Portrait Photography

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I saw this in a recent ad for Rangefinder Magazine.

"It's one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it's another thing to make a portrait of who they are." - Paul Caponigro, American Photographer

What is a portrait to you? How do you show who a person is on a piece of paper or a computer screen? How do you know in the first place who they are, and how do you know that the viewer won't have a different interpretation of who they are?

[Brian C. Miller]

I just went to Paul Caponigro's website, and I didn't see a single photograph of a person there! I suppose that means he's never been able to do it, either.

What can be done in a still image to portray a person? Actually condense a biography into an 8x10 picture, that is. In the common sense, nobody has done it. Starting with simple figures many thousands of years ago, the basic concept of a representational image of someone really hasn't changed. Take a look at the Wikipedia page on Cubism. Even though it tries to depict a subject from a number of viewpoints, it just winds up being a block-like, angular representation. It's like someone made a snapshot, then applied the Cubism filter.

I think that the solution is form of Cubism, but representational throughout a person's life, i.e., temporal Cubism. The problem with this is the lack of photographs to directly form the portrait.

Take, for instance, Citizen Kane. What would you put into the portrait from watching the film, and what would you put in if you didn't know the guy, but you could talk to him for a few days? Would he have ever mentioned his childhood sled in a conversation?

Another person might be Steve Jobs. Good Steve? Evil Steve? Shrewd businessman? LSD freak?
How about Dr. Jekyll? How would you contrast him to his alter, Mr. Hyde?

[djdister]

As just one example and in answer to your question, see Yousuf Karsh (http://www.karsh.org/)

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

On a number of occasions I have visited the Georgia O'keefee museum in Santa Fe, and therein resides one of my most favorite portraits which is a 24 x 36 black and white portrait of her made by Mr. Karsh. She is sitting out in a shed on her property, either out at Ghost Ranch or "in town" at Abiquiu (I forgot which). The lighting is absolutely beautiful. Makes her look beautiful. One could interpret it as a lady living in a shack!

[swmcl]

'Soul' or 'character' are very hard to define and capture. There is that inescapable 'quality' when you meet and interact with a person that is definitely more than just a plain arrangement of photons on the film. You may have heard of various lenses capturing a certain 'quality' and these lenses are renowned to always impart that certain 'quality'. It is also true of film. Some films have a certain 'quality' too. To be a really successful portrait photographer you must align yourself with the accepted lore by buying the right equipment and also be able to speak and write about the difficult-to-define nature of all that you do. Generally though, you won't find too many really successful photographers on sites like this though as they live and breathe their craft in more secret places.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

"be able to speak and write about the difficult-to-define nature of all that you do. "

Gee, I always thought that one of the reasons I liked photography was that I didn't have to write and speak about something. I could just show a photo and let the other person figure it out. Now after all of these years I have to start writing and talking about what I take pictures of?

[Brian C. Miller]

... a 24 x 36 black and white portrait of her made by Mr. Karsh. ... One could interpret it as a lady living in a shack!

Yeah, that's the problem with pretty much all of them. From looking at that photograph, I would never have guessed that she made paintings.

[djdister]

Yeah, that's the problem with pretty much all of them. From looking at that photograph, I would never have guessed that she made paintings.

Thats a pretty mundane purpose for a portrait - to ascertain their profession. I think its enough to render the person's character in a portrait, not what they do for a living.

[Peter Lewin]

Honestly, I don't think that a portrait can really do more than depict what a person looks like. For example, think of the iconic portrait of Stravinski at his grand piano. Realistically, all we can tell is that the subject is connected to music; we cannot even tell if he is a pianist or a composer. Yet this is probably the best known image of Stravinski in existence. Another example, and I think this one is from Karsh, is the famous image of Churchill with his cigar. But I think that most of the "personality" we attribute to the picture is in reality what we know about Winston Churchill, rather than the image itself. What we are seeing is an image of a man which is consistent with what we already know about him. While a picture may be worth a thousand words, I think that in terms of really conveying anything meaningful about a person, the thousand words win.

[lenser]

One all important element that I almost never see talked about is response. Creating a great portrait is multi faceted, but one of the most important is the collaboration and communication between subject and photographer that results in a response that is visible in the face, expression, posture, and tension; all of which contribute to seeing a bit of a window into that subject's personality.

Of course, from the technical side, lighting is the crucial element and artistically is important in helping to portray that response, but the emotional and personality response is paramount.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

"Honestly, I don't think that a portrait can really do more than depict what a person looks like. For example, think of the iconic portrait of Stravinski at his grand piano. Realistically, all we can tell is that the subject is connected to music; we cannot even tell if he is a pianist or a composer."

Realistically, all we can tell is that he is sitting by a piano.

[Alan Gales]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Caponigro

Read the rest of Paul's quotes. :)

[Bernice Loui]

Two point of view on this.

*Artist (photographer) working with subject to render an aspect of the subjects personality and emotional expression on film as a symbiotic relationship.

*Artist (photographer) using the subject as an means to express vision or idealized image.


Great portraits can be made by either methods. It is much a matter of what the image goals are and the tools used to create the portrait image. In both cases, the hardware (camera, lens, film and ..) will never achieve these goals on their own.


Bernice

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

I think artists and photographers have far less control over their message than they think they do. There may be an objective intent to convey something, but its the viewer who has the power to decide what message they receive, and especially so in portraiture.

[Bernice Loui]

Interpretation by viewers is one factor, question for the artist is..

