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?
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?
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
As just one example and in answer to your question, see Yousuf Karsh
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!
'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.
"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?
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.Originally Posted by Kevin J. Kolosky
"It's the way to educate your eyes. Stare. Pry, listen, eavesdrop. Die knowing something. You are not here long." - Walker Evans
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.
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.
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.
"One of the greatest necessities in America is to discover creative solitude." Carl Sandburg
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks