"There's an element of sexuality in all portraiture"

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"There's an element of sexuality in all portraiture; the moment you stop to look, you've been picked up. And you may look at a portrait with a concentration you're not allowed in life. Is there any situation in life where you can stare at the Duchess of Alba for half an hour without ending up dead at the hands of the Duke? A confrontational, erotic quality, I think, should underline all portraiture. But in the history of art before <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Schiele">Schiele</a>, this confrontational quality of portraiture was almost never explored; so far as I know, in explicitly erotic images. Even eroticized portraits tended to be voyeuristic rather than confrontational."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.</p>

<p>That is Richard Avedon talking.</p>

<p>I don't do portraiture, but I'm very interested in looking at photographic portraiture. I'd be interested to hear whether portrait shooters agree with Avedon. He continues:<br>

.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Rather than seeking to make 'sexy' images, it seems to me that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egon_Schiele">Schiele</a> began with the knowledge of the complexity implicit in the sexuality of all portraiture, and then again turned up the volume. He seems to have been at once excited and revolted by the erotic nature of portraiture. For all the high degree of sexuality in his work, there's an interesting lack of sensuality. It's as though he is saying, 'You want to see? I'll give you something to look at. And my painting will look at you looking at me.' "</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.<br>

I definitely get that "look at you looking at me" sensation from a lot of close people photography. But it's tricky for me to sort out how much of that or in what way that (necessarily) ties to sexuality. I wonder if Avedon considers other kinds of people photography (street, doc, PJ) to be "portrait" or shading to portrait and thus included in his paradigm. Avedon was not talking about child photography, but I wonder why children must always be as if somehow sexless or de-sexed.</p>

<p>As I said above, I don't do portraiture, so I'm hoping that this thread will be taken over by those who do, and I will learn from the discussion. Thanks.</p>

<p>I came into photography wanting to create portraits that were as good as the portrait paintings I have admired. I am interested in portraits whether created through brushwork, sculpture to a lesser extent and of course, the photographic portraits. My favourite haunt when allowed to stray is the <a href="http://www.npg.org.uk/">National Portrait Gallery</a> in London. Two of the best annual exhinitions here are the BP Portrait Award in the summer and the Autumn exhibition of Taylor Wessing Photographic Portrait award.<br>

I don't shoot enough portraits in the way I would like to shoot them. I do informal portraits at work with a mirrorless camera to go into a noticeboard I maintain of employees who had done well. There is little or no artistry in these other than that I tend to desaturate them them to the level where they are in that yellow-green stage between the embers of colours and black and white. Some like them, others, more image conscious tend to look away. I do note that my boss, who is a wildlife photographer as a hobbyist has admired one or two. What is so noticeable about these pictures is that the women who I find facially attractive, I tend to pay a little more attention when I am shooting. The men who I feel have interesting faces or I am friends with, also get a little longer to compose. So there is definitely a level of conscious or unconscious connection that more talented individuals than me or perhaps those allowed less restricted formats would be utilising to far more interesting ends.<br>

When Avedon talks about Schiele I feel as if this discussion is specific to the nature of portraits Schiele painted. I reread his Wiki biography and even saw some of the online images of his paintings. What I have been culturally conditioned to think of as the sexual gaze is missing from most of his later paintings to my eye. There is sensuality there, there is a deep expression of sexuality in a number of the artworks but I think it is difficult to come to a universal conclusion on theme. I do believe that the act of serving in a POW camp and the reality of war made him a more prolific painter and the later works are more expressive. It is interesting that Avedon mentions the controversial Austrian. Avedon's work often exude a level of visceral sensuality that belies what one sees through the eyes of reason. There is something deliciously charming and glamourous about the society portraits of the beautiful women he captured. The sheer quality would often be quite seductive that is beyond a level of the oridinarily erotic. </p>

I don't agree. While portaits can be erotic, some clearly aren't. Experimental self portraits come to mind<div></div>

<p>It's not whether I agree or disagree that portraits are sexual since I don't think it's a claim made to have a particular truth value. I think it's a suggested way of seeing.</p>

