Face

<p><em>"and I heartily disagree, Fred, about portraiture offering as much as the effective written word"</em></p>

<p>Here's what I actually said: <em>"Portraits (and novels and poems) do a lot more than conveying facts. Communication and, as importantly, expression, <strong>is not a matter of quantity of detail</strong>."</em></p>

<p>My concern is not with quantity or one thing giving me "as much" as another. When I look at a portrait, I am not looking for a biography. I don't have such expectations going in. The visual is not the verbal. Nothing I've ever read about Dietrich gives me what I see when I look at photos of her. It's not about "as much".</p>

<p>I do know that when I look at photos of my grandparents (long departed), I feel their presence quite intimately. But I knew them. When I look at photos of those I don't know, I also feel a kind of presence and intimacy that is both grounded and transcendent. Grounded because (as Luis pointed out in another thread) a photo is <em>fixed</em> in a significant way. Transcendent because the humanity of a good portrait of an unknown person goes beyond the individual even while bringing me in touch with at least a significant aspect of that individual.</p>

<p>Just like in other genres of photography, the photograph is not the thing (or person) photographed. (Though, in all genres, it can be close.) At the same time, portraits can add to our experience and even our understanding of the subject in ways that are unique. They can also be total fabrications.</p>

<ol> </ol>

<p><strong>Arthur - "...</strong>Sinead O'Connor with the cigarette in his ear..."</p>

<p>O'Connor is a woman.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong>However, little else about the person seems to come from these otherwise excellent images of remarkable human beings, at least apart from that already connected to our prior knowledge of them."</p>

<p>Photographs do not convey narratives. Compared to a medium that does, they end up looking like impoverished cousins. Portraits do tell us other things about those depicted, the trait and state aspects of the subject, the photographer, time, technology and culture in which they were made. In Bown's photograph of Mick Jagger, for example, she brought out an intimate expression that is not frequently encountered in other pictures of him. A momentary expression that would be almost impossible to describe outside of photography, or unless done from a photograph.</p>

<p><strong>Arthur - "</strong>they are limited as vehicules for the "face" of the person. That has been usually pre-determined by our former experience of them."</p>

<p>Yes and no. When it comes to people we do not know, either personally, or from media presence, we note a lot of things that we also notice but are displaced & take a back seat to the implicit captioning we carry about celebs (Note Arthur's description of the Russell portrait).</p>

<p>Humans are constantly reading the faces of other humans (and animals, too) for a variety of reasons, many of which are connected to survival, and we can tell a lot from it.</p>

<p><strong>AP - "</strong>Also, I think, we are just <em>fascinated</em> by portraits, mainly because we are f<em>ascinated with our own being</em>."</p>

<p>This is kinda mechanistic, though probably true for most people. I am equally fascinated by a lot of landscapes, microphotography, sociological photographs, still lifes, etc., and I am none of the above.</p>

<p><strong>AP -</strong>"The use of symbols add a little to a portrait, but they can end up being too deterministic"</p>

<p>If used sententiously.</p>

<p>The interaction between photographer and subject opens up floodgates of information about both, though, again, it is not in narrative form.</p>

<p><strong>Luis: "</strong>(the subject) is a woman"</p>

<p>.....And it may not be a tobacco cigarette. Interpretation. The latter is fascinating in itself (and what it also says about we the viewers; Incidentally, the photo was a shot from above the head, showing the subjects shaved scalp).</p>

<p>In the same light, Bown's atypical expression of Mick Jagger (which I admit I haven't seen) may be no more revealing of him than the more usual ones. No more than how I did on a specific mid term 5th grade English exam can give anyone an overall perception of me as a primary school pupil. An instantaneous snippet.</p>

<p><strong>Luis:</strong> "many of which are connected to survival".</p>

<p>Possibly, but not usually as a primary reaction of the conscious mind and thoughts.</p>

<p><strong>Luis: "</strong>This is sort of mechanistic"</p>

<p>I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Action and reaction occurs in much human interaction.</p>

<p><strong>Luis:</strong> "I am equally fascinated by a lot of landscapes".</p>

<p>Of course, but why not? So are many of us. I don't think I meant to say that we are uniquely fascinated by human faces and nothing else. I believe that <em>fascination</em> is perhaps our primary reaction to portraits and not because they propose some sort of narrative or are revealing something to us in a more sublime way (other than our catalysed thoughts, which may have little to do with an unknown subject, per se).</p>

<p>Luis, I agree that interaction between photographer and subject or subject matter can be revealing and open up information. It occurs in a lot of art and photography and is often more revealing in non-portrait work where the photographer has more freedom to mold what he sees to his intentions or values, and also without the necessity of narrative.</p>

<p><strong> </strong><br>

<strong>AP - "</strong>In the same light, Bown's atypical expression of Mick Jagger (which I admit I haven't seen) may be no more revealing of him than the more usual ones."</p>

<p>To you and many others, but perhaps not so to everyone.</p>

<p><strong>AP - "</strong>I don't think I meant to say that we are uniquely fascinated by human faces and nothing else."</p>

<p>Nor did I take it that way. Not at all. It was the implied causality that we are fascinated with portraits <em>because</em> we are also human. I happen to be entranced (or in your wording, 'fascinated') by a lot of Weston's pictures of the Rocks at Weston Beach, but I am not a rock, nor do I want to be one, have sex with one, own it, etc. That is what I meant by a mechanistic interpretation of the attraction of portraits: A blunt equation. I am not denying your point, only saying that I feel there is a wide® range of human reactions and attractions to almost anything, including the portrait. That is all. I happen to not fit your fascination-because-we're-all-humans idea.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I accept your point (last sentence), Luis. We all have differing responses. I also agree with you that fascination ("entrancement" is too strong a qualifier for me) is not the sole mode of interaction of a viewer with portrait photographs. </p>

I'm not sure my face is worth saving! (But it's occasionally worth shaving!)

<p>Julie, it's interesting to me that you picked Goffman as a point of reference. His perspective on social interactions as a driving force in the creation and maintenance of culture (and personality - both individually and collectively defined) is an important contribution to sociological and anthropological theories. Without this appreciation for the social rules and games we all play - and how they work to maintain our sense of self and our position - some theories of culture and society were not dynamic at all. <br>

Regarding face or saving face and how it plays in photography... I think performance is key whether it is consciously realized or not. I mean by this that the photographer is also involved in this performance. Because to capture an image is by its very act meant to have an audience outside that moment in time and place. And so there is a purpose for it - even if not entirely in awareness and if only to manipulate or enhance for one's own enjoyment. <br>

Then add to this the performance of the subject being photographed (if there are humans or animals conscious of at some level being photographed and their reactions). So this to me is absolutely a fundamental reality to photography- that is involved performance. Whether that performance has a goal - or the goal is shared or towards some end like preserving a shared definition of status, beauty, outrage or whatever - is what is so varied.<br>

So I don't think saving face (with any particular assumption about what that means from a particular social or cultural status) is inherent to photographs or photography. It depends on the awareness and purpose of the participants and even then- they can be at cross-purposes (the subject may think he /she is saving face only to find the photographer has another goal or awareness of it, etc.).</p>

<p>Oh, oh, oh .... yes, no and maybe ... dern. Ann, I wish you'd been here when this thread was going on ... I'm going to move to your new thread and work on the idea of "performance." Welcome to this forum!</p>