Carl Theodor Dreyer, another Scandinavian (a Dane), already had done something similar with his 1928 feature film The Passion of Joan of Arc. Almost every shot is a close-up of either Joan of Arc or her judges. Antonin Artaud plays a secondary role. It's an amazing film.

Daniel_OB · Jan 30, 2007

Nicole: IMO everyone sees photography through their own eyes. It is pure lack of education about photography. Can every doctor see medicine (or treatment) through his own eye, or can every engineer see a car design through his own eye? NO. Why photography is anarchy?

Brewer: photography can lie I would rather say a photographer use photography to lie. As one guy said my grandfather somehow managed to have a hat on his head on just any photograph of him. However he was bold and no photograph says it. How about his liver or stone in kidney. They are not visible also, so a photograph lie. There are some part of truth in photography that photographers twists all the time to suit personal need. To get into the very source of that true get Jansons history of art (not 7th ed, but prior that) and find it there (there is a very important word in that definition omitted by many photographers).

Cheryl: Manipulation can be simply choosing to omit context or create an illusion, to show what they want to be believed rather than what is
This kind of work is one segment of portrait photography and I would hesitate to call manipulation unless it is clear that photographer manipulate. And I said once manipulation is so far not a complimentary word (in this contaxt), unless it means manipulate (operate) a tractor,

There so many very different fields in people portrait photography and everyone hook around his own work thinking it is the only way. How portrait will be approached depend of so many factors (time, weather, place, age, physical condition of a portrayed person, , what camera or lens is in the hand, what photographer want, why portret is about to be made,..).

To read more about portrait photography (sorry no yet examples, but thext is very clear and short)

Dead Link Removed

I hope the link works
www.Leica-R.com

Jonathan Brewer · Jan 30, 2007

'Do you all consciously avoid landscape work? Why?Do you feel it's boring? Or is the way that landscape caught on film not the way you work or see?
Edward Weston/Paul Strand/Steiglitz/Stichen did both , Adams did some portraiture. Could you think of a photographer that is as known for his portraiture as he is for his landscapes today?'................

..............I don't know who you're question is aimed for, I'll answer from my perspective, I love landscape photography, any photography that's good technically, or inspirational, or thought provoking, or lyrical, or beautiful, I'm not into isms, or 'pidgeonholing' work into a bag, there's just good work and bad work to me.

In terms of your question, I don't think of who was doing it 'then' as opposed to whose doing both 'today', I consider it all, all together. Edward Weston and Steichen did 'em both, magnificently, so Alivin Langdon Coburn,............ I have no wish for flames, but I'm going to say what I honestly think and that is that I respect Adams for his landscapes but I don't think he could shoot portraits a 'lick'.

Since you brought it up, I'll upload a shot of mine, in juxtaposition to my portrait work, shot at Pismo Beach, which is the type of shot I also enjoy,...............what I find arduous about shooting outside/landscape/scenics is the lack of control you have over the elements, not the subject matter, where as I can go to my studio and shoot whatever I want to shoot, whenever I please.

Daniel, call me Jonathan if it's ok with you, I agree with you, but I think a photograph can also lie without meaning to, ...............and the fact that we think differently and shoot differently as I've said above is a good thing.

I believe that once you get handle on something, some style, some technique, you better yourself by getting into something else, and trying to learn that, I believe it's a trap to get caught up in doing what you do best, after enough portraits, I like going outside, after shooting enough b&w, I want to go out and shoot infrared, after that, some polaroids, after that some color, I feel like I re-energize myself that way.

Cheryl Jacobs · Jan 30, 2007

ilya1963 said:
"I'm not looking for a subject to fulfill my vision, but rather looking for what the subject chooses to reveal to me." CJ

Cheryl, if you were driving down the road in Denver and the nature revealed itself to you in it's full glory would you compeled to reach for you camera?

Ilya, no, not really. I would be compelled to enjoy the scene, and I would store it in my head, so to speak, but would not feel compelled to photograph it. That's where Bob and I are different. He began as a landscape shooter and has learned how to apply those skills to people photography; I don't have any desire or currently any ability to bond with a cactus. LOL.

I do love to shoot still life, mostly because it's a reflection on people, i.e. what they leave lying around.

The gallery work and prints I have sold have all been of a portrait nature, with the sitter being a totally un-famous person. If the portrait possesses soul and depth, it can reach far beyond the parents or friends of the sitter.

- CJ

bjorke · Jan 30, 2007

The collision, collusion, collaboration, and destruction of the ultimately-restrictive portrait, landscape, and wildlife genres are principle reasons anyone should do steet photography.

G.W.

ilya1963 · Jan 30, 2007

Yes sir, we've made a full circle and are back to where this thread has started ....WOW
It is all one is it!!!

Social mechanics and honesty in portraiture

Jonathan Brewer

Jonathan Brewer

catem

Jonathan Brewer

Nicole

catem

Cheryl Jacobs

bjorke

ilya1963

Nicole

Cheryl Jacobs

Jonathan Brewer

ilya1963

wilsonneal

Rolleiflexible

TheFlyingCamera

Membership Council

ilya1963

ilya1963

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Michel Hardy-Vallée

Membership Council

Daniel_OB

Jonathan Brewer

Attachments

Cheryl Jacobs

bjorke

ilya1963

Social mechanics and honesty in portraiture

Membership Council

Membership Council

Membership Council

Attachments

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency