Does a preoccupation with age afflict fine art portrait photography?

<p>I have said "fine art" portrait photography to distinguish serious photography from casual snap-shot portaiture, not to say that the latter would be out of bounds for discussion.</p>

<p>I originally started typing the question as "Does a preoccupation with <em>youth</em> afflict fine art portrait photography?" upon the assumption that too much attention was being given to young, pretty women (typically women, at least). Then it occurred to me that the appellation "fine art" might tend to affect the way that persons evaluate photos. "Glamour photography" might be done seriously and yet not be taken seriously as "fine art" by many persons. (The "fine art nude" is something else entirely, in my mind.) All that is a separate issue, but the attempt to gain status as a "fine art" photographer of portraits might impel some to take pictures not of young persons, but predominantly of old or older persons:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/5670664&size=lg</p>

<p>In any case, I settled with "age" as the final version of the question as stated because the word "age" does not specify which age, young or old, or in between.</p>

<p>This week's Photo of the Week recipient, Astid M., also took the photo above. Much of her work appears to be of herself when she was even younger. The picture linked above, however, indicates that she is not fixated with youth in her portraiture.</p>

<p>In any case, are we or are we not afflicted with a preoccupation with youth, old age or something else in portraiture?</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>In an effort, Lannie, to make your latest thread go in a more useful direction: <em>tell us what you think, first</em>. Who are you referring to when you say "we?"</p>

<p>Matt, I found the last thread ( http://www.photo.net/philosophy-of-photography-forum/00WuLt ) to be quite useful. So did a lot of respondents. It had more potential than was realized, of course.</p>

<p>To understand the question, Matt, try re-reading the question:</p>

 

<h1>Does a preoccupation with age afflict fine art portrait photography?</h1>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>In the back room at the print shop; fine art is called fine fart work. Each fine art customer thinks their fine art is great; and the other chaps stuff stinks.</p>

<p>If two fine art customers are here at once; the one that leaves first gets talked about by the remaining fine art customer.</p>

<p>Like farts; folks get use to their own stuff they produce. The other persons stuff is rank; ill and rotten.</p>

<p>Fine art is so over-used it means ANYTHING.<br>

<br /> Folks who do not deal with the general public have a narrow definition; basically what they do is fine art!</p>

<p>There is really no limit on what the fine art label means.</p>

<p>Fine arts only common theme is a customer cares about their stuff.</p>

<p>If one has dozens of fine art customers; what then consider to be "fine art" does not even overlap with anothers definition. The Venn Diagram is a mess of islands.</p>

<p>Fine art is like a religion; each customers with a different brackground has a different take. There is no use debating fine art or religion with a customer; it is not wise business. Most firmly believe that the other fine art customers "fine art stuff" is Total garbage; it is often done in a snooty way.</p>

<p>Folks want fine art papers; fine art foam cores; fine art lamination.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>More to your point, Matt (which seems to be about English usage), I am using "we" in the sense that the French use "<em>on</em>": it can mean "one," "they," or "we," depending on the context.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fine art is like a religion; each customers with a different brackground has a different take.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Kelly, I have been asking what "fine art" means for years, and no one seems to be capable of giving an adequate definition (one that satisfies me, at least).</p>

<p>Given that fact, one might think that I would avoid using the term. I use it because most of the time it conveys something that persons understand, or think they do.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>to make your latest thread go in a more useful direction: <em>tell us what you think, first</em>.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Matt, I tend to avoid doing that in a classroom because it can be a real show stopper. Maybe it woud be different here, maybe not. In any case, I prefer to let the question float for now, so that persons might offer their own opinion unaffected by mine or someone else's.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>The preoccupation with desire is as old as the Earth, and will not go away any time soon. Or late.</p>

<p>Age is one of the characteristics of a portrait subject that is easily visible in the absence of other knowledge (the viewer knows the subject, or can divine some knowledge of the subject from the environment). It doesn't take much time or emotional involvement on the part of the viewer to see it.</p>

