Social mechanics and honesty in portraiture

[Rolleiflexible]

The word "manipulate" has a very negative connotation, which is why I take great exception to it being applied to my methods. ... 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.

I disagree with your presumption about which usage is more common. The dictionary from which you quote also seems to disagree. But that is a question of usage, and the biggest pitfall of communicating with strangers on the Internet is descending into arguments over semantics, because people do bring different presumptions about the same words to the conversation. Take this dialogue as Exhibit A to that problem.

My own intent, in using "manipulation" in this conversation, is somewhere in between your two offerings: To act with intent, to handle your sitter with skill, to lead the sitter to an expression worthy of the portrait you are trying to make. I do not think that is "dishonest." That is just what we all do. Use another label if you like. But do not blink the reality of what you necessarily do to make your portraits.

Sanders

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Sanders, if I told you I thought you were manipulative, would you take it as a compliment?

I will say this:

While Avedon and every other photographer can work in whatever way they please for whatever purpose, there is a large difference between

1) handling a subject with skill and

2) making untrue statements so at to suit one's purpose.

I am making no assertion that one is right and one is wrong. However, I will say that I don't like causing people any amount of unhappiness or pain, however brief. For that reason, I'd never yank a toy away from a child, or tell someone I've just run over their dog for the sake of getting a reaction on film. The person is more important than the portrait. It's just not how I like to treat people.

That's simply my personal feeling, not a condemnation of their methods.

- CJ

 

[Rolleiflexible]

In this conversation, yes. Absolutely. Unless you sandwiched it between "filthy" and "bastard." Then I might worry. :-D

Actually, I think "manipulative" does have negative connotations that "manipulation" lacks. But that might just be me.

You also said: "For that reason, I'd never yank a toy away from a child, or tell someone I've just run over their dog for the sake of getting a reaction on film. The person is more important than the portrait. It's just not how I like to treat people."

Agreed. That comes under the rubric of being a good and a responsible person. No photograph justifies that kind of distress.

As a clarification: Avedon did not tell the Windsors that he had run over THEIR dog. He just said that he was late for the shoot because his car hit a dog. I think the striking thing about that portrait is how constipated they both look -- the regret they affect seems completely manufactured to me.


Sanders

 

[catem]

I

As a clarification: Avedon did not tell the Windsors that he had run over THEIR dog. He just said that he was late for the shoot because his car hit a dog. I think the striking thing about that portrait is how constipated they both look -- the regret they affect seems completely manufactured to me.


Sanders

I have to say that I find it hard to condemn the particular Windsor incident - but that's because I think they are lucky not to have had their heads chopped off (yet). I think they are genuinely very concerned about dogs, though.
(please, monarchists out there, don't take me too seriously)...

But for everybody else, it's less clear.

I do think there is a world of difference between making suggestions and downright lies (it is possible to make suggestions in a way that is, or is not prescriptive).

Comments I've made weren't directed at Avedon particularly btw, but were meant more generally.

In fact I don't think a great deal about his work, maybe because I'm not from the U.S. I do find much of it fascinating, and even wonderful, but also at times rather remote.

 

[Jonathan Brewer]

'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'..................

................Absolutely ture story, I'm not making this up, regarding the biggest risk I ever took which paid off, was when I was doing a portrait for an associate of my wifes, a guy name Frank *******. He had a PhD. in literature, was highly intelligent, totally bunt, a practical joker, and besides being a scholar, he could curse you out in a minute, he didn't give a damn about what he said to anybody.

He also fancied himself a decent amateur photographer, and he's asking why I'm using the filter/film/lens/camera/ I'm using, why I got the lights where I got 'em, and he goes on and on I tell him, Frank, you need to wait until the shoots over, 'cuz we need to work on mood and amibience.

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'................

..............As soon as I say this, he's got this stunned, shocked look on his face, I can tell that he's deciding whether or not he's gonna work up a mad, and he's looking at me, and my 'deadpan' expression to serious whether I'm serious or joking......................Now I'm expecting to either get cursed out bigtime or a big laugh in about 2 seconds, but I was ready to accept either one considering the way the day had gone, but I preferred the laugh, and after a few seconds I got it.

