Pablo Casals, 1954, by Yousuf Karsh - WEEKLY DISCUSSION #18

<p>As someone who makes portraits (of humans) only by accident, I recognize that one of the things preventing me from attempting work in that genre is the existence of work by masters like Yousuf Karsh. Karsh said that his Churchill portrait changed his life - it provided him with opportunities for a wondrous range of subjects and circumstances, and he used those opportunities to such effective results. His standout portraits are so familiar (Shaw!, Einstein!), but still - for me, every time I take a moment to look - remain electrifying, soothing, startling, and just once in a while annoying. But despite that intense familiarity, his collection derails me every time I look at it. It's just the sort of body of work to make me question my own urge to ever even dabble.<br /><br />In once again touring his portraits, I was struck by his experience in photographing the great cellist, Pablo Casals. Here was Karsh, a man fairly immune by that time to the heady perfumes and toxins given off by his celebrity subjects, who none the less found himself temporarily unable to be a photographer as he listened to Casals play. There to photograph the man, he was electrified by that other master's work in much the way that I've been by Karsh's own. So for me, <a href="http://www.karsh.org/#/the_work/portraits/pablo_casals"><strong>his Casals portrait</strong></a> takes on a special significance. Karsh's personal experience of Casals' playing inspired his one and only subject's-back-to-the-camera portrait, and they found a spot to convey a sense of the musician's principled, self-imposed exile from his beloved Spain.<br /><br />It's an image that can't - without accompanying commentary and context - provide its audience with a full understanding of Casals' musical mastery and ardent political passions. But the portrait has the power, for me, to compel the research necessary to understand it - and both men - more fully.</p>

<i>For those who are using various iOS devices and whatnot. <A HREF="http://www.robertkleingallery.com/gallery/images/20th_century/karsh__yousuf/Karsh_Casals_Pablo_1954%20(1).jpg">Here's a hard link right to a JPG of the portrait in question</A>: http://www.robertkleingallery.com/gallery/images/20th_century/karsh__yousuf/Karsh_Casals_Pablo_1954%20(1).jpg</i>

<p>Thanks, Matt. Here's a link to some of Karsh's best portrait work:</p>

<p>http://121clicks.com/inspirations/the-greatest-portraits-ever-taken-by-yousuf-karsh</p>

<p>All of his portraits are iconic, and I think that stems from Karsh's ability to capture the human quality behind the public face - which, by the way makes the shot of Fidel Castro a little scary.</p>

<p>But, why is the portrait of Casals so different? Shot from behind, from a greater distance, and almost in the dark? I don't see anything of the human there, only darkness and isolation.</p>

<p>Karsh was the consommate photographer, deeply related to his subjects and willing to spend the time to understand them and interpret them in a unique way. I take a very different impression from the portrait of Casals than does Wiliam. If it was the photograph of an individual sitting in a dark room it would probably strike me in the same way, but here we clearly see a musician playing his cello, engrossed in the moment and the music (as was Karsh, in listening to him).</p>

<p>It is a great portrait, as it shows the personal world of a musician and brings that essential part of his personality and his love to the fore in this image. It is also significant in its apparent depiction of isolation, as Casals was estranged from his beloved Spain, but it is the mind of the musician and the profondity of the music that we see in this portrait.</p>

<p>The site given by Matt is also an excellent one to puruse Karsh's images and thoughts and the images are well reproduced, without any false color cast often seen in many reproductions on the net. The image of "Grey Owl" (An englishman turned Indian and an environmental hero of his adopted country, Canada) is a favorite, but some of Karsh's early work is also well worth the viewing. Thanks Matt.</p>

<p>Alas, I realize too late that my original link is to a site that (in 2014, no less!) requires Flash in order to display the images. So, that will be frustrating to those who are using various iOS devices and whatnot. <a href="http://www.robertkleingallery.com/gallery/images/20th_century/karsh__yousuf/Karsh_Casals_Pablo_1954%20(1).jpg"><strong>Here's a hard link right to a JPG of the portrait in question</strong></a> - it's found online in countless places.</p>

<p>I think the window finishes the picture. One thing if you look at most of his work. He wasn't afraid of shadows, light and darks, contrast. Today, so many are enraptured by ETTR, HDR, etc. and the technical ability to "see" into shadows, that they miss the tree in the forest. Shadows are often best left inpenetrable. </p>

