Power dynamics between photographer and model.

<p>Good comments on how locations, situations, light, time, etc. can affect the relative power of those involved.</p>

<p>There is a difference between a mug shot and one made by a photographer <em>using </em><em>the mug shot style. </em>Just as there is between Eggleston and the casual family snapper. Or between someone like Walker Evans who admitted to photographing as an artist "in the documentary style" and a straight documentarian. Yes, they end up with similarities, but are not identical.</p>

<p>On the script business, it is obvious, particularly in the context of buying or providing the usual commercial portrait -- or in merely repeating oneself.</p>

<p>Power dynamics (where power is apparent, which is what power ... is, I think it's safe to say), happen wherever, whenever the two or more parties depart from a "script." If they are already acting without any script, then they're almost certainly in an unstable state with respect to power-dynamics (power is fluttering; it has not yet settled into a script).</p>

<p>A sado-masochistic relationship, entered into willingly, is not a power relationship; it's a happy couple. They are on-script.</p>

<p>The power-dynamics in Sothern's relationship happened at the point of her cash proposal to her "models" -- before any pictures were being made. If the "models" held to their agreement, then there are not further power dynamics (that is, however, a big "if").</p>

<p>The power-dynamics in Steve's drug treatment persons happened at the point of admission -- where they agreed to the "script" of being in a drug treatment facility.</p>

<p>I don't think the quality or art/snapshot potential of a photograph makes any integral (definitional/necessary) difference to the kind of power dynamics that go on between photographer and "model" or subject. Power is simply about disagreement about an exchange; those times when one party wants the other to do other than what was willingly assumed or agreed to.</p>

<p>If in any or whatever case, photographer or model depart from the agreed to or expected exchange (for example in the improvisational examples given by Fred, or, for example, if one of Steve's subjects were to refuse to be photographed for admission, etc.) than that's where your power dynamics happen. Those points, those times, those occasions <em>before an agreement has been entered into</em> or <em>where the agreed to or expected "script" is departed from</em> seem to me to be where one should look in order to examine power dynamics (find out about them).</p>

<p>Interesting idea about following a "script," which is more typical in a portrait studio session where the client is paying the photographer or artist to do a portrait of themselves. I think the paying client has equal power in this situation as Julie is saying. Interesting to me because most of the portraits I have done over my life have been of the spontaneous nature. I simply approached an unsuspecting person with my camera and asked it I could take their picture. If they agree, then they only have a few seconds in which to figure out how to present themselves. I find that, to my mind anyway, this results in some pretty unguarded and revealing expressions, and perhaps even more unconscious than if we had set the whole thing up and they were paying for it. This is what I love to do and find terribly exciting. Its also why I don't work in a photo studio. I want the power. Sometimes if and when I take more than one shot, I'll get a smiling one. This is usually the shot the person will request, and I will make a print for them, but I will keep and print for myself the shot that is more spontaneous and revealing. </p>

<p>Revealing expressions don't just get caught and they get caught in all sorts of situations, from the most posed to the most candid, both indoors and out. A lot of great revealing expressions get created, not caught. And a guarded expression can be quite revealing. Smiles can be both genuine and revealing or a put off.</p>

<p>Disagreement may be one element to some power struggles, but lots of power dynamics are created by agreement. Boss/worker, for one. I can agree to give my lover power and sometimes do. Likewise, he can do the same. There is still real power there. During a shoot, a subject can choose willingly to give me a certain kind of power and I can do the same.</p>

<p>Who's got power is sometimes not clear cut. I had a shoot the other day where I asked a guy to do something I know I would have found embarrassing and I sensed he did too. But he has the attitude that I know what I'm doing and what I'm seeing and he's liked the photos I come up with, so he obliged me. Who had the power? One could say I demanded something of him and attribute power to me. His willingness to both work with and overcome discomfort was a very powerful move and in many ways it exerted control on that part of the shoot. </p>

<p>As an aside, the lens I had intended to use was malfunctioning and I was forced to use a fixed portrait lens for the whole shoot where I normally would have liked to get in more context than I can with a 50mm on a dslr. (We were shooting out on the street.) That seemed to usurp a lot of power and then I realized that my having to adjust, think on my feet, and see in a different way than I'm used to was very powerful for my own visualizing.</p>

