The Portrait

Portraiture is a difficult discipline. One element of the discipline that I find interesting is the role of the artist in the photographic portrait. In classical portraiture, the role of the artist is clear. A subject poses for the painter, attired in a costume that befits his rank or station. To the left, General Cornwallis appears in his military regalia, standing with the confidence of a man with the known world as his responsibility. The traces of the miltary world visible off to his distant left suggest a man undaunted by the duties that his station requires.

It is not hard to infer that the artist is, to a greater or lesser degree, reflecting the ego of the subject. Indeed, portraits like this were commissioned works, and the aim of many portrait artists was clearly to flatter and affirm their wealthy, powerful employers.


Now, of course, portraiture is simple, right? A person with a few basic tools - a camera, a spare moment or gathering, a friend -- snaps a photograph that captures the subject exactly as she is. The photographer is invisible, part of the machinery that captures and translates the replica image of the subject to paper, freezing forever a literal facsimile of a living person.

On the flip side of the coin live the professional photographers, pumping out portraits in the style of the artists of antiquity. Backdrops, careful costuming, socially affirming poses and arrangements, the portrait photographer fulfills the same role that the classical painter played.


It is easy to dismiss the professional as a purveyor of the artificial, a stage magician. His products are illusions. How many happy families are frozen on Kodak 8x10 that live hellish, fractured lives?

But are amateur efforts, "candid" flashes of truth, free of the photographer?

And if they are, are they portraits?

I think that a portrait needs to capture some essential element of the subject. There is a distinction between a snapshot, for example, and a portrait. That is not to say that a snapshot cannot stand as a portrait, but the observation that it does requires some application of the artist's eye. That moment of observation, of selection, is enough to fully incorporate the artist into the process of the photograph, eliminating the narrow claim to invisible neutrality.



from top to bottom: General Cornwallis by JS Copley, Christopher Tully-Doyle, Ryan Cheley, Dennis Doyle

Dramatic Portrait

Yesterday's challenge from the folks at Photochallenge.org was PORTRAIT. For my Theatre and Photography class, I took "Dramatic Portraits" as well as "Portraits of Actors." For this dramatic portrait of Ryan, I was inspired by early portrait photographers, such as Napoleon Sarony, who used painted backdrops and accessories that referenced the subjects' professions. Early photographs required long exposure times, and so the subjects only adopted poses that could be held (although they sometimes had help from contraptions such as head braces!) I posed Ryan in a corner, surrounded by a wall of math, peering out from behind a stack of math books. If I remember correctly, I think I bumped up the color saturation and contrast because it made Ryan look a bit more run down. For those that know that Ryan, this portrait should be self-explanatory. :-P

Defining Theatrical Photography

I recently took a PhD seminar at UCSD called Theatre and Photography. One of the topics of discussion that recurred frequently centered around the questions: What is a theatrical photograph? The essays we read discussed the idea of the theatrical photograph as “encapsulation of everyone else’s efforts” (Donald Cooper), iconic images of the text (T. J. Edelstein), as well as the “truth” of the production (Jim Carmody). We looked at and discussed photographs that were staged outside of the performance space, staged inside of the performance space, and taken during a rehearsal or production. Which of these is the best at documenting the performance? Does it depend on the production? It isn't a question we were able to answer conclusively although we each had our own opinions about strong theatrical photos.

This photo by Max Waldman serves, I believe, as accurate documentation of the production Dionysus in 69, directed by Richard Schechner at the Performing Garage in 1968. This photo is almost certainly staged and not taken during an actual performance. However, it captures the most important qualities of the production. This photo seems to be an ideal image – one in which all of the elements have been orchestrated to depict as much information as possible about the performance.

The environmental performance blurred the boundaries between performers and spectators. Often, the actors would perform scenes while leaning up against or lying on top of the audience members. This photograph places the viewer so close to the action that it evokes the sense that s/he could reach out and touch the actors – as it would have been during the show. By viewing the actors from this particular angle, the viewer of the photograph feels as if the performance is for her/him only. This fits with Schechner’s use of local focus in his productions (a technique in which the actors performed certain lines or actions in such a way that only a few people in the audience could hear or see what was happening.) The nudity and facial expressions (especially on the men at the bottom of the pile) express the overall Dionysian quality of a production that was far more concerned with the physical than the cerebral. Finally, the photo shows a bit of the conflict between the individual and the group that is present in the play. Dionysus is in the process of being born, solidifying his individuality. However, the entire group, working as a unified organism, once again evokes the Dionysian.