<p>Matt, one of my favorite portraitists. I adapted his Churchill technique of grabbing Churchills cigar to produce the belligerent expression when photographing some cowboys with their guns pointed up at my boomed camera. I kept shooting off the tethered lap top till they started to get annoyed holding those guns up there. Shot 19 was it. Lesson I learned was don't tell armed men you just intentionally pissed them off to get the shot. They were just kidding... I think. I love Karsh's use of light. Here he left in just enough window to give motivation to his lighting direction. I see it as the loneliness of all the practice that went into achieving Casals skill. If you were forced to take music lessons as a child, it sometimes felt like being jailed. I like his use of a bg light in many of his other photos. His shot of O'Keefe in her living room is a marvelous use of the 90 degree wall to the door being dark yet she is lit by the door and hallway for bg separation. He ignores the "nothing bright at the edge" the whole right edge is a portion of an open doorway. The elk skull on the wall behind her with graphic antlers is remeniscent of her paintings. Great use of the difference in tonality in corners. One of my favorite shots. That shot is on the wall in her home/museum. His collection resides on my coffee table with Steichen, Cartier-Bresson, Ritts, Caravaggio, Vermeer. All masters. </p>

<p>What grabs me first is the shapely female-shaped / cello-shaped negative space form on the right side of the image. First of all it is sensual and echoes music. Second of all, it helps establish his isolation and my own feeling of being allowed into a private moment, an interior moment, emphasized by the hardness of the wall Casals and I as viewer both share, though that same wall's textures are so rich as to add some warmth, for me, to the photo. Also lovely is the way the shadow forms on the floor, also with a feminine curve to it, also suggestive (and less overt) of a cello. He sits in the shadowed part, at the very edge, and yet that shadow resonates with a beautiful glow of light. I think the downward perspective and the height of the walls adds to my sense of the man's at-oneness with the music and focuses me on him in an empathetic way. I am not being introduced to him or meeting him so much as coming along with him. I think it is more than a portrait of Casals (as many good portraits are more than just likenesses of their subjects). Looking at this photo, I get that feeling like I used to get when I was a child and got to sit on my dad's shoulders.</p>

Ah, thank you, Matt, for that second shot of the photo. The first, while showing up on my computer has the back stone wall as almost total black. In this photo I can appreciate the image and the work done to make the capture. I will have to read up on Mr. Karsch and see if he was user of the Zone System. It would appear that certain elements of this photo would require controlled development of the negative. With most of his portraits of men he uses Rembrandt lighting to bring up contrast. He could also have used underexposure and overdevelopment of the negative to further enhance the contrast.

 

The interior of the room is well exposed and the small exterior view outside the window is also well exposed. Mr. Karsch must have waited for the day to darken down so the ouside exposure would equal the inside exposure. Otherwise, the window would be a bright white. Or else he just got lucky in his time of day. When I get lucky like that I usually lie and say I planned it like that.

 

There seems to be a single light high up shining directly down on on Mr. Casals. That makes it very hard for me to understand how the shadow can be so broad on the floor beneath him.

 

The photo taken in a stone room enhances the impression of the sound that would be created by the cello, sharper and clearer. People sing in showers because the tile makes the voice sound sharper and clearer also. I can almost hear the sound of the cello, much more so than if the photo was taken on a wooden stage in a vast auditorium.

 

Lately these weekly discussions seem to quickly become more about the photographer than about a chosen photo. Then they further descend to a philosophy of photography art speak level. This photograph could certainly bring forth much discussion on the aspects of how it was created alone.

<p>James, I feel the need to interject something here, out of respect to all participants. Though I spearhead these discussions by asking a member to choose and introduce a photo each week, I do try only to act in that capacity and not drive the choices or where the discussion will go. I want it to feel like a grass roots project and I want people to address the photos in any way they feel comfortable. I haven't felt any discussion "descend" into anything. As a matter of fact they've been unusually free of more typical contentiousness that can be found in various forums. People will take the discussions where they want and I feel quite strongly that they should be given the freedom to do that without characterization. However you want to address these photos is most welcomed, and that should be the case for everyone who participates.</p>

<p>___________________________________________</p>

<p>Out of respect to Matt and his choice, I won't further discuss the workings of these threads here, so as not to distract from the photographic discussion. If anyone has suggestions about the threads or things they want to discuss that aren't particular to a chosen photo, please feel free to contact me any time via PN instant message or through the PN email system. Thanks.</p>

