We are what we see

<p>The discussion is really good but too fast for me at present (I am procrastinating other writing by the temptation of this discussion) so I will bookmark it and reread it later. Non-portraits are I think often similar to what happens when we lock a video of a person and contemplate what we see. They may be moving or talking and the instantaneous record shows them, often with an unexpected expression (a fragment thereof). Not an intended representation (portrait), but spontaneous like many non-portraits.</p>

<p>This is a photo of a lady I briefly observed in Portugal and captured spontaneously in street shooter fashion, recognising mainly the moment and compositional possibilities provided by the scene, her dog and herself. A non-portrait, but one that I think could be just as representative of her and her life in that sense as one that would be made of her sitting for a portrait. You may not agree with this example but I offer it to show that portraits and non portraits can come close to being the same. </p>

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

<p>In answer to your question, Supriyo, it's one of the reasons I don't love categorizing my own photos and wish we could submit them here for critique without a category designation, though sometimes the category seems obvious enough not to matter. While I might not consider this photo a portrait per se, it's not like it doesn't have elements of being a portrait and I would completely understand others seeing it as one. Because my own emphasis was on the story and I tend to see it that way, I don't talk about it as a portrait but I do connect. Others will emphasize what they want or what just happens for them and certainly shouldn't be burdened by category and in most cases won't see it presented with a category attached, except here on PN. I'm also not opposed to expanding categories, so were I doing a show of portraits, I'd happily include this and let it simply expand the category in this instant. There would always be a purist who might comment negatively on its inclusion . . . and I'd understand why but gleefully leave it in the show!</p>

<p>Another portrait - non-portrait</p><div></div>

<p>Arthur, we overlapped in writing. Love the photo. Agree there's a very fine line and sometimes virtually no distinction between portrait and non-portrait. The time consumed by determining particularly categories I think is worthwhile for historians, perhaps critics, and curators. Not often as important to me, though sometimes having a category in mind and pushing its envelope can be fun to play with. I'd happily accept your above photo as either a portrait or not. Part of it will depend on the context in which I encounter it. Perhaps if you showed it with only other street scenes it will read differently to me than if you showed it with a bunch of more focused, traditional portraits. And part of it will depend on whether today the famous <a href="http://department.monm.edu/chemistry/honors210/fall2005/ncarlson/images/Figure_Ground.png">FIGURE-GROUND</a> example is two profiles or a cup/vase. It will just be a matter of how I look at it at the moment and I may be able to switch back and forth. I would say, as with my photo just above, more often than not I would see it as story-telling as opposed to portraiture, but that doesn't discount the latter view.</p>

<p>In my above post, I was referring to the black and white photo. This color one has less potential to me as portrait and more as street photo. But, again, I wouldn't quarrel with someone seeing it as a street portrait. If you made it part of a series where the common element was the little boy, the series could wind up being a portrait of him!</p>

<p>Sorry for the poor reproductive qualities (saved as PDF then to jpeg). Here is another "portrait" from a visit in the the same region. Nothing very incisive or analytically intentional, but perhaps a friendly non portrait mirror on the person or persons (mother-daughter?)?</p><div></div>

<p>Fred, your photo of three is a portrait and I think more than that. A very intriguing photo that tells a story of the persons or at least tempts us with a part of the story. </p>

<p>"This is a photo of a lady I briefly observed in Portugal and captured spontaneously in street shooter fashion". Arthur.</p>

<p>That's a very good photo, Arthur. Sometimes the mind exceeds the photographer.</p>

<p>A photo I would be proud of..it has an art.</p>

<p>If only you could grab hold of that art.</p>

<p>None of those are portraits.</p>

<p>"None of those are portraits" Julie.</p>

<p>For one of my favorite posters, Julie.</p><div></div>

<p>Fred brought about the (valid) point where the connection one feels in a photo may not be towards the specific individuality of a person. Such images would not qualify as portraits. When I saw <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_11#/media/File:Aldrin_Apollo_11_original.jpg">this image</a>, I asked myself, is this a portrait? There is no individuality of Buzz Aldrin depicted here, all covered in spacesuit. However when I see the picture, I have a dual feeling. I feel a connection towards Aldrin individually. At the same time, I feel that connection shifted from him to the first men on the moon, whoever that might be. Aldrin's individuality is lost at that point.</p>

