Does a preoccupation with age afflict fine art portrait photography?

<p>While I have enjoyed the discussion over the last day or so, I don't think most of it has anything to do with portraiture as I conceive of portraiture.</p>

<p><strong>Please note </strong>that I am not talking about whether the pictures are good or bad or whether they are interesting or well-done or anything else except the portrait component of the picture. For me, "portrait" when used narrowly to be about portrayals of people is that which attempts to convey the living person shown. That which makes <em>that</em> person <em>that</em> person.</p>

<p>This means, that I find a portraits after I have drilled down through all the types -- gender, age, nationality (where evident), character types, personality types, mood types -- and so on. I take all that and set it to one side (which is not to say that I don't enjoy it or that it is of no value or that it's in any way less valuable to the picture and may even be necessary contrast to the portrait component and so on and so on ...). What remains (if anything) is where I find, respond to, think about, come to know something about, <em>that</em> particular person. That, for me, is portraiture of <em>that</em> person.</p>

<p><strong>For me</strong>, the only bit of portraiture that I find in the Dijkstra picture is in the sturdy childishness of her left hand (the hand on the right; on her thigh) and the bitten lip with the sightly appraising look in her eyes.</p>

<p>In <a href="http://www.stephenkoch.net/wp-content/uploads/tc.jpg">the Hujar picture referenced by Luis</a>, which I think is possibly the most portrait-rich of any referenced in this thread -- it is particularly the droopy left eye (the eye on the right), the slightly pugnacious nose, and the childish chin.</p>

<p><strong>For me</strong>, Arthur's is not a portrait at all; it's a very nice picture of a nearly pure "type."</p>

<p>Brandt's picture of Nevelson's eye does work as a portrait <strong>for me</strong> -- it goes well beyond "type."</p>

<p>The Boubat picture, <strong>for me</strong>, it's a portrait only of the person behind the one in front -- the foreground person serves as a good and interesting prop for the dark/small person that I find living behind her.</p>

<p>I like the pictures by Simon's wife but, <strong>for me</strong>, most of them seem to be making every effort to tuck themselves entirely into a "type". So much so, that, <strong>for me</strong>, there is very little of the portrait in them. However, t<a href="http://www.sylwiakowalczyk.com/contents/Temporal%20Portraits%20%282009%20-%202010%29/image-Fletcher_profile_no_hand_my/">his one</a>, I think is very much a portrait (<strong>for me</strong>). I think he, quite wonderfully, is not (yet) able (happily) to be anything other than himself. [ Exposed link for email notification users is <a href="http://www.sylwiakowalczyk.com/contents/Temporal%20Portraits%20%282009%20-%202010%29/image-Fletcher_profile_no_hand_my/">http://www.sylwiakowalczyk.com/contents/Temporal%20Portraits%20%282009%20-%202010%29/image-Fletcher_profile_no_hand_my/</a> ]</p>

<p> I saw that second picture of the man in the parka (nice styling job on that collar) in Re: Generation. It was a stand-out. It is richly encoded with the signifiers, and thus culture, of fine art. The combination of decontextualization via the background, lighting, space and clothing enables their successful re-contextualization. For me, the primary effect is one of arts dejavu, but it would be selling the work short to merely reducing it to guessing the referent. The interplay or tuning fork resonance between the two is the thing. Like all tensions between elements and/or ideas, it creates a conceptual field that expands the image, transcending the visible. This serves to create other tertiary order effects, like the archetypal (something Djikstra is a Master at).</p>

<p> These are very good fine art portraits, innovative in a well-plowed furrow. I see possible influences of Thomas Ruf and perhaps echoes to Sugimoto's wax museum portraits. The comments about their being "uncompromising" are very perceptive and a compliment.</p>

<p>The same could have been said of Diane Arbus' commissioned portraits of the Matthei daughter:</p>

