![]() It's incumbent on a portraitist to know their subject to some degree, or when time is short, to accept their external signifiers as the clues they usually are… (the clothes we choose to wear, the style of hair, jewelry, posture, speech patterns). I have, for many years, described portraits as collaborations. It makes what we do seem superficial and manipulative. And then they were misinformed by the agent, and the subject, who pretended to be something he wasn't. They were told to make a "revealing" portrait. ![]() These photographers were set up and made to look foolish, manipulative, and incompetent. Is it a service based portrait or capture this person in your own artistic style? That to me is what would make the biggest difference. ![]() So in the end, yes the photographer is what shapes the image but what is in front as well since being given a different story will influence the photographer's creative decisions and as well as what the assignment is. She will do her own thing whether you are Keith Richards or the Queen. Annie Leibovitz would never ask such question. In which case, the photo truly is the vision of the photographer and how he/she wants to represent this personality as opposed to creating an image that corresponds to how the person wants to be seen or perceived. We hear one of the photographer ask "What do you want the photo to say about you." (the video doesn't show how the actor handled the question unfortunately) Now that is by definition a service oriented question unlike a portrait assignment a photographer would be given by a newspaper or magazine. Are we talking about a portrait as a service for the person photographed? Which of course must take into account the expectations of the client. For someone artistic is likely expecting a creative photo of themselves, where as a lawyer or doctor is going to want something more conventional and not too unusual.Īs I kept thinking about this I believe the approach is probably the most defining variable. So I guess my point is, in this particular instance of creating a portrait, yes who is behind the camera matters a lot but also does the perception of the photographer has about the person in front of them as well as the conventions associated with representing that particular kind of person also comes into play. Now had photographers been told: "I am a war-veteran turned street performer, I tour the world to entertain people" the results I bet, would have been much more varied. I bet they would all been somewhat "conventional". Say they were told: "I am an accountant, father, husband, I like fishing etc." I seriously doubt the resulting photographs would have been that different from one another. so this topic is very much on my mind right now and kept me thinking.I know several people said it would have been more interesting had they been given the same story. I'm actually in reflecting mode these days about art, personal style etc. but that's impossible because he's not being honest, so the pictures can't be honest either.Īs someone mentioned in a comment, this experiment would only have been valid if they had been given the same brief and if the actor was being himself. I think the photographers all handle it really well and want to get to know the person first to create an honest image WITH him. They are telling the story they've been given. As photographers we are story tellers, and of course we're not going to tell the same story for a millionaire or a fisherman. It's a collaboration that is influenced by many many factors to long to list here, but in this case they are being lied to and the actor is leading them on. It's not news that the photographer has a huge impact on the photograph. A portrait is a collaboration, not a one way street and I dislike that this is the message being shared. I like the idea, but bothered with the how it was done, and I can't agree with the tag line that the photographer shapes more of the image than what's in front of his lens.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |