A Study of Online Portraits

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/01/fashion/01ONLINE.html?_r=2&8dpc</p>

<p>"The practice is so common that it is changing photography itself."<br>

“This really represents the shift of the photograph serving as a memorial function to a communication device,”</p>

<p>Interesting... as a retrospective. The article is a little late in observing a process that's been so well established for most of the past decade it's no longer a trend.</p>

<p>Self-gratification is being widely promulgated as a safer alternative to interpersonal sex, so why not self-portraiture as an alternative to that messy process of dealing with another person in person as opposed to by twitter, facebook, and texting (let's leave sexting out for now)?</p>

<p>How many here can honestly say they haven't done the camera in the face replication of Feininger's classic self portrait?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"How many here can honestly say they haven't done the camera in the face replication of Feininger's classic self portrait?"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yehhh... yup... just looked goofy with the D2H plastered against my huge head. Looked more like a reject from the Borg collective.</p>

<p>Self portraits are not new just more common. Quite frankly as model your self is always available. The convenience is just much to let go.<br>

I have a friend who, to improve his photography, decide to make one portrait a week for a year. As an amateur, the only available model, is himself. He does (about every other month) find a models. but he is now at 51/52 weeks of self portraits.<br>

For Another friend, most of his stuff is done between the kids bedtime and his. Most nights don't work out and, those that do, are not easy to foresee. So scheduling a model is very tough. What does he do? self portraits</p>

<p>So for many amateurs, the self portrait is a very useful way to increase your photography.</p>

<p>I did self-portraiture for a while, and soon realized that my subject was not very photogenic.</p>

<p>What I think ist interesting is a notion that people ("single, under 50") are becoming simulations of their self-taken photographic images.</p>

 

<p> People long ago became simulations of generic advertising photographs, which they later mimicked and replicated as their own, afer driving thousands of miles to see the USA in their Chevrolets, literally. Kodak placed certified signs on photogenic spots along the pilgrim's road(s). Simulacra in the <em>virtual</em> dating world? Perfect!</p>

<p>The author makes a big deal out of: " The Canon Powershot G11, which came out last summer, has a hinged LCD screen that pivots to the side so you can see it when the lens is pointed at you."</p>

<p> Many of the more expensive P&S's from a decade ago had those swiveling LCDs. My Coolpix 5000 does. They really should have had someone knowledgeable in photography edit that article.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>So do my G3 and G6. Journalism isn't what it used to be 8-)</p>

<p>"People long ago became simulations of generic advertising photographs..."</p>

<p>The difference here is, I think, we are now simulations of our own image. Rather than imitating something else (such as advertising images) we imitate our own image -- true simulation. Not being single or under 50, I recall when people knew how they looked in photographs and kinda just accepted being photogenic or not, it being just part of who one was. The article points to a different attitude today.</p>

<p>I recall a quotation from Edmund Wilson you offered, Luis, regarding the people in WES's Country Doctor:</p>

<p>" He said, ‘That was before the era of self-improvement. People just looked the way they looked. They had little idea about how to change. . . . Men donned their brown or gray hats, cocked ever so slightly to the right or left, the sides artfully dimpled, the brim lowered just above the face, the crown reblocked every few months to maintain its stiffness. They wore their plain lace-up shoes and double-breasted suits and heavy overcoats and these uniforms elevated and concealed them in ageless anonymity—from twenty to fifty they were men, nothing more nor less."</p>

<p>Few people were ready, Mr DeMille, for their close-up</p>

<p> </p>

<p>What I meant was that the process has been ongoing for some time, but it is true that the sharks circle closer now. I don't think this is changing photography very far from its primary role as an aide-memoire (or the snapshot from a mnemonic fetish), but it is expanding its role in sculpting and defining one's own identity (fictions included), and its projection. At a very close, personal level. One doesn't have to go tell somebody the latest in the cargo cult of self, one can <em>show </em>them.</p>

<p>In an age when unbridled narcissism is the ultimate virtue, this is not surprising. Another nit to pick with the article is that it only shows young, good-looking people, but if one looks, soon one realizes that these people are in the minority, and that women self-portraitists (lots of them <em>not single)</em> seem to outnumber men.</p>

<p>[ When the famed fashion photographer (now turned artist photographer) Dave La Chappelle was a child, his mother, who was dissatisfied with her real life and economic status, would recruit her photographer son, dress up, trespass and pose quickly in front of high-end cars, pools and houses, creating a hyperreal family album of the life she <em>wanted</em> to live.]</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Spend some time browsing the venomous comments and reactions to self portraits on blogs and other sites, videos on YouTube and elsewhere, and it becomes apparent how much pressure there is to present a flawless avatar... or one so deliberately grotesque that it must be reassuring to the subject to know that he or she can't fail to attract derision, because it's at least one thing in which he or she can't fail. It's beyond the usual concept of narcissism when someone's personal image depends too highly on the opinions of anonymous sycophants and drive-by hecklers. Occasionally, especially in some web subcultures, it resembles a sadomasochistic synergy.</p>

<p><strong>Lex - "</strong>Spend some time browsing the venomous comments and reactions to self portraits on blogs..."</p>

<p> Um....no, thanks. I'll take your word for it, Lex. :-) Maybe we can call it hypernarcissism?</p>

<p> The only thing no one wants is to be disregarded. It's the Mae West paradigm distended into the digital realm.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>To be fair, in a slideshow caption (I think) some features of the G11 were mentioned that are useful for such photos that are not found on my G3 or G6. And I'll give points, too, for getting quotes from Cindy Sherman. I don't think that was dumb luck.</p>

<p>Interesting, and not a negative to my mind, is the survey noting the preference of viewers for self-taken candids rather "than to pictures that are better composed and show them in a more flattering light.". Not good news for portrait photographers and others in similar photo professions if this is a cultural shift. The article mentions, but doesn't discuss, the issue of 'authenticity'.</p>

<p>The preference for lo res rather than hi res reminded me of McLuhan, that low resolution encourages participation in, and completion of, the image by the viewer. Such images are "cool" rather than "hot".</p>

<p> </p>