<p>http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_37/diane.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_37/familylife.html&usg=__fX64Og5w8DkA5HMNfT00kF8i3cE=&h=461&w=400&sz=28&hl=en&start=0&tbnid=uh0IGbRsHEYbLM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=112&prev=/images%3Fq%3Ddiane%2Barbus%2Bcommissioned%2Bportraits%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26biw%3D792%26bih%3D396%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=118&vpy=29&dur=6585&hovh=241&hovw=209&tx=109&ty=129&ei=qARUTJrwB8H58AbSzNGAAQ&page=1&ndsp=8&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0</p>

<p> The lighting of the models of different ages is not an issue for me.</p>

<p>_____________________________________________</p>

<p> I understand that in the Julieverse, these are far more types than portraits. Julie also picked-up on what I saw in the Hujar (who was one of Avedon's favorite contemporary portraitists, btw) picture.</p>

<p>________________________________________________</p>

<p>There are billboards around San Francisco advertising SFMOMA's 75th anniversary picturing a somewhat theatrically-dressed woman -- a character -- with a lot of attitude in her pose, gesture, and facial expression, with a tag line that reads something like: "People die . . . a personna is forever."</p>

<p>I have difficulty separating, and really prefer not to, type from individual. We are all types and all individuals. Somewhere among that swirling chaos of chosen, imposed, genuine, artificial, internal and external, more general and more specific identities lies what I look for and try to create when making a portrait. I abhor trying to limit what a portrait should be.</p>

<p>A few things that struck me during this discussion . . .</p>

<p>Age does not afflict portraits. Photographers afflict portraits with trite age clichés, from idealized youth to over-sharpened, pathos-laden wrinkles.</p>

<p>I am on a journey photographing middle-aged men . . . like myself. That type seems to act as a baseline for some of my work. Interest, preoccupation, exploration, desire all lead me on. Arthur, I don't and won't deny aesthetics, photogeneity, sexual urges, fantasy. These don't have to be trite. Sensual and visual response is human. Many of us wear our hearts on our sleeves. And many portraits are skin deep. I don't create portraits as a substitute for getting to know someone "deeply." I don't create portraits instead of loving people or instead of having sex with them. I create portraits to make photographs, understanding and embracing both the limits and the boundlessness of that act. Many false and impossible expectations have been placed on photographic portraits in this thread, among many really insightful comments and descriptions. When one expects the impossible from a portrait, one is bound to be disappointed. Much of a portrait and much of a person is right there on the surface.</p>

<p>Many of us have awful final visions of loved ones we've lost: frail, sick, pale, in hospital beds. We are told that, in time, we will remember them looking differently. Why is that so important? Because looks are terribly important, despite learned clichés to the contrary. I remember those I love both inside and out. I rarely hear someone talk about a dream they had of a dead parent without stressing <em>how they looked</em> in the dream. A portrait is about looks, not on the superficial level with which looks are often treated. There need be nothing "deeper" than looks. That's the thing about photographs. They make how things look profound.</p>

<p>Simon, it's your comments and approach here that have really moved me to rejoin the discussion after a bit of a hiatus. I appreciate the seriousness and depth with which you look at portraits, and Djikstra in particular. I was introduced to her work several years ago. I finally got to see some of her prints in NY last year, which enhanced my experience of her immensely. At first, I assumed it was about her use of atmospheric color. That was how she got brought up . . . relative to a portrait I had done that someone mentioned had a "Scandinavian" feel. Now I realize there was more to the introduction. A desire on the part of the person who introduced me to her work that I see the kind of photographic expressiveness she is in touch with. Clearly, there are historical associations to her work and the technical aspects of how she shoots and what gear she uses. But there is also the sense of what she knows and what she is able to show in a photograph.</p>

<p>As Phylo wisely quotes, <em>"not feelings&emotions which the artist has, but feeling & emotions which the artist knows."</em> To that I would add, <em>not feelings&emotions which the subject of the portrait necessarily has, feelings & emotions which rise to the surface when this subject is photographed by this photographer.</em> Djikstra seems to exemplify that, as well as moving me by the harmonization of her stylistic choices with her narrative and emotional content.</p>