The funny thing about it, was that this loosened me up too, there's no moral to this story, except maybe, that when everythings against you, you'll still find a way.

I'

 

[ilya1963]

Jonathan, thank you for your post.

Mr.BcBlaine gave a link earlier here to a very interesting thread , it is interesting that here we are almost two years later on the same forum almost the same time of year talking about the same issues , their thread ended with a post from Bjorke which I think sums this up:

"I would think by now, 150 years into the game, that people would have realized and gotten comfortable with the reality that photography confounds intent at every turn. Yet here we are in this thread, a bit like the dog lounging in the dining room, staring at the bottom of the dinner table as if our gaze would by itself eventually produce some goodies. What sort of look will produce bread, or what sort of big-eyed stare will bring down the bacon?

What separates a snapshot from, say, photojournalism? Surely the most influential news photos of 2004 were snaps knocked off by a 20-something bozo at Abu Ghraib. Avedon with the Windsors, Karsh with Churchill, Steichen with Rockerfeller -- all lasting portraits made in moments of darkroom surprise and confounded intentions -- both of the photographers and the sitters. This disparity between What We Want and What the Lens Records is at the heart of what Avedon in later years called "the terror of photography" and why he was so happy to advocate the idea that All Photos Lie. Curtis's indians were real enough, but he often brought the costumes for them himself. What was his intent? What was theirs? Maybe a "snap" would have been more honest? Or was his desire to neatly contain the remnants of their culture exactly the most honest and telling statement? Did he unintentionally make a snapshot of 19th-century white American imperialistic attitudes?

A portrait is what you say it is."

 

[ilya1963]

Sorry Michael for a typo.
ILYA

 

[catem]

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

Surely not.

If you're MORE aware of the photographer (style, approach etc.) than you are of the subject then, by my definition at least, the photograph as a portrait has failed.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Cate, it's not a question of being aware of the photographer. It's a question of the photograph being the photographer's view of the person.

People are complex, multifaceted, contradictory -- a saint to a mother, a tiger to a lover, a dervish to an employer, a friend to a child. A subject can sit for ten different portraitists, and end up with ten completely different portraits, and every one of those portraits can be completely faithful to the subject. Same person -- ten completely different results -- all faithful.

Why the difference? Because each portraitist saw something different in the same person, and teased out that aspect of the person and ran with it in the portrait he made.

Now, when someone looks at one of those portraits, they don't think of the photographer. They think of the subject. But the impression they take away of the subject is the product of the photographer's understanding of the subject and her (don't hit me, Cheryl) manipulation of the subject to play to that understanding.

Nearly all of the choices that lead to the portrait are the portraitist's to make. Perhaps I exaggerated in saying that the portrait ultimately says more about the portraitist than it does about the subject. But not, I think, by much.

Sanders

 

[catem]

Cate, it's not a question of being aware of the photographer. It's a question of the photograph being the photographer's view of the person.

People are complex, multifaceted, contradictory -- a saint to a mother, a tiger to a lover, a dervish to an employer, a friend to a child. A subject can sit for ten different portraitists, and end up with ten completely different portraits, and every one of those portraits can be completely faithful to the subject. Same person -- ten completely different results -- all faithful.

Why the difference? Because each portraitist saw something different in the same person, and teased out that aspect of the person and ran with it in the portrait he made.

How about getting rid of your perceptions and letting the subject speak for her/himself.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

How about getting rid of your perceptions and letting the subject speak for her/himself.

Cate-

as the artist, you can't do that. At that point, it would be a self-portrait by the subject. Even if you're taking dictation from the subject, you're still interpreting what they say when you record it. Everything you do is run through your own personal reality filter, and you can't eliminate that. Claiming to have eliminated the personal filter is an act of self-delusion - we often think we've done this when a majority of our peers agree with us on the interpretation we've arrived at, but it is still an illusion. To give a rather dramatic example, look at the current clash of civilizations we are now experiencing between Christianity and Islam. Both worship the same one god, but they go together like fire and fuel.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

How about getting rid of your perceptions and letting the subject speak for her/himself.