<p>Even where there's a literal script, as in acting, there's plenty of power dynamics between the parties. To me, it's not like power appears when there's a contractual disagreement, expectations are not met, or the parties involved go off-map. It's always there, all involved have some, and it's shifting between them. To those who think they hold the cards, I suggest reading the introduction (and the rest of the book, if you have time) to the <em>Story of O. </em>Power has its perspectives. It is happening when there's agreement, specially when synergy is involved. I sense that when there's a common interest/purpose between the subject and I in an obvious manner, but it is there when there's transactions, understandings, etc too. Duration varies between Steve's 1/30th sec relationships to hours or days, in the case of Stieglitz and O'Keefe, years.</p>

<p>I agree that 'revealing' expressions can be created, and/or modulated, as can poses, subtleties of body language, variety of expression and more by the right photographer. Exchanges of power (and many other human considerations/concerns) build up trust and confidence between those concerned, though sometimes a lack of confidence can be used to great advantage. Fred's mechanical failure and being forced to use a fixed 50mm caused him to rethink, adjust, improvise and tap creative energies -- an empowering thing. </p>

<p>Just for fun I photographed a willing co-worker in the same setup I photograph patients: one shot, straight on, available light, standing against a wall. So I ask you, is this mug shot a portrait?</p><div></div>

<p>It's a portrait. The power dynamics -- what this thread is about -- are entirely different from a mug shot whether or not I could have made this discrimination without Steve's given info.</p>

<p>Sex in an arranged marriage between two strangers is the contractual fulfillment of <em>one part of</em> what has been agreed to by the marriage. A mug shot is the expected fulfillment of <em>one part of</em> what has been agreed to in some larger process.</p>

<p>Power dynamics are about the pre-event explicit or implicit agreed-upon expectations of the parties involved. In my opinion.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>So I ask you, is this mug shot a portrait?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Neither.</p>

<p>Well yeah Fred, it is contrived since he is not a patient. Had he been a patient it would have been typically the same thing. I photographed several patients that same evening. To my eye they were portraits, but served as mug shots. Julie, I think by definition it would be a mug shot, due to the purpose of the photo, which does define the power differential, since we explain we need such an identifying photo in the chart. We do have the power here, since they are coming in for treatment and tacitly understand that we need to do certain things as part of that treatment. A patient can refuse to be photographed when the whole idea is causing distress for them. I think I've only encountered a couple of patients, out of thousands, who refused. Often the next day, when they are in a more stable mood and realize we are caring and supportive, they consent to a photo. </p>

<p>Interesting that sometimes a patient will ask to keep their photo at discharge to remind themselves of how they looked when they came in, otherwise they are destroyed and do not become part of the permanent record. The photos are printed in black and white on office paper on the copier/printer.</p>

<p>Were it mine, I'd refer to it as a pic of a friend I took at work. I take pics of friends and other people all the time in all kinds of situations. I don't necessarily refer to them as portraits.</p>

<p>I'm wondering if I associate portrait with an element of photographic and emotional care. Haven't thought about it much. Just seem to go with my gut on what I consider a portrait. I know I have at least a few photos that others would refer to as portraits which I don't. Some I think of as fine art. Some I call photos with people. Some are snapshots. Hard to pin it down and some straddle a couple of lines. For example, some head shots I see seem like portraits and others are more clearly head shots.</p>

<p>It looks like a quick snapshot to me.</p>

<p>I can't think of a portrait that I like of any of my friends and family that's <em>not</em> a snapshot (these portraits were not made by me).</p>

<p>As to what I think makes something a "portrait," I like this description from Steven Connor (from his book, <em>A Philosophy of Sport</em>), even though he's not talking about portraits <em>per se</em> ...:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"... There seems here to be an unexpected logic of what may be called the essentially gratuitous, in which grace is conferred precisely by the sense of what is performed just a little in excess of the necessary, when economy can appear as a kind of <em>style</em>, the performing of an act that just minimally shadows or quotes itself as a performance. The curve and the swerve seem to embody in particular this gratuity, in the margin or fringe of possibility that it always includes."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I like the idea of catching "just a little in excess of the necessary" where, for me, "the necessary" points back to those dreaded "scripts."</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't think of a portrait that I like of any of my friends and family that's <em>not</em> a snapshot</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe you need to meet a decent portrait photographer. I see so many of those Sears type portraits and would prefer most any snapshot over those. On that level, I can relate to what you're saying. But a good portrait is special and, as your quote points out, very different (in most cases) from a snapshot. Snapshots don't usually have that little more than necessary, that performance quality your author connects to, and to which I can really relate.</p>