<p>The example of staring at the Duchess seems off to me, though. That seems more a matter of emphasis. A photo stills a moment and is not the person, so we can stare. Photos can emphasize and exaggerate, they take things out of context.</p>

<p>Sexuality is an energy. It's more than an ability to stare with abandon. Sexuality is more than locking eyes at a bar and not letting go. It's passion. It's touch. It's texture. Avedon seems to see sexuality as a confrontation, which it can be, but I think in focusing on the stare, he's missing it. Sexuality, especially as a passion, is also missing for me in most of Avedon's work, including a lot of the fashion stuff.</p>

<p>So, Norman, is that projection in your central shape a nose or a penis?</p>

<p>****************</p>

<p>Starvy, I wonder if (and I'm not sure one can tell) the taking longer with some female faces is not so much, or not entirely, sexual response <em>toward</em> them but rather your having to make an effort to sort out the nature of <em>their</em> sexuality. Those of one's own gender are, presumably, more familiar in this respect than those who are not ... ? Not that this lessens the sexuality; <em>au contraire</em>, it is because of its importance that you need to take pay particular attention to how its handled.</p>

<p>In sci-fi books where the author tries to make aliens gender-less (sex-less), it doesn't really work. I sniff their descriptions for signs of which they "are," with sexuality being a core necessity of any "are."</p>

<p>****************</p>

<p>After spending yesterday trying to think of portraits that don't have a sexual element -- a distinct sexual element, a necessary sexual element -- I've come to the conclusion that Avedon was just stating the obvious. At least for me, sexuality is integral to anything even qualifying as a person. I start from there and build. It may (or may not) be interior, structural, but it's necessarily there for me. A word that keeps popping in to my mind is "potent." For a picture to be any good as a portrait, it has to have some power, some potency, which is entangled with basic conceptions of sexuality, for me. Impotence is not working in a good portrait.</p>

<p>Here's the route I took to this conclusion (the pictures I looked at in trying to find a non-sexual good portrait. I started with Karsh. He's kind of an anti-Avedon in that he did Proper portraits of Important people (compare his portrait of Marian Anderson to that of Avedon). Surely a Karsh portrait of Pope John XXIII would be non-sexual.</p>

<p>LOL. Not. Right on center is, not the Pope's head, but his fat, fleshy, hairy, hand with its sausage-like fingers. It is almost as large as his whole head (presumably due to lens-choice and foreshortening). I'll resist further comment so as not to offend Catholic readers even more than already.</p>

<p>Next, how about <a href="http://www.getty.edu/art/gettyguide/artObjectDetails?artobj=268078&handle=li">Paul Strand's blind beggar</a>? First of all, I'm straying from portraiture; she was shot with a right-angle lens, and this was a street face, not a "portrait." But look at it anyway. And find her sensual lips, her ambiguous expression, her sad eye vs her gone eye, her damaged female-ness.</p>

<p>Maybe more important meanings should overshadow sexuality. Take Shomei Tomatsu's portrait, <em>Tsuyo Kataoka, Nagasaki,</em> 1961. Here is Leo Rubinfien's description of that picture:<br>

.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Tsuyo Kataoka ... had been twenty-four and beautiful on August 9, 1945. She had been sought for many men in marriage, she later said, but at 11:02 a.m. the right side of her face happened to be inclined toward the detonating sky and was turned to jelly. When Tomatsu met her, she was thirty-five and her face, thick with scars (she was never to marry), was a mask through the holes in which she looks out, fearful and accusing, at all of us who can never know what she knows. It is one of this picture's mysteries that a residue of her beauty survives in her bones, eyes, and deportment. It does not at all diminish her hideousness, yet her hideousness is quite unable to cancel it out. Instead, both persist side by side, ramifying in our minds in a calculation in which past, present, Japan, America, crime, punishment, guilt, victimhood, love, and chance are just some of the variables."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.</p>

<p>Avedon's riveting portraits of napalm victims do much the same work via much the same means.</p>

