Karsh: Flawed Compositions?

[asmith]

In a separate thread in this Image Sharing & Discussion forum, I ask the question, "Which Karsh B&W portrait is your favorite?" (See http://www.largeformatphotography.in...d.php?t=67408).

Contributors have given some interesting insights and thought provoking observations, which lead me to post this new thread with the question, "Karsh: Flawed Compositions?"

One of the observations surrounds Karsh's portrait of composer Jean Sibelius (see http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fb...4.55643364534). In this portrait, two of Sibelius' fingers appear to be cropped out of the photograph. It's not clear whether Karsh cropped the fingers out intentionally, or whether they are missing because of the limits of the original negative. One observer believes that the missing fingers represent a flaw in Karsh's composition, whereas another observer opines that the missing fingers make for a stronger portrait of Sibelius.

If a portrait of someone is made with hands and arms fully in view, is it an appropriate artistic composition to crop out all or part of the subject's hands and arms in the finished portrait? In print composition, I was trained never to crop out any portion of a subject's hands or arms if they are otherwise part of the original composition on the negative. But now I wonder if this instruction is merely another artist's subjective expression or an established convention of the art.

Looking at various Karsh portraits, it is obvious that many of his subjects' arms, elbows, hands, and fingers are either absent from the original composition on the negative, or otherwise intentionally cropped out of the finished portrait. Examples of missing fingers, hands, and cropped elbows are shown in the portraits of Lord Beaverbrook, Bernard Baruch, General John Pershing, Stephen Leacock, and Cordell Hull, among others. (See http://www.facebook.com/album.php?ai...d=55643364534).

Are these flawed compositions? Or does the partial presentation or absence of hands, fingers, arms, etc. make for a stronger expression of the subject?

What's your view?

[Jay DeFehr]

My inexpert opinion is that each composition should stand on its own, without regard to conventions or rules. If the issue is reversed, it's easy to imagine that a composition is not made correct merely by the inclusion of various body parts, so why should the reverse be true? Again, I'm no expert, but an interested bystander.

[Ash]

I think that too much thought is going into this detail. My opinion is it probably never crossed Karsh's mind that the hands/fingers/limbs were cropped in the photos mentioned.

[Struan Gray]

With the fingers Sibelius's hand would be pointing out of the frame, and your eye would follow it. Without them, the base of the portrait is anchored, a foundation, and the eye grasps the strength of pose but heads back to the face without delay.

[Frank Petronio]

Maybe he didn't like his subject and this was his subtle aggression?

They aren't objectionable but it looks like a dumb choice to me. Glad he isn't perfect.

[Daniel_Buck]

I think that too much thought is going into this detail.

that would be my answer as well, hah!

[sun of sand]

maybe he wanted no attention to go to what his hand was doing
holding onto something isn't really intgral to his character/personality so why use it
this way it puts him in a space without the space becoming what the photo is about

maybe he didnt like the bottom of the jacket