Contemporary portraiture

[kminov]

What would be an inspiring example for contemporary LF portraiture?

[adelorenzo]

Check out Greg Heisler's book 50 Portraits.

[Jim Noel]

I am unsure what you really mean by contemporary.
If I wanted to look at good portraits in an attempt to learn what a good one looks like I would look at Arnold Newman and Yousef Karsh.

[mdarnton]

What are you wanting to get out of it? Are you looking to survey the field? Do you want to do studio work? Environmental? Are you looking for ideas? Posing? Lighting? Someone to copy, as a learning device? Entertainment?

And I'm wondering why you've specified "contemporary"? I haven't found a modern "famous" portraitist that I find compelling in the way that so many of the older ones were, and gave up looking to moderns for any inspiration at all. 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. For modern, the only stuff that really appeals to me is SOME fashion photography. That and the monthly portrait threads right here on this forum.

[Mark Sawyer]

I'd just wander through the monthly portrait threads on this forum. You'll find excellent work in a wide variety of styles from classic to contemporary to undefinable.

[Ari]

What would be an inspiring example for contemporary LF portraiture?

Richard Avedon, to name one.
Bare, unadorned, gets straight to the point.
His fashion work is another story.

[Peter Lewin]

With apologies to previous posters, most of the photographers they mention, such as Avedon, are dead, so they are hardly contemporary. For two living portrait photographers, in black and white, Nicholas Nixon, and in color, Rineke Dijkstra. That said, I'm not one to judge how much portraiture has changed between the classics already mentioned, and the current artists. Oh, and if you don't mind the heavy production values, someone like Annie Leibovitz, for a portrait photographer who creates a unique environment for each of her subjects.

[richardman]

The earlier Leibovitz have less production, but of course they are Hasselblad's but not LF.

Mary Ellen Mark, Sally Mann, Vanessa Winship still photograph, and with LF

[mdarnton]

For about the last year I've been on a portrait book buying spree, trying to find something I could relate to. As so often happens with me (big HCB fan), HCB is the portraitist I most admire. In terms of direction-changing work, though, it was the Steichen exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago that made me totally rethink what I was doing, and the impetus for switching to large format from 35mm. That must count for something.

Another photographer that I seem to keep coming back to over and over is Mike Disfarmer. That, I can hardly explain. If anyone can explain to me why I do that, I'm interested.

[kminov]

What are you wanting to get out of it? Are you looking to survey the field? Do you want to do studio work? Environmental? Are you looking for ideas? Posing? Lighting? Someone to copy, as a learning device? Entertainment?

And I'm wondering why you've specified "contemporary"? I haven't found a modern "famous" portraitist that I find compelling in the way that so many of the older ones were, and gave up looking to moderns for any inspiration at all. 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. For modern, the only stuff that really appeals to me is SOME fashion photography. That and the monthly portrait threads right here on this forum.

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.

[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?

[Mark Sampson]

Well... as far as 'improving' the genre, who has surpassed Hill & Adamson? or Nadar?
When considering portraiture you need to know who's paying for it.
The sitter, as in the thousands of commercial portraits I made at the beginning of my career?
An editorial client, as in Newman, Penn, Avedon, Heisler, Leibovitz et al?
Or is it an art project on the photographer's part, done on their own nickel?
Because the nature of the portrait made is shaped by those answers, and must be considered when discussing the value of the work.

[Tim Meisburger]

A lot of people confuse reportage as portraiture. Dorothea Lange is a good example of someone I would not consider a portraitist in the sense you might think of Karsh or Nadav Kander (who I think is doing more than just photographing "famous people").

[kminov]

I like Kander for the subtle expectation in his photos. You can actually see the connection he has with his subjects. It's the ultimate mastery to me.

[Greg Miller]

I'm surprised no-one has mentioned Alec Soth. And yes, Greg Miller (http://gregmiller.com) (no relation to me although we communicate on occasion).

[Lenny Eiger]

The issue here is that we have an art form that is missing key components of a genre. We want it to be all inclusive, which seems to be a good thing, yet we fail to identify a goal. What should a portrait be, or do.

Most of the famous people give the photographer 2-5 minutes of their time. That's it. The challenge is how much you can capture instantly. It's not that deep of an idea.

By contrast, Walker Evans spent three weeks trying to figure out who his subjects were before he photographed them. It shows. I happen to like them better. I could do without a lot of the more famous portrait artists, and the snapshot folks. But that's a personal choice.

My point is that without some sort of a goal, there is no way to judge success. My goal in portraiture is to convey as much of the person as possible, all the way down deep if you can. I don't suggest that I invented this, not for a moment. However, this is by no means universally accepted as the aim of portraiture.Without one, we can't compare Kander to Sander, or Miller to Miller ;-)

Lenny

[swmcl]

Lenny,

Would it be that in an effort to portray something of 'the soul' or 'character' of the person in a portrait that one would need something of them in the photo with them ? ie. an environmental portrait rather than a photo with a blank palette of a background and zero props ? I think personally that hanging a sheet behind the person and taking a head and shoulders shot is pretty much reportage and almost cant show forth the 'soul'. My preference is for those who take a photo of someone in their locale or with props or on a location that we or their loved ones can associate them with intimately. Taking a photo of me on a yacht is not as expressive of my life or 'soul' as me with my things and certainly a plain background shot of me is best suited to my passport !

The goal that I am identifying with here is obviously to show forth the personality as humanly as possible. Some of the photographers mentioned in this thread I would think are more reportage photographers in my view. Walker Evans would be more contemporary than August Sander for me. I think that over history we've moved (on the whole) more from the reportage to trying to get the reaction of, "Oh Yes! That's sooo so-and-so" ... perhaps even to the point of creating photos such that those viewing them may have their understanding of the person extended.

Gee I find it hard to express things sometimes (but I am trying even so) !

[macolive]

Although not LF, I like Platon's work. Very simple, very direct.

[Toyon]

Karsh said that the portrait was about the relationship between the photographer and the subject. As you know the subject better, the images will become more nuanced and varied. This is not to say that a portrait of someone you don't know well can't be good, but that it will reflect that unknowingness implicitly.


The issue here is that we have an art form that is missing key components of a genre. We want it to be all inclusive, which seems to be a good thing, yet we fail to identify a goal. What should a portrait be, or do.

Most of the famous people give the photographer 2-5 minutes of their time. That's it. The challenge is how much you can capture instantly. It's not that deep of an idea.

By contrast, Walker Evans spent three weeks trying to figure out who his subjects were before he photographed them. It shows. I happen to like them better. I could do without a lot of the more famous portrait artists, and the snapshot folks. But that's a personal choice.

My point is that without some sort of a goal, there is no way to judge success. My goal in portraiture is to convey as much of the person as possible, all the way down deep if you can. I don't suggest that I invented this, not for a moment. However, this is by no means universally accepted as the aim of portraiture.Without one, we can't compare Kander to Sander, or Miller to Miller ;-)

Lenny

[DrTang]

I am highly suspect when one claims they captured the 'soul' or 'true character' of a person in a photograph...or, actually..when one 'didn't'

they are all photographs of people and even if I dress the sitter up and put them in front of a crazy backdrop..or make them jump.. or dress them in black..or whatever..it is still, and will always be a photograph of that person's current true character - meaning.. they sat there..they let me dress them..they let me put up that background.. so it is their true charactor to let it happen or maybe not complain about it

I think people judge portraits based on if the photo fits into their mindset of the person



for me..police mug shots are the highest achievement in contempory portrait photography

they are telling, honest and even tell a little story




Would it be that in an effort to portray something of 'the soul' or 'character' of the person in a portrait ...

[AtlantaTerry]

One of my big influences was Karsh of Ottawa. I prefer his black and white work. To me, his color work pales in comparison.

I had the honor and pleasure of meeting him once. Back in the early '80s a local pro color lab brought him to town to give a presentation.

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

One of my portraits in the Karsh style:
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5213/5430454219_c6a644ff7e_b.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/9gSuR2)Polish director Marek Kedzierski (https://flic.kr/p/9gSuR2) by AtlantaTerry (https://www.flickr.com/people/45847844@N03/), on Flickr

Polish theatre director Marek Kedzierski was in Atlanta for some workshops in the autumn of 2006.
I arranged a sitting with him. My goal was to create a portrait in the style of the late Karsh of Ottawa.

camera: Minolta DiMage A2
Photoshop filter: red (to amplify skin tones)
lights: two Alien Bee 800 strobes with normal reflectors, no soft box, diffusion, etc.

light #1: far behind his right shoulder to just barely divide him from the blackness by putting some light on his right ear and knuckles; this kind of light is called a kicker

light #2: behind his left shoulder & actually aimed at a reflector flat that was next to his right shoulder. This one light not only provided the key but some fill.