<p>If one manages to entirely erase sexuality from a being, then that erasure, that absence simply reinstalls sexuality in the image with exponential force. See W. Eugene Smith's portrait, <a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/S/smith/smith_minamata.html"><em>Tomoko Uemuru is Bathed by her Mother</em></a>, better known as simply Minamata.</p>

<p>Where her legs join her torso is smooth and hairless. Her chest is flat and even appears to be nipple-less. Her face appears neither male nor female. Contrast that to the round softness of her mother (or Mother). This pieta is not for a dead person but for a living person frozen in a pose of ecstasy. The sexuality which is absent has a lot to do with that which outrages in this moving image.</p>

<p>****************</p>

<p>Okay, finally, I thought I had a clincher. <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/karsh_casals.jpg">Karsh's portrait of Pablo Casals</a>. Shot from behind, all you see is his well-dressed back, the chair-back, the top of his cello, his bald head, and the side of his bow. Sexuality-free at last! NOT. Look at the right side of the frame. About one-quarter of the image is a dark (stone door frame?) curvaceous, torso-ish form ... We have a man lost in private reverie, we have a dark, looming female shape ...</p>

<p>I give up.</p>

"So, Norman, is that projection in your central shape a nose or a penis?"

 

What kind of juveneille, girly response is that?

<p>I had a college english professor who saw a sexual conflict in every piece of literature...</p>

Kris, thankfully your teacher only taught English.

I do shoot portraits and independently came to the same conclusion as Mr. Avedon.

 

Portrait photography is an acceptable form of intently close, possessive gazing. The language reflects that. Butt keep in

mind that Avedon was first and foremost an advertising photographer. His goal was to make photos that make you want

to look for as long as possible, and to make what is looked at desireable.

<p>I tend to agree with Ellis. I have to love my subjects, whether physical or platonic. So there is a seduction involved in confronting and relating to a person of any age and any sex. A moment of seduction by the lens. Possessive gazing is a good term to use....there is an emotional connection. You define it as you see fit.</p>

<p>Ellis, I don't think it's fair to say that Avedon was "an advertising photographer." He was a photographer who did very good advertising work, but he also had a substantial body of personal work that is quite different -- especially if you include the <em>American West</em> series (even though it was commissioned).</p>

<p>Gerry, is it necessarily "love"? I'd think maybe something like "intensity" is a better word because the connection (there must be a connection) can be either attractive or repulsive. The essential thing is that it's alive and electric. There is *some kind* of 'tension' going on. Desire, will, power, to some degree if only, at least minimally, in a measuring assessment of each other.</p>

<p>There can be a dangerous ambiguity -- a purposely, deliberately dangerous ambiguity about the nature of the sexuality (whether or not it involves "sex") in a photograph. See, for example, <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/avedon_man_withchild.jpg">this personal work by Avedon</a> (which is not a portrait, but strongly illustrates what I'm getting at). [<a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/avedon_man_withchild.jpg"><strong>LINK</strong></a>]</p>

<p>Avedon surely knew that it's dangerous to put a female child's pudendum right on the upper/center line of this picture -- and to (it looks to me like) dodge it to make it especially clear. The ambiguity is in what Avedon is after -- with whom is he empathizing in the picture? Is it sympathy for the utterly powerless female child versus the all-powerful man (sexuality)? Or, conversely, is he interested in the excitement of the man, without particular regard for the child (sex)? Of his physical pleasure? His contact with the child is purely sensual (through his hands). His eyes are cast down, almost closed. (He reminds me of Moses casting down the tablets. And, for some reason, his hat outrages me.)</p>

<p>Note that in Avedon's fashion work, the roles are reversed: Avedon's women are all-powerful; his men often helplessly powerless. Yet, and/or more than one commenter has noticed that in the <em>American West</em>, it is his men who are sexy, complex, full of the kind of tension I started with, above, whereas his women are often almost contemptuous and aloof. (I don't find that too surprising since I live in the country, as did most of the <em>American West</em> subjects; Avedon was a totally New York "beautiful man." Where I live, that's ... not very sexy.)</p>