<p><em>"...feelings & emotions which rise to the surface when this subject is photographed by this photographer." </em></p>

<p>Yes. As you pointed out, and as did Avedon, photographs deal with surfaces. </p>

<p> </p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>I have difficulty separating, and really prefer not to, type from individual. We are all types and all individuals."</p>

<p> While we're in agreement that we're all that simultaneously, photographers often emphasize (not necessarily consciously) one of these aspects over the other, though both are present to some degree most, if not all, of the time. Very few portraitists treat these aspects equally.</p>

<p><strong>FG - </strong> "I abhor trying to limit what a portrait should be."</p>

<p> I do too, but nevertheless respect the definitions of others, (Julie in particular) if nothing else in an endemic way, and acknowledge that from their POV they look true, even if they do not from where I am, and may positively fuel the artist's energies. The relationship of conceptual limits and form is a complex one. These exclusionary definitions are often stifling, but OTOH, they also make for nice, clear targets for many artists to break through.</p>

<p><strong>FG - "</strong>There need be nothing "deeper" than looks."</p>

<p> True enough, but isn't it at least partially true, from what we can see of another, or someone in a photograph, that we constantly infer,or assume, accurately or not, what others are thinking and feeling, as in Theory (not philosophy) of Mind ? For humans who are not autistic, nor have Asperger's, and many animals, looks/surfaces provide or transmit information for at least a secondary order of depth, often essential for survival. Photographs also allow many viewers Theory of Mind of the photographer, though they're not providing surfaces to echo light to the lens or even (literally) in the frame. I would characterize that as yet another level.</p>

<p>So I would agree that while there<em> <strong>need</strong> be nothing deeper than looks, there almost always is </em>where humans are concerned<em>. </em></p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>"Portrait ( of the photographer ) > *innermost thoughts* > age, old -young > <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.stephendaitergallery.com/dynamic/images/display/Ralph_Eugene_Meatyard_Untitled_1358_67.jpg" target="_blank">Meatyard</a> !"...</em>Phylo</p>

<p>Good. Lots of photographers have done knockoffs on Meatyard's mask photos. Weston may have been influential with his gas-masked (war protest) nudes. But I think mask images like the one you linked were a side project, not nearly as significant as his years-long series of portraits of his wife. They were probably more popular among photo students, however. Meatyard's portraits of his wife comprise a benchmark by which photography's youth preoccupation (and cartoonizing of old people) can be understood.</p>

<p>Ralph Eugene Meatyard is one of the very few notable photographers to addressed the aging proces head-on over a long period. Avedon did it too, with his father, but not for long and late in life, documenting death by cancer. </p>

<p>John, yes, that's why I said that there's more to Meatyard's work than the mask photograph's. But them being a side project, I don't know, a very obsessive "sideproject".</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry I was slow to respond, been away working, a long day.</p>

<p>John, about the different treatment of young and old, I can’t comment too much, but don’t see that it is really a conceptual difference between young and old. More of a pragmatic one – each portrait is different and unique in its own way, using and reacting to the characteristics of the subject. If there were no differences between the subjects and no difference in the approach to each one, there wouldn’t have been any point in doing more than one portrait. That’s just my own personal thought/observation, I’m not speaking for Sylwia – the conceptual background I think is best described in the text accompanying the project which is a good starting point, and any of us can react from there in our own way. I don’t really want to get drawn far into discussing conceptual background to the portraits, because they are Sylwia’s not mine, and maybe I'm too close to them to be either an objective observer on the one hand or the author on the other – I just raised them really because they seemed relevant to the discussion on Dijkstra and making conscious cultural references in body language and gestures.</p>

<p>Luis, that’s great to hear they were a stand-out. I thought so too, but then I’m heavily biased! Did you see them as original prints in the exhibition (if so, in which country/city?), the book, or an article?</p>