[Robert Bowring]

Edward Curtis

[Maris Rusis]

I suspect that what we think of as portraiture is originally an invention of painters. Everyone has mannerisms, a tilt of the head, an eyebrow arch, a curl of the lip, and so on which become identified with ones personality and associated character. These mannerisms are usually not simultaneous but the painter gathers them all up and incorporates them into one depiction of a face. The result is a subtle caricature that unsuspecting viewers applaud as true, insightful, revelatory, great portrait, etc, etc.

Photographers can do the same thing and it works just as well. But it takes time and keen observation on the part of the photographer to note and exploit all those tiny but revelatory quirks of character. Plain photographs of heads or faces are, I reckon, easier to do than portraits and lead to the unwritten caption under most pictures of individuals: "This is a picture of me having my photograph taken."

[Lenny Eiger]

Karsh said that the portrait was about the relationship between the photographer and the subject. As you know the subject better, the images will become more nuanced and varied.

I would agree with this wholeheartedly. In fact, I would go further and suggest that the expression in photography as a whole is about the relationship between the photographer and their subject. I find looking at photographs where the relationship is missing quite tiresome.

Lenny

[Will Frostmill]

I suspect that what we think of as portraiture is originally an invention of painters. Everyone has mannerisms, a tilt of the head, an eyebrow arch, a curl of the lip, and so on which become identified with ones personality and associated character. These mannerisms are usually not simultaneous but the painter gathers them all up and incorporates them into one depiction of a face. The result is a subtle caricature that unsuspecting viewers applaud as true, insightful, revelatory, great portrait, etc, etc.

That squares with my own experiences doing portraiture. My most successful portraits have been of aunts, uncles, and cousins: people who I've known for decades and decades, yet haven't actually lived with. It wasn't so hard to get a picture of my uncle's most characteristic expressions. I asked him to "sit for a portrait" - a concept he was quite familiar with, given the countless times my grandfather asked the same of everyone in our family. I asked him to think of certain things, and asked him gently provoking questions. I got two very good shots of him from that. Little micro-expressions, gestures, a certain tilt of the head, - all things everyone in our family recognizes as "him".

My second best portraits have actually been of my children's teachers. I just ask them to stand in a certain kind of light, and let me take a picture of them. Their typical "I'm standing for a picture" pose isn't too bad, really, and I've had some luck catching a moment when they have a certain kind of thoughtfulness in their eyes and hands. They do the worst, actually, with unposed and candid shots: I can get very well exposed photos of them looking quite awkward and uncomfortable. They are emotionally truthful, but fairly uncomfortable to look at.

I try for two things in my portraits: a depiction of the person as they are commonly seen, with their characteristic gestures and tics, and a little flash of insight showing them how I see them. Most of the time I only achieve the first, but it make them happy.

My best tool is to ask my sitter to think of something particular, indirectly, by asking them a question about it, or telling them a joke about it. People are terrible at hiding themselves when they are thinking and responding to something they are really invested in. It is dangerous. People don't like being revealed. It's unkind to reveal certain things about people. You'll find out the nature of your own character by the questions you dare to ask.

Celebrity portraiture is it's own thing for reasons others have said. Those are working pictures, ones that they need to reflect a certain image in order to project a certain status. It's really a kind of business portraiture. For the artist, there's some freedom of expression with props and locations, and it can be a very collaborative process, a film in miniature. Perhaps the real character of the person is present as well, but it would be impossible to tell, since part of their job is to obscure the difference between self and self-as-character. The same can be said of political types, or businessmen who need corporate head shots, etc.

[kminov]

People don't like being revealed. It's unkind to reveal certain things about people. You'll find out the nature of your own character by the questions you dare to ask.


Some solid observations here. Thank you!
Does art have to be kind? Kind art sounds to me like half art. "The questions you dare to ask" applies to everything, not just yourself. At least that's how I see it.