<p>I don't think it's really a preoccupation... It's largely unavoidable.</p>

<p>Les, I see that you at least have a token older lady in your female portrait folder:</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/11023753</p>

<p>One!</p>

<p>There is a store in downtown Salisbury called "Simply Good." It has occurred to me to set up a tripod across the street and wait for the parade to begin. If I can get them to smile at me (increasingly difficult as I age), then I can catch them in the act, personifying the meaning of the sign right behind them.</p>

<p>By the way, I love your bio on your main page. It sounds like you missed out on a life as private investigator.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, rephrase your title, appease the local wordlords by refudiating the "Fine Art" out of it, put it in Casual Photo Conversations, and I imagine you'd get a lot less flak.</p>

<p>_______________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Kelly typed </strong><strong>-</strong> "Fine arts only common theme is a customer cares about their stuff." </p>

<p>and: "The Venn Diagram is a mess of islands."</p>

<p> Remember, all islands are connected under the water. At some subconscious level, Kelly gets it.<br>

Moral of this story: Know thy printer.</p>

<p>_______________________________________</p>

<p> Lannie, your question is easy enough to understand. I suspect a lot of it has to do with the ease of selling figurative art showing beautiful, 6%-body-fat young'uns. Something most people are convinced they desire and/or desire to be. Face it, the autonomic is a far easier sell than the cerebral.</p>

<p>http://www.ryanmcginley.com/</p>

<p>http://monakuhn.com/</p>

<p>________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Unquestionably, I believe. </p>

<p>If our perception and appreciation was less based upon aesthetics (of form, texture, perfection, visual impact on senses) and sexual urge and fantasy, then age would be less of a factor in fine art portraiture than it is.</p>

<p>There is also the age-independent and less knee-jerk and more reflective human response that is the curiousity about the character or life of the person photographed and less abut natural physical desire or aesthetics and beauty. The portrait of the old woman you show as example is very good - it is the only one in the portfolio of the photographer, but it succeeds in portraying the force of the woman. The eyes have it - one can almost read a life's experience in them. Compare to that the often dead fish on a slab eye look of some models who have otherwise beautiful features. What is also interesting in the old woman's portrait is the intricacy (choice) of her coat lapels, the neatness with which she has arranged her scarf and the perfectly balanced position of her hat. The beauty of her face is evident as well, but one is not looking at this picture as one would in regard to the aesthetics and sexual-sensual levels that one might regard an image of a highly attractive young man or woman.</p>

<p>In our North American society, and no doubt in many others, I think that the question of age is important because the aesthetic - sensual visual response is more sought after by the viewers than that of the human - social response in portraiture. </p>

<p><strong>Lanny - "</strong>If our perception and appreciation was less based upon aesthetics (of form, texture, perfection, visual impact on senses) and sexual urge and fantasy, then age would be less of a factor in fine art portraiture than it is."</p>

<p> Yes, but that's an insurmountably large <strong>if</strong> unless one is living like an ascetic, or in a cave somewhere. We are battered by this kind of imagery every day of our lives, it becomes a shared consciousness, and a near-universal demand characteristic, which anyone hoping to make money, would fulfill.</p>

<p> A few photographers venture into this territory. Joyce Tenneson's <em>Wise Women </em>comes to mind:</p>

<p>http://www.tenneson.com/ww/ww_book_1.html</p>

<p>and Imogen Cunningham's <em>After Ninety:</em></p>

<p>http://www.amazon.com/After-Ninety-Imogen-Cunningham/dp/0295955597</p>

<p>Who else comes to mind?</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Yousuf Karsh. Some of August Sander's work. Halisman. Many more, of course, including several 19th century portraitists (Notman, etc.).</p>

<p>Luis - the quote included the expression"less of a factor"...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Lanny - "</strong>If our perception and appreciation was less based upon aesthetics (of form, texture, perfection, visual impact on senses) and sexual urge and fantasy, then age would be less of a factor in fine art portraiture than it is."</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Actually, Luis, that was Arthur's quote, not mine.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Indeed it was. Apologies to both of you for the misquote.</p>