<p>And Fred, I’m also glad that you found the thoughts on Dijkstra interesting :)</p>

<p>Simon</p>

<p>A *portrait*. Faded yet descriptive ; 5ft 9in, sallow complexion, faded scar, last seen at the bridge. But what about the <em>person</em> ? Took me a few clicks to find out, sad story.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p> Simon, I've only seen the book so far, looking forward to seeing the prints.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"So I would agree that while there<em> <strong>need</strong> be nothing deeper than looks, there almost always is </em>where humans are concerned<em>. "</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

Happy idea, but far from the case in practice.</p>

<p><strong>When humans are concerned with others, rather than themselves, they are first and addictively concerned with the "looks."</strong> Or do you think something else is going on in Arizona? Aware what led to America's Civil Rights Acts? Ever actually see a "blacks only" sign?</p>

<p>I will not dignify that personal attack with a response.</p>

<p>John K. said, "When humans are concerned with others, rather than themselves, they are first and addictively concerned with the "looks.""</p>

<p>No need to go to Arizona. Look right beside you:</p>

<p>"In a great romance, each person basically plays a part that the other really likes." -- <em>Elizabeth Ashley</em></p>

<p>Some of my favorite photographs are made powerful because they do, visually, what Ashley does in that sentence; they acknowledge the role (chosen or forced) and therefore, give me a peek at what's behind the mask and/or infuse a delicious double-meaning onto the photograph.</p>

<p>Describing a priest in an Eisenstein film, Bela Balazs wrote: "He is like the sublime image of a saint. But then the camera gives us an isolated big close-up of one eye; and a cunningly watchful furtive glimpse slips out from his beautiful silky eyelashes like an ugly caterpillar out of a delicate flower."</p>

<p>Conversely, sometimes a picture works for me because it makes me realize that the role/type/mask is entirely due to my own preconceptions; a great portrait makes me see that what I took for mask was not mask at all. See Edward Curtis's great portraits of (as he called them) 'North American Indians.'</p>

<p><strong>Julie</strong>, you've lost me with your references, but yes...<strong>we do care most about looks</strong>, little about "deeper" things, save perhaps of the individuals closest to us. You're right, we don't need Arizona to know that <strong>we care almost nothing about the "deeper"</strong> of the dozens of people with whom most of us relate each week. </p>

<p>Obviously, there may be a yearning for deeper things, we may fantasize about them, but IMO that can lead nowhere without first knowing how much we care about the surfaces. Photography may help us know that "how."</p>

<p>Hi Lannie,</p>

<p>I really like this question, because it remains open to perception. </p>

<p>Before I comment, I would like to define my use of the term "fine art". I really like your statement at the beginning of your post distinguishing "serious photography from casual snap-shot portraiture." I'll just run, if you don't mind, with the concept of "fine art" being an image that was probably taken with the hope that someone will later appreciate the the photograph as art.</p>

<p>Does a preoccupation with age afflict fine art portrait photography?</p>

<p>I would have to assume that most people have conscious and subconscious associations with age. The associations are often relative, if not specific, to the age we perceive the person to be. This is kinda how our individual thoughts, feelings, and perceptions are created!</p>

<p>I think, that as photographers, if we are choosing our subjects, we are susceptible to being preoccupied with a certain age. Not all of us, and not all of the time, and some of us - yes, all of the time! I think that is the nature of who we are as human beings.</p>

<p>As a voyeur of fine art, we may be preoccupied with a certain age for different reasons. The preference for one thing doesn't always detract from our preference for certain other elements in the photograph. Some people see an interesting photograph, and after their eye has processed, the age of the subject is an afterthought.</p>

<p>And heck, voyeur or photographer, we all have different opinions because we are human and forever changing.</p>

<p>So, No =) I don't think it afflicts fine art. I'd even have to go out on a limb, and say that it can color fine art and make artistic expression more intentional if we maintain an awareness of your question.</p>

<p>Cheers,</p>

<p>Matthew</p>