I agree with Scott, in the post between ours, that it is impossible to divorce yourself from your perceptions. And, going past that: Which subject? Or, more accurately, which version of your subject? The saint who goes to church, the sinner who cheats on his wife, the devoted son, the inattentive father, the workaholic, the former football jock?

You, the photographer, play a seminal role in which aspects the subject reveals. Even the laissez-faire role you suggest -- just stand back and let the subject speak for himself -- has its own way of moulding what the subject reveals. Choosing not to guide has its own set of consequences. Their result is no more or less "genuine" than other approaches that elicit other aspects, and it is a conceit to believe otherwise.

Sanders

 

[Jonathan Brewer]

'How about getting rid of your perceptions and letting the subject speak for her/himself.'.......................Yes, this is impossible to do, the first time I went down to Pismo Beach with my wife, we loved the area, I took a few snaps/candids. Even if I were to have taken thousands of shots of the area and showed them to you, it would not equal the experience of being at Pismo.

The only way to do justice/convey to you as well as I could would be to forget about showing you anything, and take you with us to Pismo so you could see for yourself.

The only way to eliminate an artists perceptions, is to remove the artist from the process, and then the sujbect is no longer a subject,..........of your art, but of theirs.

 

[Cheryl Jacobs]

Oh, my God, I agree with Sanders. LOL! (OK, and Jonathan and Scott.)

The photographer leaves his/her fingerprints all over the portrait, like it or not. There are hundreds of little decisions he/she makes, consciously or unconsciously, that reveal the perspective of the artist: the perspective, the angle, the light, the clothing or lack thereof, the background, the distance, the motion or non-motion, the brightness and contrast, the tonality, the expression, the connection, the eye contact or absence of it, the mood, the composition, the focus, and so much more. You cannot take your perspective out of the portrait, no matter how you may try.

- CJ

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Cheryl, I still want to photograph you. Come east!

 

[Vaughn]

Don't know how this all fits in here, but a photog I know has portraits of cowboys on his website...in the mode of Jay Dusard. Talking with him, he stated he hates cowboys and thinks they are dumbshits. And he thinks the photos of Jay's aren't that good because he's too close to the cowboys (Jay has worked along side of them, helped with ranch chores, etc).

Well, the fact that the cowboys realize this photog's attitude shows up in the portraits (probably taken on workshop sort of situations). The negative vibes are all over the place. One might as well dress up scarecrows in cowboy gear.

Don't know where I am going with this, but it is just a sad situation. Perhaps it is just an example of a photog being manipuative (in a negative sense) and the subjects not buying into it at all.

Vaughn

 

[catem]

O.K., I agree, fair points all. 'Perceptions' is the wrong word. Of course our perceptions are what we use all the time, without them we would be lost. They are vital to what it is we do, and an essential part of the communication we attempt. In fact on the way to Sainsburys and back I thought myself that what I had said did not make proper sense.

The word I wanted was more 'assumptions', and that is what I was getting from Sanders' post, (although he himself used the word 'perceptions'). But I acknowledge I may be doing you an injustice, Sanders. (Thrashing these ideas out on forums is not easy).

Of course we all both perceive AND assume things about the people we photograph, I wouldn't deny that for a minute.

It's a balance though, as I've been saying, a matter of degree, as is how we choose to communicate what may be our insights. Though just speaking personally I would say it is not so much to do with insight, or even perception, or even assumption as that implies a far more conscious method than I use myself.

What I would say is, I do tend to take the lead from the person I'm photographing, rather than directing, or having a pre-conceived notion in my head of what it is that I am after. I wouldn't wish, or be able to do it any other way. Maybe it's an ego thing - how you pitch you own ego as a photographer to the ego of the photographed....not saying that one way is finally less ego-driven than another, just.....how it's measured out, if that makes any sense.

Good? Bad? Right? Wrong? - No, indeed, I wouldn't say anything is 'better' or 'worse' ....and certainly not 'the best'....

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Coming back to Avedon ...

Avedon was meticulous about how his photographs were presented, in books and galleries. The ordering and grouping of photographs was very much at the front of his mind.