<p>One last bit from Avedon. He wrote a letter to his father, trying to explain the gasping, cadaverous, near-death from cancer portrait he had made of him, and which his father hated. I quote it in part:</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"... You are angry and hungry and alive. What I value in you is that intensity. I want to make portraits as intense as people. I want your intensity to pass into me, go through the camera and become a recognition to a stranger. I love your ambition and your capacity for disappointment, and that's still as alive in you as it has ever been.</p>

<p>"Do you remember you tried to show me how to ride a bicycle, when I was nine years old? You had come up to New Hampshire for the weekend, I think, in the summer when we were there on vacation, and you were wearing your business suit. You were showing me how to ride a bike, and you fell and I saw your face then. I remember the expression on your face when you fell. I had my box Brownie with me, and I took a picture.</p>

<p>"I'm not making myself clear. Do you understand?</p>

<p>"Love, Dick"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>.<br>

The "pass into me" is obviously relevant to this thread, but I'd also point out "remember the expression on your face when you fell" which is more subtle, and I think even more relevant.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but I'd also point out "remember the expression on your face when you fell" </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I may have missed his point, Julie, but I think he was explaining that the near death portrait of his father was effectively no different than that of an apparent painful expression Avedon captured from his father, after the bike fall, and with his child's Brownie. He was indicating that the reason for the more recent photograph was simply to represent the state of his father after/during the cancer experience of the latter, no more, no less. It can underly a love for the subject, or not.</p>

<p>Not sure how all this has to do with sexuality in portraits. Intensity (and compassion or sensitivity) is not always sexual.</p>

<p>Arthur, you may have put your finger on something with which I've been grappling for a long time as concerns Philosophy and Photography.</p>

<p>The Philosopher might ask, <em>"Is there an element of sexuality in <strong>all</strong> portraiture?"</em></p>

<p>The Photographer might ask, <em>"What elements of sexuality are in that portrait and how is that made manifest?"</em></p>

<p>There's kind of a glorious tension in those two different approaches. One of the main differences, I think, between the way I used to ask questions as a Philosopher and the way I now ask questions as a photographer is the simple difference between ALL and THIS. Philosophers tend to talk about ALL, and there's good reason for doing so, though I ultimately found it terribly unrewarding. Photographers tend to show THIS. Avedon showed us THIS guy and THAT guy . . . not all guys. </p>

<p>Arthur, I take Avedon at his word; the letter quoted is the ending to his own essay from which I took the title to this thread and the quotes in the OP.</p>

<p>Or do you think there is not sexuality between fathers and sons? Or in death? Do you find his portrait of Jacob Israel Avedon to be asexual?</p>

<p><em>"Or do you think there is not sexuality between fathers and sons?"</em></p>

<p>That seems like an unfair place to take Arthur's statement.</p>

<p><em>"Do you find his portrait of Jacob Israel Avedon to be asexual?"</em></p>

<p>That seems to assume a proactive consideration of sexuality, which would be like begging the question. Having to say one thinks of any photo as either sexual or asexual only assumes the spin of sexuality to begin with, which is the question being asked here. There are plenty of photos one might not consider sexual, asexual, or non-sexual. "Sexual" (and that includes "a" and "non" sexual) might simply not occur to the viewer and might simply not be there for the viewer. That a viewer does'nt see sexuality in a particular portrait wouldn't mean they see it as asexual. The latter could be just as absent as the former. Sexuality, whether present or absent or not considered, might simply not apply.</p>

<p>Avedon as quoted above: "There's an element of sexuality in all portraiture; the moment you stop to look, you've been picked up."</p>

<p>The analogy Avedon is making would apply to a portrait of a rock. If it's 'sexy' enough, you stop to look and you have been 'seduced'. I read 'sexy' as 'charged' or compelling or intense.</p>

<p>Avedon is using a figure of speech, broadly using the sexual analogy. Avedon isn't talking about sexuality in portraiture. He is making a comparison in order to equate his intensity of inspiration to a basic drive in him, like the sexual drive, but not the sexual drive itself. That's an interesting point, if that is indeed the point Avedon is making.</p>

