Portraiture is about the Photographer - Source Material?

[Frank Petronio]

I've often heard and somewhere I've read that "portraits are really more about the photographer than the subject."

I've seen that sentiment written multiple times - perhaps in one of the Richard Avedon book's foreword?

Does anyone know where this notion originated and where it has been expressed most clearly and effectively?

[Steve Smith]

I don't know, but it sounds like pretentious nonsense to me.


Steve.

[Mark Sawyer]

"Sometimes I think all my pictures are just pictures of me. My concern is...the human predicament; only what I consider the human predicament may simply be my own."

~ Richard Avedon
(quoted by Peter Weiermair in his book, Americans: The Social Landscape from 1940 Until 2006.)

[Ari]

"Sometimes I think all my pictures are just pictures of me. My concern is...the human predicament; only what I consider the human predicament may simply be my own."

~ Richard Avedon
(quoted by Peter Weiermair in his book, Americans: The Social Landscape from 1940 Until 2006.)

Well Avedon sure knew how to schmooze, that's for sure; and he usually had a good quotable on hand, because he really thought about what he was doing, all the time.
I forgive him his occasional self-absorbed lapses because he was so wonderful, talented and unique.
My favourite quote of his, though, and a humbler one:
"All photographs are accurate; none are the truth."

Sorry to hijack this thread, but I had cause. :)

[Emil Schildt]

I don't know, but it sounds like pretentious nonsense to me.


Steve.

why?

[mdm]

http://www.richardavedon.com/#mi=1&pt=0&pi=7&p=-1&a=-1&at=-1

In the article titled Borowed Dogs. (perhaps not exactly what you are after, the egoiste interview is more like it)

There's nowhere to hide Frank. You have already spilled your guts and peed on the carpet.

[cjbecker]

I think portraits are pictures of the photographer. He is the one provoking the feeling of the subject to what wants/feeling. It is a beautiful dance between the photographer and the subject with the photographer leading.

[Walter Calahan]

It dates much further back then photography. The same can be said about painting. I'm sure Socrates had a few words about the arts, but don't remember him mentioning portraiture in Plato's "The Republic." Grin.

The idea does make me wonder about my own portraits. HA!

http://www.foundfolios.com/Walter-Calahan/Portraits/L

[mdm]

Love the lady with the fish.

[Alan Gales]

Love the lady with the fish.

I love it too!

I wonder if it's more about Walter or more about the lady. Perhaps, it's more about the fish? :D

[Jay DeFehr]

There might be something to the notion that any single portrait is about the relationship between the photographer and the subject, but any collection of portraits by one photographer is about the photographer.

[Peter De Smidt]

And it might even be a combination, with some portraits being more about the photographer (or the subject) than others.

[Jay DeFehr]

Beware, Peter; that kind of mental flexibility will never lead you to rigid, absolutist conclusions.

[dsphotog]

Sometimes I get my shadow in the picture, but I usually don't print those.

[Mark Sawyer]

...but any collection of portraits by one photographer is about the photographer.

...and any collections of portraits of a single subject by different photographers is about the subject. I think Jay nailed it.

On some level, the most important thing about any creative photograph is the photographer. But if you asked a turnip what was the most important thing in the universe, it would answer "turnips". And in both cases, everybody else makes up their own minds...

[r.e.]

An earlier discussion about this subject: http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=54831

If I recall, nobody in that thread talks about the origin of the view, as it relates to photography as distinct from painting, that Frank wants info on. The closest thing that comes to mind are some of Avedon's statements in the American Masters documentary about him. He is quite explicit about his manipulation of the Windsors. Also, Arnold Newman made explicit comments about orchestrating certain of his portraits to reflect his views, especially his photo of Krupp, perhaps also (my recollection here about what he said is less certain) his photos of Selasie and his photo of Ergun members.

If one accepts the idea that Robert Frank is a portrait photographer, The Americans strikes me as a clear example of a series in which the photographer is expressing himself and the subjects are basically raw material. That is especially clear if one looks at the contacts, the photographs that were selected from the contacts and the order in which they were arranged. I think that the same can be said for Avedon's American West series; also much of Bruce Davidson's work (Brooklyn Gang, East 100th Street; several of the photographs in the latter series were obviously posed, and indeed, Davidson has talked about getting the trust of his East 100th Street subjects), etc.

[Mark Sampson]

There's a classic dichotomy here that often goes unaddressed. So I'll bring it up. That would be "Who's paying for it?" Avedon, Newman, Penn, Leibovitz, they and all the other editorial shooters you can name were/are paid by a client, not the sitter, to use their personal style on a well-known subject.
At the other end of the scale, all of the thousands of portraits I shot when I worked for a studio chain were paid for by the sitters (or their parents). Those were made with the specific aim of flattering the sitters enough to get them to buy prints, and lots of them.
I'll guarantee that not one of those portraits were "about me". Except the part that each one represented an honest day's work... in the studio's style, not mine.
Like Frank, I'd still like to find out the source of the quote. I'm sure there's a small, very specific truth there when we find it.

[r.e.]

There's a classic dichotomy here that often goes unaddressed. So I'll bring it up. That would be "Who's paying for it?" Avedon, Newman, Penn, Leibovitz, they and all the other editorial shooters you can name were/are paid by a client, not the sitter, to use their personal style on a well-known subject.
You mean like Robert Frank and Bruce Davidson in the examples that I cited? The Americans was clearly not commissioned. Indeed, when it was finally published, it was vilified. If Brooklyn Gang or 100 East 100th Street was commissioned, it would be interesting to know. In the case of East 100th Street, there are photographs that are part of that series that can't be explained except as personal trust, regardless of who, if anyone, was paying. As for Brooklyn Gang, Davidson has said that it was a personal project.