At the Metropolitan Museum's exhibition of Avedon's work several years ago, there was a small room sandwiched in between two of the major halls with gigantic prints of the Chicago Seven in one, and Warhol's Factory in the other. In this small room were several lesser-known portraits. One was of a lawyer who had founded the American Civil Liberties Union. Across from it was a portrait of a psychiatrist who had pioneered work in electroshock therapy. Both were dressed in business suits. The ACLU founder had an almost beatific look -- the very embodiment of a life well-lived. The doctor looked terrifically uncomfortable in his skin.

As you can tell, this juxtaposition stuck with me, especially since I have to believe it was intentional. One's initial impulse is to attribute the expressions to their bearers' demeanors in life. But I suspect, also, that the expressions say more about Avedon's own biases about the two men, that his view of their respective work led him to portray them as he did. I am sure that there must have been plenty of uncomfortable moments in the lawyer's life, and plenty of confident happy ones in the doctor's.

I don't fault Avedon for that. He, no less than anyone else, is a slave to his own views. I do think that it is a fool's errand to claim that a portrait can be anything other than a marriage of photographer and subject. Like Yeats's conundrum: "How can we tell the dancer from the dance?"

Sanders

 

[catem]

I do think that it is a fool's errand to claim that a portrait can be anything other than a marriage of photographer and subject. Like Yeats's conundrum: "How can we tell the dancer from the dance?"

Sanders

Of course I wasn't saying that Sanders. And no-one else has, as far as I know.

Rather different, I think, from your claim that a portrait is, or should be, MORE about the photographer than the photographed.

 

[Rolleiflexible]

Cate, I didn't mean in any way to suggest that the last post was directed at you. It was just a related musing.

And I didn't mean to say that a portrait should be more about the photographer than the subject. I meant to say only that the photographer's choices so indelibly mark the portrait, that perhaps in the end the portrait says more about the portraitist than it does about the subject. In support of which, I offer my previous post about the lawyer and the doctor.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I don't know if Sanders was meaning to say that it should be more about the photographer, but that in fact it ends up that it IS more about the photographer. Especially when the portraiture is not a work-for-hire, although a case for that could still be made. The sitter has sought out the photographer for that photographers' style/vision, and so they are expecting to be treated the way that photographer treats his/her subjects. When the subject is of the photographer's choosing, then it is absolutely more about the photographer than the sitter, because the sitter reflects some element of the photographer's vision, in addition to all the other aesthetic choices the photographer makes.

 

[ilya1963]

So, I will go back to a thread from two years ago and ask you all the same question that was asked then and I don't think was really answered

How much of what viewer knows about a photographer or the subject or even what the cercumstances were under which the portrait was taken determetns if you think it is a great portrait?
In other words, if you were to strip all of the above and 50 years pass by, will the person that is brought up with a digital camera in their mouth react to a Silver Gelatin portrait like I do to a Rembrandt today?
Regards to all,
ILYA

 

[catem]

We're going to have to go along parallel lines here.

I'm having trouble with terms like "the photographers vision" - though I also know what you mean Scott. Of course I understand the unique and central -vital- input of the photographer. It's just not a term that fits comfortably with me. Words again.

Also, I'm thinking more of portraits that are not primarily 'art' - in other words the purpose is a picture of the person, in itself, rather than as a part of a wider project. Though I wouldn't dispute for a minute that those pictures can (and do) become 'art'.

I can only cite my favourite portrait photographer of all time, who was (is) in fact a working journalist, Jane Bown. (In fact, she never describes herself as a portrait photographer, but as a 'hack').

I think she is a truly great photographer. Portrait photographer at that.

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."

Thanks for a great discussion, I think I've gone as far as I can go on this one.

 

[ilya1963]

"able to portray the powerful presence of the people she photographs"

Cate,
I think your reaction to her work is the answer to my question ...but do you ask when you look at this work Who is This ? or do you just stand there in awe , speachless like i do infront of Rembrandts portraits, I do not even want to know anything more about anything else because what my eyes are seeing is a painting that exists without any need of any explanation...
ILYA

 

[ilya1963]

And when one can capture that in a stranger or a friend is what makes a great portrait to me... If I need to know more then what I see , have more contents then to it has failed.