Contemporary portraiture... sucks!

[mark_gatehouse]

Finally - at least I'm not the only one who thinks lots of contemporary (art?)

portraiture kinda sucks :-) :

 

http://photo-muse.blogspot.com/

[chris_waller]

Agreed. "Eighty-five percent of everything is rubbish" - Anon. Personally, I aspire to produce a portrait such as Philippe Halsman's portrait of Salvador Dali or some of Brassai's work.

[sattler123]

Tim does an amazing job with his photography blog. I try to read it every day.

[gary_watson]

Sorry but I took this as self-indulgent and vapid.I've stepped into deeper puddles.Photo-editorial preferences change as often as barometric pressure but over a similarly narrow range. Just look at the NYT Sunday mag or the New Yorker for the current gestalt on portraiture and fashion layout. I don't see much of what he's insistent is a "style," except from trailing-edge wannabes.I find Loretta Lux's bug-eyed, bobble-headed hydrocephalic kids tiresome.

[Charles_Webster]

Just to correct Chris' attribution, the quotation is actually "90% of everything is crap" and is most often attributed to the sci-fi writer Theodore Sturgeon. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_Revelation

 

As for the OP's contention that much of contemporary portraiture sucks, I mostly agree. There are a lot of "pro" photographers for whom a successful portrait is one without any distracting shadows on the face. Regardless of whether carefully placed shadows might help convey something about the character and landscape of that face.

 

<Chas>

[jstream]

"As for the OP's contention that much of contemporary portraiture sucks, I mostly agree. There are a lot of "pro" photographers for whom a successful portrait is one without any distracting shadows on the face. Regardless of whether carefully placed shadows might help convey something about the character and landscape of that face."

 

I do tend to agree, up to a point. The simple fact of life is that the simple, shadowless portrait mentioned above is what sells to the parents, grandparents, etc. Yes, I'm guilty as all get out of shooting those portraits, but until all the bills are paid, 99% of us don't get to be as creative as we'd like. In some cases, those crappy, basic portraits let us do what we really love to do. Such is the nature of life and business i guess.

[theotherchad]

I would guess that one's opinion on this depends on what kind of portraiture one practices. Personally, I love to see creativity, but I also love to see beauty, and the two are not necessarily the same. There are some stunningly beautiful images that aren't particularly groundbreaking.

 

Anyway, the question is, are we talking about portraiture as a means of making a living and making clients happy or are we talking about it from an artistic standpoint that is utterly unconcerned with what the subject thinks of thier photo.

 

Personally, I like to produce images that the subject loves. If someone tells me, I've never had a better picture of myself (or my wife, my baby, my son or daugher, etc.) then I am happy. What some self appointed critic thinks is rather immaterial to me.