What is a portrait?

[removed account4]

karsh did a series of portraits of people's hands.
i can't remember if they were a mini-series/ diptychs that included a "traditional portrait" ( showing facial features ) or if they
were just hands ( i am thinking helen keller and muhammad ali, composures & musicians )
and nicholas nixon also has done portraits of people through hands, ears, eyes and other features ...i've also seen
moving portraits of people of power, that don't show their faces at all, maybe their back facing the camera with them looking out a window
with what is known to be their field of expertise in the forground
( drafting table, plans/pencils/watercolors for an architect, or the desk in the oval office for a sitting president of the us. or musical instrument for a musician or artwork / messy atelier for an artist )
im not sure ssome would consider these things "portraits" in the "traditional / conventional / olde world " sense
like if a dutch master came to the future and saw them, maybe they would ?
"portrait" has evolved ...
portraits ( painted, photographic, sculpted ) have been about fantasy and metaphore since people were able do them so maybe the olde world masters
would understand these things as portriats because they worked in abstraction as much as people do today--- putting a semi-relief carved king being handed a model ( of the church he is carved on, or other buildings ) in relief
over the front door of medevil church or stone tablet ( kings of mesopotamia, egypt, babylon, assyria, armenia did this )
or a aristocrat with his perfect family, perfect expression, small dog, fineries and orb in the renaissance,
or with hypolite bayard's portrait of a drowned man ... when his hard work and discoveries were passed over and he didnt' get credit for his discoveries &c .. so he faked his death
i guess i mispoke on the first page, and should have said i pretty much think anything can be considered a portrait, if the person making the photograph, painting or sculpture, building (even food ) &c says it is...

 

[Rick A]

Isn't the root word for portrait, "portray". Does it really matter how or what we portray our subjects as? No matter what, people will either like or dislike what they see.

 

[RobC]

have a look at a couple interviews of the UKs most famous living "Potrait" photographer.

first is quite short but has a couple of interesting insights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQbyQgkOB9s

second is longer but more interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_-s7JU0b98

 

[Bill Burk]

The idea that a photographer is "in the profession" somehow means anything is nonsense. It means nothing....

A good shot is a good shot. THAT'S the criteria.

Well, it means something. The fact Blansky is a professional portrait photographer colors his perspective and quantifies his experience.

It gives us an idea about where his standards of quality come from. Different than mine and yours, certainly. But he tells us why.

But I like your comment about a good shot.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Boy, I just can't agree w/ any of your thoughts in this post. They're elitist. The idea that a photographer is "in the profession" somehow means anything is nonsense. It means nothing. A hack is a hack, a good photographer is a good photographer. And it means nothing where the money comes from. If someone sells out, they sell out. Prostituting yourself for a client's wishes is just that. Vincent Van Gogh sold almost nothing during his career. So that means he was an amateur because he wasn't bringing in a check? Get a grip. A good shot is a good shot. THAT'S the criteria. Always was, always will be. Genres, who cares? This is an image thing, get it? Words mean nothing, philosophies are a dime a dozen, and talk is cheap. Let's see the image, that's all that counts. Portrait, documentary, journalistic....just silly babble.

It reminds me of college professors who want you to break down a writers work and interpret it. It means what it means, and if someone wants to somehow codify or judge it by some arbitrary standard or criteria other than it works or it doesn't, they are hopelessly lost. It worked for the writer, so there you go. But that's college. There is a small sea animal, who's name I cannot remember, that has a rudimentary brain and uses it to find a rock to live its life on, then it eats its brain because it doesn't need it anymore. Similar to tenure.

That statement is its own form of elitism - anti-intellectual elitism. Why shouldn't we think about things, analyze them, and even categorize them in the pursuit of a better understanding of what they are, how they work, and where they fit in relation to other similar and dis-similar things?

 

[blansky]

Boy, I just can't agree w/ any of your thoughts in this post. They're elitist. The idea that a photographer is "in the profession" somehow means anything is nonsense. It means nothing. A hack is a hack, a good photographer is a good photographer. And it means nothing where the money comes from. If someone sells out, they sell out. Prostituting yourself for a client's wishes is just that. Vincent Van Gogh sold almost nothing during his career. So that means he was an amateur because he wasn't bringing in a check? Get a grip. A good shot is a good shot. THAT'S the criteria. Always was, always will be. Genres, who cares? This is an image thing, get it? Words mean nothing, philosophies are a dime a dozen, and talk is cheap. Let's see the image, that's all that counts. Portrait, documentary, journalistic....just silly babble.