<p>James, looks like 2 lights one on each side-rear. The two lights are producing the edge light on both sides. I think I am seeing a double shadow on the floor. Perhaps he checked the brightness of the window first and then brought his interior up to a level with his lights to balance the exterior ambient setting his exposure accordingly. If this is the currently popular hatchet lighting we see today, 2 winged kickers and the front light high as fill, perhaps there is a fill that is also lighting part way up the wall with slower fall off because it is well back of the subject and the darkening higher up is what the ambient would have produced. It results in a nice vignetting effect. </p>

<p>I'm fond of this portrait since it breaks free of Karsh's grand taxidermic style which, in the case of Churchill, often obscured as much or more than it revealed--celebrity photography at its finest. For once, Karsh's subject is caught actually doing what they were known for, rather than posed in a museum-like diorama setting. He dropped this late in his career. Casals probably laid down terms and conditions than Karsh followed.</p>

<p>What I take from these weekly examples is not so much technique, which is often quite simple or easily discernible by experienced photographers, but more the communication of the photograph itself. Sometimes this communication illicits emotional or artistic analysis and perception which is what a good image is all about. If the photograph interests us, we usually have links that allow us to become familiar with his other work and that can be an added plus to these discussions that were piloted by Fred. A good image also has several levels of communication. I admit to having missed the curved wall at right and am glad that Fred mentions it as it supports the communication of the photo by echoing for me the harmony or flow of music that was being played during the shoot (I think that Karsh said that he nearly forgot about photography in the presence of the music being played by the great cellist). What I most like about Karsh is his empathy with his subjects, whatever their difference from his own life (his photography with Fidel Castro lasted more than three hours, when the man was fatigued, thus it was more than a quick and timewise-profitable reportage photo).</p>

<p>Karsh had the chance of one photo only with Churchill, in a very brief visit. Churchill had no interest in being photographed and it was only his entourage that teased him into submitting to the photographer. Considering the constraints that he did not normally have, his photo of Churchill is likely one of the best made of that person (including one very late in Churchill's life, taken through his window opposite Hyde Park).</p>

<p>This is first participation in one of these posts so hopefully I didn't veer from the purpose of this type of post. Since my degrees are in Literature/the arts and psychology, I have some comments but need some time to mull them and have 3 portrait sessions coming up so have to get my seamless hung. Will comment later tonight. </p>

<p>Here's a review of Karsh's work by A.D. Coleman (whom some participants here actually look to as a sort of "wise voice").<br>

Coleman, of course, is the guy who criticized Ansel Adams for his harsh and uncollegial criticism of Mortensen (last week's topic, where Coleman came up). Too harsh on Karsh? You be the judge.<br>

A D Coleman in "Shows We've Seen" <em>Popular Photography</em> 1973-08<br /><br /></p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>Yousuf Karsh</strong>, at the Albright-Knox Museum,<br />Buffalo, N.Y. (March 27-May 6).<br /><br />Since the work of Yousuf Karsh has evidenced neither change nor growth over the past quarter-century, a retrospective exhibit like this-whose usual function is to demonstrate the development of an artist's lines of inquiry-only serves to point up the limitation arid monotony of Karsh's<br />uninventive style. The triviality of his body of work is manifest in the fact that there is little to be said about it now that could not easily have been said 20 years ago. Karsh seems to me perhaps the most overrated photographer of our century, one whose reputation is based on an entirely sterile, repetitive, and banal accumulation of images. His output reminds me of nothing so much as the countless changes rung by those hack painters who frequent summertime outdoor art festivals on the theme of the sad-eyed kitten or the clown on velvet. Overstylized, stilted, utterly without life or insight, Karsh's portraits apparently fill some continuing cultural need for kitsch caricatures of the world's superstars. Karsh, as a cultural phenomenon incarnate, functions as an equalizer of sorts, reducing everyone who comes before his lens to a depersonalized gargoyle. The resulting grotesqueries display-I presume unintentionally-Karsh's inability to relegate his acclaimed lighting technique to its proper place. Its total domination of virtually every image in this show points up just how much a slave Karsh is to his style and his equipment-a sad and sorry sight.<br />The only reason, in fact, that I bother to write about this exhibit at all is that it is the largest photographic show mounted at the prestigious Albright-Knox since that institution's courageous presentation of a controversial Photo-Secession exhibit back in 1910. Granted, the Albright-Knox has coasted on that early venturesomeness far too long. Nevertheless, to mar that unblemished record by making this ghastly travesty of photography its second major plunge into the medium was, from an historical and esthetic standpoint, the very worst kind of curatorial irresponsibility.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think Coleman was a very petty and bitter person.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>a review of Karsh's work by A.D. Coleman</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, to be fair, a lot of people did think of Winston Churchill as a sad-eyed kitten.</p>