<p><em>"the performing of an act that just minimally shadows or quotes itself as a performance"</em></p>

<p>That's where care or intention would come in.</p>

<p>Great stuff. Thanks!</p>

<p>Fred, your comments have made me think more about the difference between "portrait," and "snapshot," and "fine art." I think I have been blurring the line between the portrait idea and fine art photo. I know these are fuzzy concepts anyway, but I think it is worth using them nevertheless. I think of the mug shots we do of the patients at work that are done with a certain mindfulness of catching some energy of the person, and done with an intentional style, as I typically do (I really can't not do it this way) as probably falling more into the art category. I have been using the term portrait, but you have brought up the idea of "an element of photographic and emotional care" as being a component of a portrait, which my mug shots typically do not have. What they do have is an emotional intensity, a "bare exposure," vulnerability element that is very striking, and interesting, but they are missing the "emotional care" element. A whole series of these mug shots in a gallery would be very emotionally moving.</p>

<p>Yeah, Julie, I like your comment on the idea of catching "just a little in excess of the necessary" where, for me, "the necessary" points back to those dreaded "scripts" is right on for me when it comes to portraiture. <br>

Luis, yes, it is a quick snapshot, a lame attempt to demonstrate the conditions in which I photograph actual patients, but the example pales compared to the real thing, which I cannot show here, or anywhere else. </p>

 

<p><strong>Steve Murray - "</strong> What they do have is an emotional intensity, a "bare exposure," vulnerability element that is very striking, and interesting, but they are missing the "emotional care" element. A whole series of these mug shots in a gallery would be very emotionally moving."</p>

<p>Why? Because the subjects are suffering? You don't have to show them. They're dime a dozen. The world is literally littered with this type of photograph, lately with the ubiquitous "before and after" addict mugshots. See below.</p>

<p>[WARNING: These pics could ruin your Pop Tarts]</p>

<p>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41787410/ns/health-addictions/t/shocking-mug-shots-reveal-toll-drug-abuse/#.T6qgOlJGm_I</p>

<p>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/meth/body/faces.html</p>

<p>They're aired regularly on TV as well, as are pictures of addicts to smoking who've faced horrible outcomes. Before that it was people with AIDS. It's more like being mugged emotionally than emotionally moving. Are these <em>portraits? <br /></em><em>Fine Art? </em>I do not see them that way.</p>

<p><strong>Steve Murray - "</strong>Luis, yes, it is a quick snapshot, a lame attempt to demonstrate the conditions in which I photograph actual patients, but the example pales compared to the real thing, which I cannot show here, or anywhere else. "</p>

<p><em>Why </em>does it pale before the real thing? A quick snap of a co-worker is somehow transformed because the subject is in the grips of a grave personal crisis? How is it not a quick snapshot of someone suffering? That's the part I am interested in. What changes? </p>

<p> </p>

 

<ol >

<li >

 

 

<table id="gbmpal">

<tbody>

<tr>

<td > </td>

<td > </td>

</tr>

</tbody>

</table>

 

 

</li>

</ol>

 

<p>Luis, the photos of our patients are not of the sensational type you see in the examples you provide here. I actually find those type of sensational reportage uninteresting and over done, like the photos of homeless people living under a bridge, for instance. The photos I am talking about are not nearly as extreme. These are for the most part average people who happen to struggle with some kind of addiction. They come from all walks of life, from college students to ministers and lawyers, to housewives. There is a vulnerability you don't typically see in a snapshot you might do in the back yard of your uncle. Well, maybe. I don't know your uncle! My example of my co-worker is not quite the same thing. In the patients I see glimpses of shame and disappointment as well as glimpses of resiliency and hope. Its a mixture of looking familiarly normal but emotionally at a crossroads. So, yes, the quick snapshot of a co-worker is transformed because the subject <em>is</em> in the grips of a grave personal crisis. We humans are infinitely good at reading emotions on a person's face. They don't have to be deformed from extreme self abuse or something like that. That's what makes it so interesting to me as I do these photos. Maybe someday I can get something like this from people outside the health care system that can be shown publicly. </p>

<p>I worked for years as a counselor in a chronic pain clinic before this position. I could have done a similar series of portraits of those folks as well, just sitting in my office with the window light, that showed an emotional intensity very much different from a "scripted" studio portrait. I realize that these types of photos/portraits can be done in many other venues. Its just when you "see" them over and over again on a daily basis it makes you very aware of the human condition expressed through the facial expressions, and you wish you could do a series that other people could see. </p>