This photograph fulfills my requirements for a theatrical photograph: It is an artistic photo that stands alone (outside of its documentary purposes) and it serves as documentation of the theatrical event by conveying a sense of what it would be like to attend the production and portraying an important scene from the play.

Staged Theatrical Photography and Actual Performance Photography seem to be totally different art forms that take different skills. STP seems more like portrait photography and APP seems more like photojournalism. But can both achieve the same end goal – a photo that adequately documents a performance?

A frustrating excursion

Today was not the best photographic excursion I've been on. I ended up with a pile of subjectless and/or poorly framed images. The house behind the fence had a really interestingly shaped window, almost like an eye, but I failed to capture it adequately I think. I also blew out all the details in the sky, a sin I should know better than to commit by now.

Symmetry, especially the stilted artificial symmetry that humans build into their environments, I find endlessly fascinating. A cliched subject, perhaps, but a guilty pleasure I am incapable of resisting.


On the left, house in South Park, San Diego. On the right, AP&M building, UCSD

Shadow

My favorite aspect of this picture is the lack of any reference that allows the viewer to establish a sense of scale. I like images that hinge on the fractal aspect of nature. In fact, this is a one or two foot wide stretch of rock on a beach in La Jolla, shot from very close range with a very short lens. The editing is a bit rough, as this was one of the first photographs I worked with digitally.

Sidewalk

For a while now, I have wanted to take pictures of 30th Street, the street I live on. It is a fantastic street full of shops, cute houses, and more beer varieties than just about any street in the country.

Today, Ryan and I walked down 30th Street (as well as some adjacent streets) to try to take pictures responding to the some of the photo challenges from photochallenge.com: Simple, Control, Shadow, Road, and Sidewalk.

This was the best of many shots I took of sidewalks, but... something is not quite right. I like the lolling cat in the foreground, highlighting the lazy inactivity of the sidewalk. I also like the sidewalk receding into the plants and trees in the background, with the endless, wavelike shadows of the powerlines. But the vast, middle is a bit distracting. Perhaps I should have stepped back a bit so that the cat was further into the picture and away from the borders. This would have given me more room to crop. Photography is a tricky business.

Reinforcing conventions with photography

Looking at photos like these made me wonder: What is important in wedding photography – the subject, the form, the act of taking the picture?

While I didn’t cut a cake at my wedding let alone have it photographed, most of my friends and family (as well as many folks on the internet like those featured here) have a photo like this in their wedding albums: Man in suit, woman in white dress, both holding one decorative cake knife, both smiling as they make the first incision into their (usually) white, tiered cake.

To use my wedding as an example once again, I did not hire a wedding photographer. I figured some snapshots and my own memories would suffice. However, looking at the professional photographs of many other people’s weddings, I’m beginning to think that for many, the action of placing themselves in culturally predetermined poses and being photographed is as much a part of the marriage ritual as repeating the vows.

The bride and groom as individuals become less important in these photos than the poses they adopt. It reminds me of a passage in Don DeLillo’s White Noise. The narrator, Jack, describes going to the most photographed barn in America. Jack’s friend Murray tells him that no one actually sees the barn anymore, but they see what others see. They are “part of a collective perception.” As everyone takes pictures of the barn, they “reinforce the aura.”

Maybe as each couple poses for the cut-the-cake picture, they are reinforcing the traditions of marriage. By repeating the rituals and documenting them with photographs, perhaps they believe that they are creating a stronger union by becoming part of a larger tradition.

Photogenicity - in the Wiktionary if not the Dictionary

I am a firm believer in the theory of photogenicity. I know that I have never looked my best in photos (other people have confirmed this for me.) My theory has always been that my features are not quite defined enough and so the camera simply records a fleshy blob instead of my face. Perhaps it is speciesist of me, but I never thought that animals would have this same problem. I have found, however, that in the three years since I have lived with cats, that some of them have their likenesses taken much easier than do others.

Tiberius for example, looks lovely in almost every photo even with a modest camera, mediocre lighting, and no retouching (as you can see). His typical tabby pattern and color and matte coat absorb the light perfectly making him look even better in the photo than he does in reality.

Buggie however, though her fluffy gray fur comes out well, has facial features that come out strangely in photos. This baffles me because she is probably (and this viewpoint is completely and utterly unbiased) the prettiest cat ever.