<p>Avedon quoted above: ""I'm not making myself clear. Do you understand?"</p>

<p>No his father doesn't understand. Dick's father is probably mad that Dick doesn't understand why he as a father was mad at his son's insensitivity; madder yet that Dick would remind him of the bicycle incident where the son first exhibited disconnected intensity that was a type of connection for Dick, but an insensitive and inappropriate connection when viewed by the father of Dick, an insensitivity Avedon may not have outgrown, to the fathers chagrin.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"Or, do you think there is some sexuality between father and son".</p>

<p>It is what you choose to read into a photo but the above thought is somewhat troubled.</p>

<p>Innuendo.</p>

<p>Fred, interesting point about the philosopher's approach and that of the photographer. The photographer also deals in distilling things or showing things coming from mere milliseconds or fraction of a second while the philosopher rightly deals with eternity or all. I like the case by case considerations. To answer Julie, I can only say that I am not aware of the sexuality of Avedon's father via the photograph mentioned. A powerful image to be sure, but that doesn't require sexuality as pathway to its impact or understanding, or intention in the aspect or stare of the father. I don't think it shows anything more than a man struggling with his fate, which is simply the ravages of uncontrolled disease leading to death. Is the relation to or motive of the photographer sexual in this case? I think not, but then maybe I am being insensitive in some way.</p>

<p>Sexuality is portrayed by many things, but is the image of Avedon's sick father a good example?</p>

<p>I wonder whether Avedon himself confused "sexuality" with the commonly confused nuances between sensuality and sensuousness. For fans of 1970s pop culture, that conjures images of Vera Bloom in "Animal House" schooling Otter over a cucumber.</p>

<p>Whenever I think of Avedon in terms of his sense of relationship to and empathy or compassion for his subjects, I think mainly of <a href="http://www.richardavedon.com/data/photos/1568_1r29catpower_ny.jpg">this photo of Chan Marshall</a> (Cat Power). Not because it was a great photo or one for which either the photographer or musician will best be remembered. But because it revealed the most about the paradoxical relationship between artist and subject.</p>

<p>Avedon recalled the circumstances of that portrait session without judgment, without condemnation. He revealed - perhaps exposed - Marshall for who and what she was at that moment in time: beautiful, ghastly, puffy from alcoholism, uninhibited, and potentially another rockstar with one foot in the grave. As a fan of Marshall's music, and empathetic toward her troubled background, I still see that particular photo as perfect for her at that moment.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.magnetmagazine.com/2007/02/05/cat-power-life-is-beautiful/">Marshall herself recalls that photo and session with some embarrassment</a>, as part of a low point in her struggle with alcoholism. Yet she doesn't consider herself a "victim" of Avedon's lens and, depending on which interview you read, she recalls the circumstances with fondness and admiration for Avedon as a person and fellow artist. As with many creative people, no single comment, interview or series of comments within a particular span of time can adequately or accurately convey the full intent. Chan's thoughts are often as loopy and abstract as her lyrics.</p>

<p>Was it sexy? Perhaps, within a certain context. Not because the pose was somewhat revealing. Not because it showed some pubic hair.</p>

<p>I find it "sexy" because Avedon's portrait reveals her vulnerabilities more than any of <a href="https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=richard+avedon+photo+of+chan+marshall+cat+power&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=zb11UtzvM-rU2AWui4HIAw&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAQ&biw=1095&bih=595#q=chan+marshall+cat+power&tbm=isch&imgdii=_">the thousand other photos of her</a> looking "sexy", vulnerable, fierce, funny, or any of the dozen other cliched rockstar portrait poses.</p>

<p>But "sexy" in the sense that I'd want to have sex with her? Nah. She looks like she smells bad. She looks like she skipped a shower, didn't brush her teeth after drinking a quart of booze and smoking a pack of cigarettes, and maybe vomited from the combination, and, by her own admission, had chronic diarrhea from alcoholism. She looks "sexy" because she looks human, vulnerable, real and still looks like the beautiful artist and creative soul whose music has lulled me to sleep on many a sleepless night and made me smile and nod in recognition of common failings and tiny victories.</p>

<p>Avedon made her look "sexy" because he caught her in a moment of looking like a complete human being.</p>