.

Are you sure you read the original post.

Because the original post had nothing to do with elitism it had to do with the various genres of photography that pros do, and how "other" people see or interpret them as "portraits", not knowing why they were shot. Your rant about selling out and college professors seems to be a burr under your saddle that has nothing to do with this discussion.

So are these good portraits?

 

[blansky]

How about these?

 

[blansky]

Or these?

 

[blansky]

Or these?

 

[removed account4]

blansky

YES!

they are all good portraits, and they probably were all
made for different reasons, film stills, selling clothes
( and selling the fantasy of getting that "stuff" being like ( or with ) with those women ) ...
lucky for the photographer who made those portraits,
their subjects were models or actors/actresses who are used to
putting on a facade, acting tough, or coy or whatever ... because
as someone who has made a portrait ( either professionally like you or as a hobbyist )
knows it is very hard to get someone to relax and put their guard down be vulnerable and be whatever "self"
they want to have photographed and what character they want to "look" like or have other people
see them as ( coy, sexy, vulnerable, boudoire-y, sophisticated, home-maker, lion tamer, bandit, CEO &c ). its like bela lugosi portraying himself as - the count- his whole life
after he played him in the movies or the guy who plays daryl in the walkingdead walking around nyc with a crossbow - disheveled and in ripped clothes ...

but one would probably not wince if it was a cropped photograph of jonnydep's dreadlocks and puffy shirt,
or show white's hand with the bird on it, and gown ... and those images were presented as portraits because
those are their "iconic looks" mean them .. like kind-of a "deconstructed portrait" ...
sorry, that is the art-historian in me talking...

 

[blansky]

Or these?

 

[wiltw]

Aha, finally...photos in #61 are inarguaby 'candid' shots, and not 'portraits' per se. Name any papparazzi who call themselves 'portraitists', or who understand setting lights to flatter the subject or to develop some of the character of the subject!

As for the earlier shots from blansky, I do not consider any shots done for product placement (ads) to be portraits, the subject is not the person, it is the goods being sold. So two of three shots in #59 might be 'portraits' (the second one is arguably a cosmetics ad, not a 'portrait'), while the third shot is definitely a product placement shot.
As for the Johnny Depp shot, that is more a 'character study' of a fictional character, and not a representation of Johnny Depp the person. One could arguably say it is an 'environmental portrait of the actor' a shot of 'the person Johnny Depp who is an actor'.

 

[blansky]

have a look at a couple interviews of the UKs most famous living "Potrait" photographer.

first is quite short but has a couple of interesting insights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dQbyQgkOB9s

second is longer but more interesting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_-s7JU0b98

While his work is great, he is still photographing celebrities, which makes his work have an immediate acceptance and elevated level. The "if you want to be a famous photographer, photograph famous people" thing happens.

My opinion on that kind of thing is, substitute the celebrity subject for an ordinary person, and see if the portrait still stands up as great. Most don't.

Which has always been my gripe about celebrity photographers.

 

[RobC]

While his work is great, he is still photographing celebrities, which makes his work have an immediate acceptance and elevated level. The "if you want to be a famous photographer, photograph famous people" thing happens.

My opinion on that kind of thing is, substitute the celebrity subject for an ordinary person, and see if the portrait still stands up as great. Most don't.

Which has always been my gripe about celebrity photographers.

But in the 60s he was the celebrity and not the models he shot for Vogue and the like. He helped to make many of those people celebrities. Many of them weren't when he photographed them.

 

[blansky]

But in the 60s he was the celebrity and not the models he shot for Vogue and the like. He helped to make many of those people celebrities. Many of them weren't when he photographed them.

If I'm not mistaken, a lot of these guys, from Britain and the US actually got their start shooting rock bands. And the "swinging 60s" music scene morphed into fashion, club scene and actors. The "beautiful people" so to speak.

 

[RobC]

Some of them yes. People like Terry O'Neill. No different to Annie Liebovitz.

But are they portraits to your way of thinking or are they something else?