How sensitive could the artist be to see their work in the eyes and mind of potential viewers?

To be effective at communications, the work needs to have the ability to reach viewers on many levels, this is one of the great challenges for all artist and is an indicator of great works of art.

It does place significance of why one should and needs to study art history to gain an understanding of how and why effective communications using art (in it's MANY forms) is SO important.


Bernice





I think artists and photographers have far less control over their message than they think they do. There may be an objective intent to convey something, but its the viewer who has the power to decide what message they receive, and especially so in portraiture.

[Ari]

"All photographs are accurate, none of them is the truth."

So said R. Avedon, which is not dissimilar to what Mr Caponigro said, but it comes with the authority of having studied the human face, and over a long career, made thousands and thousands of portraits.

I think Mr Avedon was a master at his work, rarely showing any clues about the person's outward character in his photos; he took all that away, forcing you to look at the face and the eyes to try to glean something from them.

This left the viewer with his own impressions, maybe quite different than what was intended, maybe not; but it was open to interpretation, and that's part of what makes a great portrait, too.

[johnmsanderson]

I often wonder where a portrait ends and a landscape begins? I find portraits of people, contextualized in their surroundings, some of the most interesting.

[cowanw]

On the July 20th 2014 page of this
http://wehadfacesthen.tumblr.com/
there are three Karsh portraits of Humphrey Bogart.
The middle one is the only one I have seen published before. Which is the real Bogart? Quizzical, serious or giggling? Only the viewer knows.

[jcoldslabs]

Honestly, I don't think that a portrait can really do more than depict what a person looks like.

I agree with this. I've known my wife intimately for 27 years and even the best photographs I've taken of her come nowhere near to capturing "who she is." Most all portraits we see are of strangers; therefore, if we think a portrait is a good one we base that solely on the aesthetics of the image. Did Avedon or Karsh or Steichen capture who their subjects were? Only people who knew those subjects well could say for sure.

I am reminded of what C.S. Lewis said about looking at photos of his recently deceased wife:


I have no photograph of her that's any good. The explanation is simple enough. We have seen the faces of those we know best so variously, from so many angles, in so many lights, with so many expressions--waking, sleeping, laughing, crying, eating, talking, thinking--that all the impressions crowd into our memory together and cancel out into a mere blur.

Jonathan

[Jim Jones]

. . . Another example, and I think this one is from Karsh, is the famous image of Churchill with his cigar. But I think that most of the "personality" we attribute to the picture is in reality what we know about Winston Churchill, rather than the image itself. What we are seeing is an image of a man which is consistent with what we already know about him. While a picture may be worth a thousand words, I think that in terms of really conveying anything meaningful about a person, the thousand words win.

That portrait at that time meant something entirely different to the British people than it would to many people today who have little concept of Churchill and the precarious events that returned him to prominence. England had been exposed to many thousand words by and about Churchill. It was the Karsh photograph that summarized the greatest of those words in one photograph.

[rbultman]

A good portrait will capture one aspect, or facet, of a persons personality. The fact that an image is consistent with a public persona does not make it an unsuccessful image, it probably just makes it the most popular one. The image of Bogart laughing is probably not popular because it is not consistent with the characters he played in movies. A thousand words may tell more about a person than a single image may convey, but 10 or 20 images may come close.

[DrTang]

I saw this in a recent ad for Rangefinder Magazine.

"It's one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it's another thing to make a portrait of who they are." - Paul Caponigro, American Photographer

What is a portrait to you? How do you show who a person is on a piece of paper or a computer screen? How do you know in the first place who they are, and how do you know that the viewer won't have a different interpretation of who they are?

and I'm supposed to figure out what this person is all about in the shrt time I know them?.. hell..it takes psychotherapists years and years to just start getting to know someone

Anyone who says that's what they do..is more than likely showing more about themselves than any subject

[Brian C. Miller]

The image of Bogart laughing is probably not popular because it is not consistent with the characters he played in movies. A thousand words may tell more about a person than a single image may convey, but 10 or 20 images may come close.

Right, all of the Bogart images were Bogart, and I think that the three photographs referenced there were done in the same session, as the lighting positions don't seem to have changed.

"... instead of depicting objects from one viewpoint, the artist depicts the subject from a multitude of viewpoints to represent the subject in a greater context." -- Wikipedia, Cubism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubism)
"The key concept underlying Cubism is that the essence of an object can only be captured by showing it from multiple points of view simultaneously." -- Artcyclopedia, Cubism (http://www.artcyclopedia.com/history/cubism.html)
"[The Cubists] wanted to introduce the idea of 'relativity' - how the artist perceived and selected elements from the subject, fusing both their observations and memories into the one concentrated image." -- Arty Factory, Cubism (http://www.artyfactory.com/art_appreciation/art_movements/cubism.htm)

Thus, a portrait should consist of multiple viewpoints of a person, over time. I don't feel that the Cubist portraiture really came close to that. Cubism went off track when it became centered on geometry and abstraction instead of time and perspective.

One of the things I've noticed while mucking about with the Ilford pinhole cameras is how people shift, walking across the view. Same person, with different viewpoints. The blur becomes an impressionist abstract.

[Kevin J. Kolosky]

There was an excellent piece on Malcolm Liepke in todays Minneapolis Star and Tribune. In the interview he talks about why he likes portraiture. He says "I like the emotional arc you get with people that you don't get with a car or a still life or something. You get a response. You look at a portrait in a museum and the person stares back at you."