Character

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>I didn't judge any conceit in those few moments."</p>

<p> Do you mean there was conceit and you did not judge it, or that there was no conceit detected?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>No conceit detected.</p>

[matthew_tyler]

<p>Hi Fred, I'll rephrase the interest part -- I was up earlier than usual and I'm still shaking the cobwebs with coffee and tea, lol.</p>

<p>I do agree that the folks over at A&F do an excellent job at utilizing good looking people for marketing, advertising, and even employment. Your previous mention of your conversation with a photographer friend said that old, infirm, and odd looking people had some built-in interest. So, I had read the portion about photographing good looking young people and the challenge thereof, and interpreted it as the young good-looking people often had little or no built-in interest because of their beauty and youth. All of this I found that I could relate to in my own experiences.</p>

<p>Now, I ask, "why" are the young beauties (male or female) a challenge to photograph, with the understanding that many photographers are gifted with the ability to demonstrate an individual's internal beauty, oddness, and other characteristics which are only revealed within the individuals psyche or witnessed upon observation, conversation, and familiarity with the individual? A young person - who fits the A&F profile - may still be odd internally (soul/personality/etc) and/or externally (physical appearance-beauty aside). In fact, I'd like to think that the average person is interesting -- even if they put me to sleep =). However, back to your photographer friend's statement, to learn and grow from his words, I must question and perhaps be the devils advocate to challenge myself to learn the most from this concept that I found interesting.</p>

<p>When we see someone that is young and attractive or pretty (etc..), <em>are we inclined, perhaps, to often not see past their beauty</em>? If we could see past a portion of our judgements, would we then see through those characteristics and identify the interesting character that we often easily witness in those whom are old, infirm, or odd? If we capture a photograph/portrait that successfully captures these elements, what would be the ratio of people whom interpret that photograph as intended versus those whom are unable to "see the photograph" because they are blinded by the beauty that we learned how to look past/through/around?</p>

<p>The photographer whom suggested I have a scar, lol, had made that statement in light humor - trying to make the point that sometimes a scar is interesting because it tells a story. Telling a story, or perhaps, implying a story. Interesting because it's noticeable, and people will wonder "why/how did he get that scar?" - or assumptions will be made that the scar represents someone tough. Implication of character, I suppose.</p>

<p>And yes =) As the photographer, control of interest is within your domain. Some people, however, are interesting subjects (in my opinion) - and they sometimes stir interest regardless of how they are photographed. An individual with a prosthetic arm, an individual who's face has suffered severe burns. Assuming that the photograph is not being casted from a selection of models (or even if it is), I've always found intense visual content (such as a disfigurement) to be extremely interesting--even in otherwise lacking photos. Even if there was no intention to create an interesting photograph, many people would perceive it as an interesting photograph because it would not be uncommon for people to assume the photographer intended to use the handicap or disfiguration with some type of association or symbolism implied--thus "perceived interest"--and perhaps another "vision block" if they are fixated (or can't see past) the handicap, disfigurement (etc).</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Matthew, he was suggesting that I think photographically. He wanted me to think about what would make a compelling photograph and not necessarily what makes an interesting or compelling person.</p>

<p>I don't mean to suggest that some subjects don't have more visual interest than others to start. I think he was telling me to challenge myself beyond what's attractive to me, beyond what's pleasing to me. A good way of doing that is to take something that seems merely attractive and pleasing and figure out ways to go beyond that.</p>

<p>Deep as I may want to be and am able to get, photographs are visual works. I think my friend knows that intimately and, without wanting to direct me specifically, he was being suggestive. Indeed, the surface has become very important to me. My photographs are a combination of raw materials and what I do with them. The subject I choose or am given may be a starting point on which I build or may be part of a process already begun. Sometimes, I've got an idea for a photo or a portrait and the particular person is simply of service in my realizing the portrait I want. It may be a portrait, but it may be irrelevant to me whether it's a portrait of <em>that</em> person or not. I may be making a portrait, using an individual, but with more universal expression in mind. If I am doing a portrait to get something of the individual himself, I still have to be aware of what reads visually, for me, as much if not more than I have to consider the person internally.</p>