<p>I have to add that I do think that knowing something about the person's condition, as in the photos of our patients, does add information which makes the interpretation of the photo different from an "uninformed" viewing. Of course it does. I think this is what pushes this type of photo series, if it were done, into the fine art category more so than a portrait category. </p>

<p>Steve, I don't know what it accomplishes to talk very specifically about photos we can't look at. You tell us your photos of patients being admitted are of the kind or caliber of Avedon's photos. That's a bold claim, and it might be true but it's one I'm skeptical of. I can't make a judgment for myself and can't discuss the specifics of where your thinking could be totally off base. I'm just not sure I can get much out of this very specific referencing of photos I cannot see.</p>

<p>I'm not suggesting you show them, by any means. But I don't see what good it does to talk about them so authoritatively when the rest of us don't have the benefit of participating in any kind of informed way.</p>

<p>The one example you have shown has nothing to do with portraiture and is not in the same universe as Avedon, and you seem to know that. So I'm not sure what the purpose was in showing it. If it was to give me some idea of what you're talking about without being able to show the real thing, it only furthered my skepticism about your claims for the work.</p>

<p>Steve, you actually said these shots have no emotional care and that's the reason you moved them out of "portraits" and into "art." I'm not sure why you think a lack of emotional care would move something into the art category. Showing the suffering of others without emotional care seems a classic definition of exploitation. Use the suffering of others to move people emotionally, and do it from a safe emotional distance. This is murky territory because there are great photojournalists who maintain distance and there are great artists who do so. And there are great artists who clearly exploit. Hopefully, they know they're doing it when they're doing it. The question is not whether we exploit our subjects. I think we MUST, on some level. (Not sure of that one, but I don't mind putting it out there as a hypothesis). It's what more we do than that, if anything. And if no more than that, it's what consciousness we have of what we're doing.</p>

<p><strong>Steve - "</strong>Luis, the photos of our patients are not of the sensational type you see in the examples you provide here. I actually find those type of sensational reportage..."</p>

<p><em>Reportage? </em>Those are mostly mug shots taken by the police.</p>

<p><strong>Steve - "</strong>These are for the most part average people who happen to struggle with some kind of addiction. They come from all walks of life, from college students to ministers and lawyers, to housewives. "</p>

<p>So are the people in the police mug shots.</p>

<p>I also do not understand how the "lack of emotional care" transforms anything into art per se. Do you think that other people in the field, such as yourself, would also make Avedon-like portraits of patients? </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Like you said Luis, its hard to talk about something you can't see. Its a dead end here. I was just musing about something Fred had said about lack of emotional care. Its just an idea. It may be nothing. I think we could talk endlessly about what constitutes exploitation, sensationalism and who can photograph as well as Avedon. I am interested in photographing people. I just happen to work in a field, like many people do, where the people I work with are very interesting because they are in crisis. Since I cannot photograph them for public viewing I can only make comments such as the ones I have made here. I will continue to photograph people I can show in public. You can see what I do and decide for yourself what is art or portrait or mug shot etc. Sometimes I don't know. </p>

 

<p>I have read down to <strong>Fred G's post</strong> about D. Lange. <br /> I think that Lange's portraits can't be a reference point here, because times have changed since the depression era, 1930. So, the approach of taking portraits of poor people on the street might require a different approach. As <strong>Brad said</strong> for people in the street that they are just people. Without having them categorised by a social class. I also share the same opinion about it. I feel it was unfair that Lange didn't pay to the immigrant, poor mother. It's a sad story behind. Though it was a reciprocal help. Yes, but on the general level of humanity. So that "I" can read about it "today". <br /> When I meet various people in the street, sometimes "holding the power of the encounter" is on me. At least I felt that way. You can see a few portraits of women in my folder "Glimpses" - Untitled VI, IX, X.<br /> http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=1031459 <br /> I find myself lucky that my presence didn't disturb these three women. I have developed my own methods so that I can deliver my ideas, or a concept, successfully. What I noticed for myself is, that it takes a different mind frame when I'm on the field. It's like growing. And I'm enjoying it a lot.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> I feel it was unfair that Lange didn't pay to the immigrant, poor mother.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You're really going to judge Lange almost a century later from where you sit, <em>enjoying</em> your work on the street? That's rich.</p>