A question about Camus.

<p>Fred G.- I should have said they know how to a achieve an agreeable approximation of the complete person knowing it is impossible. This idea could be further explored in cases where proof sheets are available. Which frame? We might have a look under the veneer of a celebs's public face. Poor Judy! Poor Marilyn! Would we choose the same images today from our own family portrait proofs? My guess is not.<br>

I fully agree with you now about pictures being the <em>exact</em> last thing we'd want to see. I remember collecting my dad's bulletin board snaps. Now I'm thinking about which pictures I'd <strong>take</strong> before heading off to the desert island!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Many mundane snapshots and lousy photos are "natural".</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Obviously, but no-one seem to me to be referring to such shots.<br>

When "natural" might be a good term for this something that makes a portrait stand out as of special quality, it is maybe because the person in question is, seemly, neither posing nor being imposed a look by the photographer. The portraits of Freund are in my opinion of that special quality.</p>

<p>Alan, good question about which proof we might choose from the family proofs. And it might be that Judy's daughters would choose differently from Judy's fans. Those of us who know her more by her on-screen and off-screen persona might just choose one that's familiar, because there would be a certain honest reality in that for us. Her family might well choose differently because of the Judy they got to know. Which is Judy's real self is a question I wouldn't ask and wouldn't want to have to answer.</p>

<p>__________________________________</p>

<p>Arthur's notion of the sitter evolving as his or her self fits this discussion well. I've said before and will repeat here that I think the "self" is mostly a flawed notion, especially when it's seen as autonomous rather than social. The topic of this thread, being about the photographer as subject and having already moved in the direction of at-oneness of photographer and subject, can shed some light on this self of the sitter. That self, I think, is not somehow cut off from the photographer. It is in part the photographer, just as all our selves are in part the others who encounter us and add vitality to our lives. We see and are seen and that is part of who we are. And who we are seen by and how we are seen is part of that self, especially that self as found in a photograph.</p>

<p>The self is neither a container nor is it contained.</p>

<p>I prefer to think of people and subjects of portraits as parts of interrelated and overlapping webs, not as discrete entities. Lighting is a photographic tool, the counterpart to a dramatic hand or body gesture or a gentle smile. Whose light it is, whose smile, whose gesture, whose expression often is a hard and even misleading question to ask and answer. The photographer's? The sitter's? The viewers? Perhaps these things just are or become . . . and are not owned by any individual party. We each participate in them.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I prefer to think of people and subjects of portraits as parts of interrelated and overlapping webs, not as discrete entities.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It is Fred's full right to prefer whatever he likes, but sometimes, and for some, they are also discrete entities. </p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>I think the "self" is mostly a flawed notion, especially when it's seen as autonomous rather than social."</p>

<p>I would lean towards the word 'relational' more than social, but otherwise agree.</p>

<p>___________________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Anders - "</strong>It is Fred's full right to prefer whatever he likes, but sometimes, and for some, they are also discrete entities."</p>

<p>I think we can agree that it depends on the level of resolution, type of analysis we are looking at or using, and philosophical approach. We choose what's convenient at the moment. I read Anders' words, and can think of him as a discrete entity, yet he is simultaneously a mobile node in a series of systems and exchanges (energy/food, linguistic, cultural, etc), and an aggregate of innumerable smaller entities and chain-mail cascades of short neurological loops masquerading as the singular "Anders" we know. One malfunctioning hormonal organ and "we" are gone.</p>

<p>Look at this objectively for a moment, remove the delusion of free will, and Fred's POV becomes readily apparent. I remember an analysis of ecosystems strictly in terms of energy exchanges (and the higher food-chain links as energy sinks) about three decades plus ago. It was a revelation to see a familiar concept in an entirely different framework.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"I would lean towards the word 'relational' more than social, but otherwise agree." --Luis</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Luis, I would too. Though there are significant social aspects of "selves", I was immediately unsatisfied with "social" but couldn't put my finger on "relational" when I wrote. "Relational" is a better qualifier in this case. Thanks. </p>

<p>The main point, of course, is not to abstractly dissect the idea of self but to understand what it is a portrait may be trying to show. That a portrait is capable of showing (only) the self of the sitter untainted by the photographer's so-called imposition (perhaps a less loaded term would be "influence" or "perspective" though I personally have no problem with potrait photographers who impose upon their photographs) is questionable given that it takes two to tango. And even a self portrait has imposed characteristics.</p>

<p>I don't find "natural" portraits or portraits lacking pose or the imprint of the photographer any more special than very deliberate and/or staged portraits. Posing and gesture are tools of photographic character and such character is authentically a part of portraiture.</p>

I think Fred makes a good point about the celebrity shots, a portrait of someone known is a photograph showing what

that person looks like photographed. Apparently Mahler was recognized in the streets of Vienna and fame back then

was something altogether different to what it is now. An interesting corollary is what a famous person looks like in the

flesh. Ana ivanovic is much taller than expected from seeing her playing tennis on TV. I have seen scores of people

file past one of our soon-to-be prime ministers, a man already on TV all the time, and no-one recognized him.