<p>Well said Lex.</p>

<p>Nice story, Lex, and it gets to what I'm trying to talk about. Sexuality is not necessarily about or even to do with sex between the two parties concerned. The Oedipus complex is not about the son wanting to have sex with the father.</p>

<p>Beyond Oedipus, sexuality has to do with dominance/submission, with exposure of vulnerability (or not), and with mortality. The king is dead. Long live the king.</p>

<p><em>"It is what you choose to read into a photo but the above thought is somewhat troubled." </em>--Allen</p>

<p><em>"Sexuality is not necessarily about or even to do with sex between the two parties concerned."</em> --Julie</p>

<p>You OK now, Allen? :-)</p>

<p>Julie's thought about father and son was not about them having sex with each other. Thanks, Lex, for stating what was obviously not the obvious.</p>

<p>But on the father and son stuff, that there <em>can be</em> this non-sex-having sexuality in a father-son comportment doesn't mean there <em>is</em> and doesn't mean that's an element in every PORTRAIT of a father and son, except in the sense that "everything is everything." And maybe that latter is really genius!</p>

<p>Since we well know that a portrait is not the same as its subject (photo is the thing photographed, not the thing), it may even be interesting to consider that there could be a sexual element between all fathers and sons (which I would not accept except in the trivial sense above) but significantly that element could be absent from a <em>photo</em> of them, which is not them. Now how in the world could that happen? Maybe it's part of the magic of photography . . .</p>

<p><em>"I find it "sexy" because Avedon's portrait reveals her vulnerabilities more than...."</em><br /> <br /> That's an interesting, if somewhat flakey, statement to me.</p>

<p>To pursue your reasoning, Lex, I guess you could say that at your own most vulnerable moments (examples might include a profound emotional question, the fearing of an exam result, the loss of some important physical or mental capability, or whatever) that you, or indeed I or anyone else, would be the most "sexy".</p>

<p>I fail to see how sex and sexy are so easily made similar. Matters of sex are not necessarily sensual or sexy. In the "Economist" this week I read that Canada's successful negotiations with Europe for a free trade deal makes the country "sexy". I guess the term sexy is now used in many unrelated cases. Reminds me of the often exaggerated use of the word "awesome", although in a different context. Perhaps one considers the trade negotiators or country as virile and powerful? The word sexy is in such cases used to describe particular behaviour or posture, perhaps unexpected yet convincing.</p>

<p>Whether Avedon was subjected to the Oedipus state of mind as researched by Freud, in which the father's obvious fragility allows his son to dominate as in the previous and perhaps on-going relation of father-son-mother, or not, is not obvious in the image. Some photos transcend their more obvious message or content, but can one really say that this is happening in this particular photo that makes it sexual in nature?</p>

<p>It is easy to build hypotheses in that great luxury of time and imagination that succeeds the split second portrayal that is the photograph, made in that more rapid snippet (or even elaborate process) of consideration of the photographer at some now remote moment.</p>

<p>Fred, I think "everything is everything" can be as simplistic as it can possibly be genius in special cases. It can also be lazy, a crutch to avoid analysis.</p>

<p><em>"Fred, I think "everything is everything" can be as simplistic as it can possibly be genius in special cases. It can also be lazy, a crutch to avoid analysis."</em></p>

<p>Arthur, I agree. I hope my irony came through in that part of my post. What I was trying to convey was the triviality of the idea that every portrait is sexual being similar to the triviality of "everything is everything." I should have used a sarcastic emoticon to follow the sentence "And maybe that latter is really genius!"</p>

<p>I also agree with you that vulnerability, though it can be of a sexual nature, doesn't have to be. The same would be the case for dominance/submission and mortality.</p>

<p>There is great visual, emotional, and photographic power in the idea, use, and perception of sexuality. One of the reasons for its power when it is shown or does occur is that it's NOT ever-present.</p>

<p>Contorting ourselves this way and that in order to see sexuality in all portraits seems to me like an exercise in futility or at least with diminishing returns. Lex's looking at a specific portrait and talking so genuinely about how it looks and feels to him is rather valuable, and would be so even without the definitional concerns.</p>