Was Avedon paid up front to make American West? Not as far as I know.

What comes through loud and clear in the American Masters documentary on Avedon is that many of his subjects hired him directly, knowing that he was going to do whatever he wanted. Or so he intimated, and told stories (eg about the photograph of Charlie Chaplin) that supported what he was saying.

By the way, Davidson has said that the woman that he photographed in Central Park, in a flurry of snow and pigeons, was a woman he befriended and with whom he had an understanding that he would not photograph her. It is one of his most famous images. He has said that she never spoke to him again.

[mdm]

The problem with your shadow is that you can never escape from it except in the dark.

[Mark Sampson]

r.e., you're missing my point. Robert Frank was working on a Guggenheim grant. And I'd argue that calling many of the pictures in "The Americans" portraits is stretching a point, although it seems that Frank wanted to make his portrait of an entire nation.
Davidson is a journalist first and last. Richard Avedon was a star; some people, famous ones, wanted him to photograph them because they liked his style and wanted the cachet of a portrait by Avedon. And "In The American West" was at least partly funded by the Amon Carter Museum in Fort Worth, TX... not that Avedon was without resources of his own.
But most portraits, a lot of bad ones and a lot of good ones too, are made to please the sitter; and they are meant to be about the sitter, not the photographer.

[r.e.]

r.e., you're missing my point. ... But most portraits, a lot of bad ones and a lot of good ones too, are made to please the sitter; and they are meant to be about the sitter, not the photographer.

No, I'm not missing your point, I just think that your point has its limits. I fully agree with your last sentence.

When I was much younger, a number of painter friends did my portrait. I always said, "Do whatever you want, I'm just an object". I always found the process interesting (it takes time, but with enough coffee, cigarettes and good talk, it's kind of fun), and I tended to like the results, even when the result seemed to have little if anything to do with my self-image - hey, I invited them to do whatever the hell they wanted, and they did :)

Re Davidson, not sure about him as "journalist first and last", and not sure that it matters. Much, if not all, of East 100th Street was shot 4x5. I have to be careful what I say here, because I am speaking from memory, but when I say "much, if not all", I mean that all of the prints that I have personally seen from that series are from 4x5 negatives. Many of the photographs are, in my view, portraits on any definition of the term, some of them quite intimate, and many of them rather raw.

[James Morris]

The boxer lady is great, too.

[Eric Rose]

Not taking paid for portraits into account, I am of the opinion that a photographers images are certainly a window into their soul. As people change in response to their environments and liquidity so does their perception of the world around them. While their values in most cases do not change, how they express themselves certainly changes. Looking at Arbus as just one example it becomes very apparent the creator of the art was a tortured person who felt they didn't fit in with the life that was expected of them.

One interesting observation I have made of people who have become for the most part independently wealthy is that they find they can be the person they always wanted to be. Naturally this could be either good or bad. If they were keeping a rather undesirable personality bottled up when they had to "play the game" so to speak, once they didn't need to please anyone but themselves their true personality came to the surface. Photographers who do not have to make a living through their art may be more inclined to "act out" and live this alter ego through their imagery. They can be as outrageous as they want since whether they eat or not is not dependent on selling their images.

[DrTang]

well...the photog is the one pressing the button

so..yeah... in a way


the photographer chooses what is and is not to be seen/shown..so it's more about the photog than it is about the subject for sure



I've often heard and somewhere I've read that "portraits are really more about the photographer than the subject."

I've seen that sentiment written multiple times - perhaps in one of the Richard Avedon book's foreword?

Does anyone know where this notion originated and where it has been expressed most clearly and effectively?

[Bill Burk]

I kept finding articles stressing the importance of spending time to build rapport with the subject. A lot of the photographers were inspired or trying to please Wilson Hicks (executive editor at Life from the 1930's to the 50's), then I found he had this to say on the topic:

From Words and Pictures, 1952 Wilson Hicks.

"When a person is photographed, two sets of emotions are involved, those of the subject and those of the photographer. The photographer's emotions may be in sympathy with, or in some manner different from, or at odds with the subject's. If sympathetic, the photographer in all probability will make the most of his subject's feelings. But if the photographer has a special, private emotion stimulated, but not shared, by the subject, can he convey it to the viewer of his picture? Obviously not..."

[dperez]

In the sense that the photographer chooses his subjects, when and under what circumstances he makes the portrait, yes I agree that portraits can reveal something about the photographer. Avedon went further by saying there is such a thing as an "Avedon portrait," that was distinguishable from others, the same as one might look at a painting and know immediately what artist painted it. To Avedon his portraits were more so statements about himself than the subjects he photographed.

See this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT3XdQ9I2PU


See also this video which touches on the same topic: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Uic6p4lwX8

-DP

[Jay DeFehr]

"When a person is photographed, two sets of emotions are involved,...."

And when someone views the photo, a third set gets involved.

[Eric Rose]

There you go Jay, I always felt portrait photography was a three ring circus ;)

[Jay DeFehr]

There you go Jay, I always felt portrait photography was a three ring circus ;)

It can sure feel that way. I'm glad to know I'm not alone.