Now Dickens, who is also almost unbearably handsome, looks like a shiny black smudge in photographs. He is too black and too sleek and the light just bounces off of him.

Last night I was determined to take photographs of my pets that capture their beauty so I used a clip-on flash (Nikon Speedlight SB-600) to bounce the flash off of the walls, ceilings, bookcases, and anything else I could point the light at, to try create the right conditions to capture the perfect shot.




Two shots of Buggie. I didn't have enough light in the first picture, but at least she looks like herself.

The second shot is a profile view in which the viewer can appreciate her fluffiness and adorableness.








I only achieved success on one shot of Dickens, but even one is miraculous. He still isn't as handsome in the picture as he is in real life, but at least he is not a shiny black blob.


I'll have to practice more with the clip-on flash. I still have no idea what I'm doing. But I'm looking forward to more picture of my cats pretending to be photogenic!

Finding the Punctum

One of my favorite photographs is William Klein's "Mayday, Moscow" from 1959, which I first came across in Roland Barthes' Camera Lucida. Like Barthes, I am drawn to the studium of the photograph. For non-Barthes readers, studium is general interest in a photo, perhaps as a historical document. "Studium is of the order of liking, not of loving.... To recognize the studium is inevitably to encounter the photographer's intentions, to enter into harmony with them, to approve or disprove of them, but always to understand them..." (26-7). As Barthes notes, the photograph gives the modern, non-Russian viewer details of Russian dress in the 1950s. The kerchief, the cap, the jacket, all draw the curious eye. This may be why I like the photo, but it is not why I love it.

I find my eyes taking multiple paths through this picture. Sometimes I start in the upper right where I follow the man’s gaze to the man on the left, whom the first man certainly cannot see, though in the two-dimensional world of the photograph they are touching. I then look at the bearded man in the back and my eye roller-coasters down to the hat, the old woman, and then the boy, following the path of their heads, picking up speed as I go. Once I reach the bottom, my eyes slowly climb up to the man in the hat who is looking off to the right of the photograph. I follow his gaze, looking back up the path that I recently careened down. Then I find that I am looking back and forth, back and forth, from one man’s profile to the other, only stopping when I self-consciously notice the man in the upper left who has been staring at me all along. How embarrassing. When I look back at the photo, I am much more polite, giving each face the attention it deserves, while not staring so long as to make the figures uncomfortable. I linger on the old woman. Her face is bright, and the longer I look at her the brighter she seems. A glowing light in a sea of dark (even more so in the printed photo on page 29 of Camera Lucida than in the photo above). Is that why the two men are looking back at her? Like moths to a flame? When I squint my eyes, I see triangles and circles of black, rectangles and squares of grey, all surrounding the oval of light. When I reopen my eyes fully, I suddenly notice the incredible balance, bordering on symmetry, of the photograph. Two men, on either side of the picture, each look back and toward the other side. Both men have another man’s face to the left and back. Then, a gently curved line of heads runs down the middle. And it is only now, after noticing all of these things, that I finally wonder just what these people are doing. Why are they in this particular arrangement? Although it is possible that Klein has posed them, it feels much more like an incredible stroke of luck.

But as easy as it is for me to describe my fascination for this photo, it was difficult to pick out the punctum - what Barthes describes as something in the photo which wounds the viewer. I could see all the parts of the photo that I truly like, but it was too easy to describe why I like them. And like Barthes, I realize that "what I can name cannot really prick me" (51). Barthes explains that he often doesn't realize what the punctum is while he is viewing the photo; sometimes it comes to him in a realization later. I gave myself time away from the photo, hoping that the wound would show itself. Finally, glancing back at the photograph today, I realized it: My punctum is the boy's ear. I spent far less time studying the boy than I did the other subjects, however without him the photograph has merely interesting composition and not the ability to wound. Perhaps it is because the ear stands in for the eyes I cannot see, or maybe it is because the boy resembles my younger brother who also has protruding ears, or maybe it is that the ear blends into the woman's arm, causing the ear to look grotesquely large. Whatever the reason, I have found the punctum - the photograph's ability to wound and delight me.

Spoon (not as good as Lauren's)

Spoon

"Catchlights" by Lauren

Colander

My cousin Ryan C. has been photographing various kitchen items in response to the challenges from Photochallenge.org. We have decided to informally take on a few of the photo challenges from the site to hone our skills of composition and selection.

"Bad Kitty" by Lauren