<p>Avedon also comes to mind.</p>

<p>Karsh also did some portraits of the elderly who weren't celebs, btw.</p>

<p>I think most art portrait photography is about age - either about old people, or about young people, or about people at an age somewhere in between.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I think most art portrait photography is about age - either about old people, or about young people, or about people at an age somewhere in between.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Simon, I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I think that that pretty well covers it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Yeah, I thought it covered most bases.</p>

<p>But I think there is a truth in it too. From what you said I was thinking about the portraits I was taking, and I think most or all of the ones of old people are in some way about being old, the ones of young people are about being young - about adolescence, being gawky and unsure etc., and the others are of people in between, are about the stages of life in-between: life crises, contentment, career, caring for family etc.</p>

 

<p>Young</p>

<p><img src="http://www.croftsphoto.com/Lublin1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Old:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.croftsphoto.com/LvovBallet1.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Somewhere in between:</p>

<p><img src="http://www.croftsphoto.com/LvovBallet2.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>Lannie,<br>

As far as the pursuit of aesthetics go, just looking around on photo.net seems to show that there's plenty of interest in photographing the elderly. There's always room for another photo of expressive, wrinkled faces and hands! I think that paid portraiture might be a different story, because parents always want professional portraits of their children in the context of their activities.</p>

<p>IMO, I do think that the *business* of expressive photography has developed a bit of a youth fetish over the last fifteen years or so.</p>

<p>-- Robert --</p>

<p>I understand, Simon. I think that many photographers deliberately photograph either the young (whether children or nubile young women) or the old, in the latter case often going for "character" shots that purport to reveal something about the person from the face (which I do not doubt is valid as far as it goes).</p>

<p>Everything else in between is rather lumped together in the sense that one does not necessarily target someone in a particular age range (unless one works in advertising), but shoots any interesting subject without particular regard for age.</p>

<p>Those are very nice shots, by the way.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I'm glad you like them Landrum :)</p>

<p>I guess the obsession with nubile young women is sometimes a kind of voyeuristic thing. Though one feature of a beautiful woman is her beauty, which itself is something worth photographing. Though it can be a bit nauseating when done in a tongue-hanging-out-and-wish-she'd-take-her-clothes-off kind of way. Perhaps that's more honest when they actually do take their clothes off.</p>

<p>My picture of the young woman I'm not interested in the sexuality at all, I'm interested in this gawky transition from spotty youth into an elegant ballerina. But that's just me.</p>

<p>On external beauty, I found that old lady very beautiful. She had a kind of glowing from the inside you can see in her cheeky smile. She was one of the Soviet Union's greatest ballerinas and still teaches ballet on a daily basis well into her eighties. But I know what you mean about portraits of old people - they tend to focus on wrinkles for wrinkles sake. Often using post production to exaggerate the wrinkles even more.</p>

<p>The in-between bit I think can be very interesting. It's less obvious and maybe harder to photograph, but maybe we can see a lot about life by putting it under a magnifying glass.</p>

<p>I always love Kelly's posts about fine farts. I just reminds me of when I worked as a wide format printer. The fine fartist will complain about colors, grain and all kinds of other cr*p but they can can completly overlook that the composition was lousy and the shot was out of focus in the first place. Thanks Kelly you always bring a smile to face.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Simon - "</strong>I think most art portrait photography is about age - either about old people, or about young people, or about people at an age somewhere in between.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>Lannie - "</strong>Simon, I'm not trying to be snarky here, but I think that that pretty well covers it."</p>

<p>I do too, save perhaps for the dead and the unborn. The former have been getting some coverage. However, Lannie's post questions whether there is a preoccupation with one end of that pool. Lots of portraiture is not about age, but about character, sex, role, identity, beauty, gender, etc.</p>

<p>I enjoyed Simon's portraits, btw.</p>

<p>_____________________________________</p>

<p> </p>