Contemporary portraiture

[kminov]

Am I the only one who fails to appreciate Rineke Dijkstra? Where's the photography in that? It looks like a snapshot to me.

[adelorenzo]

Many of them (like Heisler) seem intent on pumping out GQ magazine style pop-schlock that's more about the cleverness of the photographer than about the subject.

Having looked at his photos, read his book and watched a number of his interviews and talks that is the last thing I'd say about Greg Heisler. I would say that his work is solely about the subject.

Can you elaborate on why you think that?

Also, to the OP: Another suggestion would be Dan Winters Road to Seeing

[Carl J]

Off the top of my head in no particular order: Greg Miller, Richard Renaldi, Andrea Modica, Lois Conner (7x17 portraits although tends to concentrate more towards landscape, environment), Judith Joy Ross, Stephen DiRado, Bryan Schutmaat, Jeffrey Stockbridge....

[richardman]

Nothing wrong with "snapshots" but I don't "get" Rineke Dijkstra either. Heisler though, OTOH, I do not see him as "pumping out GQ magazine style pop-schlock."

[Richard Johnson]

Petronio

[cuypers1807]

You could look at Greg Miller's color LF work. Some really nice 8x10 work there.
www.gregmiller.com

[Peter Lewin]

I think the original question, as posed, was misleading. What the OP is actually doing is asking for a critique of current portraiture, because as he posted, "I am asking for contemporary portraiture exactly because this genre seems to be on pause lately, at least to me. The last great portrait photographer I encountered was Nadav Kander. So perhaps I'm just missing something."

And that question seems to be so broad as to be unanswerable. For example, I also am not inspired by Rineke Dijkstra's portraits, but they are included in virtually every anthology of either current portraiture or current color photography, so there must be something there that I am missing. One can ask whether environmental portraiture has really advanced since Arnold Newman; has Annie Leibovitz advanced the genre, or is she, to use words from an earlier post, merely showing us "the cleverness of the photographer?" Avedon, Modica, and Shelby Lee Adams are included in many anthologies, but is their portraiture intrinsically "better," or is it that their subjects are, shall we say, idiosyncratic? Will any current or future portraitist surpass Penn or Sanders? I guess that ultimately I'm not even sure whether the premise that "current portraiture is on a pause" is true, and whether any meaningful response is possible, other than to say that as long as people are interested in other people, there will be portraiture, and some portraits will always appeal to any one of us more than others.

[mdarnton]

Re: Heisler. I've been digging deeply into the portrait world for the last couple of years and have developed some personal standards in this that I don't feel anyone needs to share, but they're mine.

The first rule for me is that a portraitist who uses the subject as a prop is a failure as a portraitist. That's just about all I see Heisler doing. I've gone back to his book repeatedly, and every time I do, I enjoy it less, and am left feeling that I know just about nothing about many of the people in the photos, who have for the most part been inserted to fill person-shaped holes in Heisler's own fantasies about who they are. Every time I come back to the book this becomes clearer to me.

A friend of mine was subjected to this process recently by another magazine high-flier for an article in an important rag. He hoped he'd get some PR photos out of the shoot. The photog came with everything all planned, set up multiple sets to move through, shot hundreds of shots. Virtually none of them resemble my friend, his attitudes, or personality, and he thinks maybe one might be useable for his own PR materials . . . maybe. I can't help but view this as not-successful portraiture, and I see far too much of this out there. To me a successful result is when just about everyone who looks at the picture says something like "Oh, that SO MUCH is Xxxx! That is EXACTLY what he's like!"

[Lenny Eiger]

I am asking for contemporary portraiture exactly because this genre seems to be on pause lately, at least to me. The last great portrait photographer I encountered was Nadav Kander. So perhaps I'm just missing something.

Yea. Kander is just taking pictures of famous people. They aren't bad, but to suggest its contemporary is a bit of a stretch. There are tones of people doing fine work. However, I am not so interested in what's new. I can't stand Annie Liebovitz, I don't like Avedon, altho' I respect him. I think what's missing is a little depth and understanding and i find that much more in older photographs than in new ones.

August Sander is pretty amazing, as is Dorothea Lange, not to mention Walker Evans. If you can do what they did you will be far ahead of the current crop of commercial photographers.

Lenny

[DrTang]

everything after Sander is just a waste of film




hahahahah - kidding..kinda

but really...has anyone "improved" upon the genre since him?