<p>Thanks JDM for that Coleman quote . That is the type of critical eye denouncing the "depersonalized gargoyle" and "how much a slave Karsh is to his style and his equipment", that can only call on our respect - and don't be surprised, that I express my viewpoint on the matter.<br>

<br>

In fact, what I think we all first of all see in this series of portraits are faces of people (Pablo Casal excluded of obvious reasons) which have marked our near history (is Fidel Castro surviving them all ?) and which immediately make us recall our knowledge, experiences and emotions. Karsh is certainly right, that his portrait of Churchill made his career and success as an acclaimed much demanded portrait photographer, but it did not make him a better portraitist. </p>

<p>As I look through the work of Karsh, I also don't see a lot of variety (except in some subtle ways) and perhaps not the kind of evolution we often see in bodies of work over time.</p>

<p>That being said, there are several portraits I am happy to be moved by and learn from, in part because of a simplicity and minimalistic way in which Karsh tells a story about his subjects, often with a single prop or gesture combined sometimes with lighting that seems made for the sitter.</p>

<p><a href="http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e8/Cecil_b_demille_-_karsh.JPG">DeMille</a>, <a href="http://filmmakeriq.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Humphrey-Bogart-portrait-by-Yousuf-Karsh.jpg">Bogart</a>, and <a href="http://coffeeandjamesbond.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/26_boris_karloff-theredlist.jpg">Karloff</a>, among others, are three examples where Karsh's photographic input, sometimes quite economical, connects me to what I know of these people, and makes them seem familiar—which is the establishment of a kind of intimacy—whether as people or as the public persona I've come to know (which, to me, is as real as anything else).</p>

<p>While I am likely to have my own criticisms of many great photographers, and I understand a critic like Coleman's need for hyperbole sometimes (not just need but sometimes emphatic expressiveness to make a significant point), I'm less likely to dismiss an entire body of work simply for my love of the medium and of appreciating so many different approaches to it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>The resulting grotesqueries</em> —Coleman</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't shy away from the grotesque, even when imposed by a photographer on a portrait. A portrait can be as much a creation as a reflection, as much a projection as a representation, as much about what the photographer wants as what the sitter has to offer. In Annie Liebovitz, for example, another portraitist often maligned for photographing famous people and stylizing them to suit herself, we have much more flattery than in Karsh. Both are fine with me.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"I think Coleman was a very petty and bitter person."</p>

<p>And one you just happen to disagree with in his reading of Karsh. I tend to agree with Coleman who stops just short of calling Karsh's work "kitsch" for its sometimes over-the-top sentimentality.</p>

<p>I can't fully understand this photograph's power, nor do I want to. I've often contemplated "what-if" scenarios that would lead me to exile from my homeland -- most likely to Spain, as irony would have it, because I am half Spanish. Anyway, this photo has a certain gravity to it, and in viewing it, I think I feel something of the pain of Casals' exile.</p>

<p>Many of you may want to listen to Casals' performance of Bach's Suite No. 1 for Cello, Part 1, performed in 1954 in the Abbey de Cuxa in Prades (when and where the photograph was made). Casals' performance was brilliant:</p>

<p>

<p>Note: The introduction ends, and the performance begins at 0:53 in the video. I would be grateful if a more linguistically gifted person than myself could offer a rough translation of the introduction.</p>

<p>Rather than be swayed by Coleman's tirade ("hack painters at outdoor fairs" - moderation as a critic does not seem to be something he can deal with intelligently and rationally) in his sad attempt to not be "trivial" in his writing and to comment from some higher state, I think we should look at each person photographed by Karsh and simply ask ourselves if the portrayal adds something to what we had otherwise seen of the person from other images.</p>

<p>His style does not change greatly with time. That can be said of a number of artists as well, or writers, or composers. But are we looking simply for original approach, or style, or light placement, or what the image really communicates and which requires more than fanciful or offbeat composition that often detracts by itself? I see more than a few Karsh images that for me cast a new light on the person photographed (Again, my comparisons are simply with the work of other photographers and the same subject, or of filmed interviews with the person) and notwithstanding his rather uniform approach I feel he brings out some of the character of his subjects.</p>

<p>Karsh has been dead now for a number of years and his photographic methods are not very different from many portraitists of the era and much less kitch than the film personality portraitists of the period. Uniformity of style is not a concern unless it presents a barrier to revealing something about his subject. We should look at what we gather from the way he reveals his subjects and not the constant style of photography and lighting he used. If he does not reveal something about his subjects, only then should we question his success, or lack of it.</p>