<p>Formal...equals boring.</p>

<p>My attempt at portraiture.</p><div></div>

<p>" There is no individuality"</p>

<p>Photographs of wildlife in their natural environment is always the most interesting....</p><div></div>

<p>Supriyo</p>

<p>Like it...it has a lovely feel to it.</p>

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

<p>"We are what we see"</p>

<p>We see what we are.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Like it...it has a lovely feel to it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Allen,<br>

Thank you. I like your capture of the spontaneous moment. It reminds me of the cropped shot of this image that is in your portfolio, and the comment of one of the reviewers about the mystery created by the crop.</p>

<p>Allen,<br /> Thank you</p>

<p>Thank you, for posting your photo.</p>

<p>Fred,<br>

sorry. Possibly i misread/misinterpreted what I read.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Luca, not sure why you addressed that to me. Did I come across as saying being is knowledge? If I did, I didn't mean to. What I was trying to say is that I don't think photos are as much sources of self knowledge as they are sources (and causes) of other things about ourselves . . . and the world.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I definitely agree.</p>

<p>Ladies and gentlemen, I kind of miss the point of the development of this discussion.<br>

Certainly the general statement on the relationship between the being and the seeing/photographing is intuitive and valid.<br>

It seems to me that the first one being able to become aware of this is the person.<br>

Certainly it is very difficult to concretely express this relationship using one, or a handful, photographs.<br>

A third person can really substantiate the relationship between "what I am" and "what I see/photograph" only on the basis of a thorough knowledge of the person's self, of the development, and of the body of work. And still then there is a margin for (mis-)interpretation.</p>

 

<p>Thanks for those remarks Luca. I think you are quite right that third person experience related to his or her perception of what the photographer is, is not always very accurate, or rather, not complete. People are too complex for that to be easily discernible from one or even several photographs. Being conscious of who and what we are, though, is still a good thing for us to consider and to aid us in developing our photography. </p>

<p>I'm not sure there's that much difference between first and third person experience related to the connection between oneself and one's photos. Again, though, I'm one who claims not to know myself better than others do in a lot of ways and there are many times where I trust what others say about me more than what I think myself because I'm too invested and biased to always be accurate or on target about myself. Several photographer and artist friends have told me over the years that I put into words what their photos show better than they do and I've helped them see them in a way they hadn't before.</p>

<p>In terms of actually photographing, think how often we misconstrue what can be seen in our photographs because we are the ones who took them. "This is one where I captured the sadness of my Aunt Tillie at her husband's funeral." Well, it's often the case that only you think you've captured sadness because you were there and saw the sadness in the full context. We're not seeing the the sadness because the photo doesn't show what you felt or who you are. It <em>reminds</em> you of what you felt.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure there's that much difference between first and third person experience related to the connection between oneself and one's photos.</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

Fred,<br />I am sorry, if I misunderstood you, but doesn't your last paragraph contradict this statement? I agree that sometimes a third viewer can interpret and analyze my photos better than I do. However I still find my connection with my photos distinct compared to that of a third person. If we take the example of "aunt Tillie", one who took that photo was present in that atmosphere and had the full sense of sadness. The photo captured only a small subset of that atmosphere. As you said, when the person who took the photo views it later, he is viewing it with the full context in mind. The photo at that point serves as a memory booster, while to a third person it is a message to be interpreted. So, however flawed the image is in conveying the photographer's emotions, that flaw is more revealed to the third party. The photographer can still use the image to reflect on himself, because he has the whole context in mind.</p>