 

[blansky]

Some of them yes. People like Terry O'Neill. No different to Annie Liebovitz.

But are they portraits to your way of thinking or are they something else?

That's a tough one for me. Obviously they do portraits. And often great portraits of interesting people, and I'm sure they do portraits in their spare time, so they are portrait photographers.

Where I have a problem is when they photograph actors who are trained and some very skilled at being other people and manipulating us to believe they are. Add to that, actors are overly pampered and most have narcissistic personality issues, so my problem is, number one, is any picture of them a portrait. Or are they just acting. And how much hair and makeup and wardrobe is really necessary. So it's often overly produced, and a rather plastic representation of someone who is also in the process of promoting the new movie coming out this weekend. So basically it feels like marketing and manipulation.

And number two is the requisite fawning over any picture of them, which is of course considered to some, a masterpiece. And by association, the photographer is now a portrait genius.

I also have a problem with the group dynamic of the photographer and his assistants and art directors tossed into the mix. My preference for any portrait photographer is the shooter, perhaps an assistant and his creativity and ideas co-mingled with the subjects input and interaction, and making a portrait with that.

So that's just my biases, but of all of this genre, I think the fashion photographer/celebrity photographer is my preference. I see more creativity and less committee in their approach.

 

[RobC]

Well I see most of these musician, fashion, actor, celebrity shots as portrayals since they are virtually all about promotion of "The Brand".
There is a big difference to that and someone coming into a studio photographer and asking for a family portrait I referred to as a vanity image although I am being a bit harsh about that. The family shot is not for promotion but usually as a family keepsake. The photo takes on an entirely different meaning. Its not about others wanting to look/dress/behave like their cultural icons, its about family history and memories and is totally self indulgent (in a good way) on the part of the subject. The celeb shot is about making money.


p.s. I think there is a subtle difference in the word portrait and portrayal which people should take onboard

see the OED

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/portrait

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/portrayal

using wikipedia for the defacto definition of a portrait is not the way to go ( useful as it is in many cases).

 

[pschwart]

How about this Karsh portrait of Casals? It perfectly captures his character and we don't even see his face.

 

[blansky]

How about this Karsh portrait of Casals? It perfectly captures his character and we don't even see his face.

Yeah. Good example....we can feel the music in the room but can't see his face.

 

[RobC]

How about this Karsh portrait of Casals? It perfectly captures his character and we don't even see his face.

How do you know it perfectly captures his character? Without being told you have no idea who the musician is. All you can say is, yes it looks like a musician. Everything else is your own own perceptions based on who you're told it is and then what you already know about him.

 

[cliveh]

While his work is great, he is still photographing celebrities, which makes his work have an immediate acceptance and elevated level. The "if you want to be a famous photographer, photograph famous people" thing happens.

My opinion on that kind of thing is, substitute the celebrity subject for an ordinary person, and see if the portrait still stands up as great. Most don't.

Which has always been my gripe about celebrity photographers.

I agree entirely. Many years ago I thought the National Portrait Gallery in the UK was full of great portraits. I learned later that it is full of portraits of famous people and has little to do with the technique/ability of the photographer.

 

[removed account4]

How do you know it perfectly captures his character? Without being told you have no idea who the musician is. All you can say is, yes it looks like a musician. Everything else is your own own perceptions based on who you're told it is and then what you already know about him.

that could be said about any portrait, whether its of "rin tin tin" or winston churchill, or "the 11:15 appointment" --- couldn't it ?
and "knowing the person" ( or thinking one knows the person ) allows us to see the character / "self" the photographer captured on film.

 

[blansky]

How do you know it perfectly captures his character? Without being told you have no idea who the musician is. All you can say is, yes it looks like a musician. Everything else is your own own perceptions based on who you're told it is and then what you already know about him.

Probably you're right. It captures our perception of his character. Or probably more rightly, the photographers perception of his character.

Like I said previously, the adage that a portrait is merely a reflection of the photographer.

And some is merely the reflection of a marketing machine.

 

[RobC]

Personally I think its a very good photograph as it does evoke emotions of music but it also evokes, for me, someone shutup in a cell playing to a wall which is slightly disconcerting. It's certainly a portrayal of something and generates quite a few questions but I wouldn't consider it a portrait, especially since the musician is anonymous without being told.