<p>I'm inspired not only by the subject photo, but by all of the linked images from Karsh. They are exquisite examples of portraiture done well.</p>

<p>In response to Arthur, I did a comparison of a few well-known women photographed by Karsh and another photographer. Actually, despite what I said and believe about Karsh, which remains, in 3 of the 4 cases, I prefer the other portrait to the one by Karsh. Karsh's seem a bit leaden and stayed. Where he captures Hepburn's beauty, Kobal captures, I think, the star quality, personality, magnetism and, most importantly, her delicacy. Where Karsh seems to approach Elizabeth Taylor more pensively, Avedon seems to have come across and created for her a natural (and unnatural) glow and vibrancy, even down to her all-important jewelry which helps tell her own story. (I think each of these does justice to Liz and don't have a preference.) When I view these four women photographed by Karsh, I don't see him differentiating his approach much for each and so don't get a sense he's individualizing them. His portrait of Liz, which I think is his best of these four, could still be of anyone. Somehow the other photographers seem to have captured something only this particular subject could have given them and been.</p>

<p><a href="http://netdna.webdesignerdepot.com/uploads/iconic_portraits/dkmb86g_797cbhthzch_b.jpg">Kobal: Audrey Hepburn</a></p>

<p><a href="http://121clicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/yousuf_karsh_07.jpg">Karsh: Audrey Hepburn</a></p>

<p><a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-RkcDdl6uHXE/TYzJ9_zn4HI/AAAAAAAAByY/MJFwXkXnKvc/s640/elizabeth+taylor+Photographed+by+richard+avedon.jpg">Avedon: Elizabeth Taylor</a></p>

<p><a href="http://121clicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/yousuf_karsh_27.jpg">Karsh: Elizabeth Taylor</a></p>

<p><a href="http://timelifeblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/01_112502479.jpg?w=546">Dean: Grace Kelly</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.160grams.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/Yousuf-Karsh_Van-Cleef-Arpels-HSH-Princess-Grace-of-Monaco-From-an-original-print-by-Yousuf-Karsh2.jpg">Karsh: Grace Kelly</a></p>

<p><a href="http://media.npr.org/assets/news/2010/01/18/mariananderson-b03974bd3db970e362934dcec2a0bd1df8a50327-s40-c85.jpg">Avedon: Marian Anderson</a></p>

<p><a href="http://121clicks.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/yousuf_karsh_39.jpg">Karsh: Marian Anderson</a></p>

<p>In all fairness, Fred, Karsh made that photo of Taylor when she was but 14 years old. Yes, she was poised and had spent time in the spotlight and on movie production ... but she was just 14. There wasn't really much <em>there</em> there yet. Avedon, on the other hand, shot her when she was a far more worldly 29. There was someone home, by then, to exhibit the vibrancy you refer to. It's excruciatingly difficult to tease that out (or synthesize the appearance of it) in someone who's still essentially in grade school.<br /><br />The Hepburn comparison is more interesting, but in Kobal's image, she is of course Acting. The two Kelly's? I'm pretty neutral on those. The Anderson portraits are apples and oranges, meant to serve very different purposes. Honestly, neither particularly talk to me.<br /><br />London's National Portrait Gallery has a wide collection <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/person.php?LinkID=mp04075&wPage=0"><strong>from many photographers</strong></a> for whom George Bernard Shaw sat. There aren't many that, to me, do what Karsh did (two of his are in that mix - they jump right out).</p>

<p>Matt, I am grateful for your choice of images and photographers to discuss in this forum. Although I've seen some of Karsh's work before, this is admittedly the first time I've actually had the opportunity to pair the photographs with him. Reading his commentary on the various portraits he created was quite illuminating.</p>

<p>As one uneducated in the history of photography, I get the feeling that Karsh is perhaps one of the few photographers, if not the only one, who could get away with shooting Casals from the back and obtain such powerful, dramatic results. I think the impact is owing to the fact that the viewer can't see the usual visual cues that accompany musical performance.</p>

<p>I think Karsh was one of the best portrait photographers and I doubt anyone will do what he did any better than he did it. Thanks to him I know what Ike looked like and Picasso and Hemingway and Churchill. If it isn't to your liking so be it. As for Coleman he often seems to come across as one whose only function is to be intellectual without actually contributing anything of substance. I have a FB friend like that.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>