<p>There's much more to be said, and I really appreciate this dialogue, Matthew. If I'm making any sense, I'm curious to hear your own further thoughts and keep building on this together.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Fred, I mentioned the book here before, <em>The Nature of Photographs</em> by Stephen Shore. Don't know if you've read it since then. I dug it out again, it deals with ( of a photograph ) > The Physical Level, The Depictive Level, The Mental Level and Mental Modelling. Intro :</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"How is <a href="http://www.darkacres.com/Robert%20Frank's%20Butte.jpg">this photograph</a> different from the actual scene that Robert Frank saw as he stood in his Butte hotel room and looked out on this depressed mining town in the Northern Rockies ? How much of this image is a product of lenses, shutters, and media ? What are the chararteristics of photography that establish how an image looks ?<br /> ---<br /> A photograph can be viewed on several levels. To begin with, it is a physical object, a print. On this print is an image, an illusion of a window on to the world. It is on this level that we usually read a picture and discover its content : a souvenir of an exotic land, the face of a lover, a wet rock, a landscape at night. Embedded in this level is another that contains signals to our mind's perceptual apparatus. It gives 'spin' to what the image depicts and how it is organized.</p>

<p>The aim of this book then is not to explore photographic content, but to describe physical and formal attributes of a photogrpahic print that form the tools a photographer uses to define and interpret that content."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps nothing new for most of us but it's a good read on the OT of <em>Character.</em></p>

[luis_g]

<p>In a mathematical sense, there's simply more information in an older person, which in no way results in a more compelling photograph.</p>

<p>Avedon: "Youth never moves me. I seldom see anything very beautiful in a young face. I do, though - - in the downward curve of Maugham’s lips, in Isak Dinesen’s hands. So much has been written there, there is so much to be read, if one could only read. I feel most of the people in my book, Observations, are earthly saints. Because they are obsessed, obsessed with work of one sort or another. To dance, to be beautiful, tell stories, solve riddles, perform in the street. Zavattini’s mouth and Escudero’s eyes, the smile of Marie-Louise Bousquet: they are sermons on bravado. - <a href="http://www.photoquotes.com/showquotes.aspx?id=52&name=Avedon,Richard">Avedon</a> - 1959"</p>

<p> Bruce Weber and many others have managed to pull many interesting portraits from youthful, pretty faces, but the "file size" <em>is</em> leaner. Youth, however, is also part of life, and in spite of the variables, a valid subject.<br /></p>

<p> </p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>I find the "old has more character" type portrait such a photographic cliché, an easy way out almost, like taking pics of them cute kittens, they also have character. The old type portraits / subjects are characters, certainly, but do the photographs have character ?</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Phylo, I carefully said information, not character. In some ways babies are tabula rasa, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be photographed. These imposed boundaries make nifty targets to test and riff of of. Phylo, I think you've just incited John K. to come out with the ancient sea-captain thing again.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>An old seacaptain holding a baby, that would reveal some conceptual character.<br /> <br /> I love <a href="http://images.search.yahoo.com/search/images;_ylt=AnAixzgXSxhim5V.eN1YK_.bvZx4?p=Stephan+Vanfleteren&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-701">this photographer's often straigt-on b&w portraits</a>, lots of old faces with lots of information buried in them, there's even an "old sea-captain type" in it somewhere. Besides that the photographs have character, the material, the processing. But still, it's a thin line to walk on, and I find his portraits of younger faces often more telling, regarding information, if that's to be strived for.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<div></div>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Above is another poor guy relegated to my holds folder. Funny story about this one, not for the faint of heart. He was, indeed, a character, but I was a little new and not prone to taking as many chances with my work. This guy was sitting against a wall at the Dore Alley Fair in San Francisco several years ago. Sitting on a beach chair with a mob of people lining the streets and partying and drinking and dancing, etc. The Dore Alley fair is SF's non-mainstream leather crowd fair, so especially at that time, it was definitely "anything goes." So, there he was on his beach chair, no pants, jerking off. And me, I look over at him, point to my camera for permission to photograph him, to which he nods his assent, and I shoot him from the waste up. Totally changed the character of the potential photo I had.</p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Phylo, re: character and nature. I was talking to my sister-in-law tonight about my brother and I growing up. I was the good kid, nerdy, obedient. He was the bad kid, looser and more free, got into a lot more trouble. We weren't talking about photography. She said she believes kids (and she's got two herself) are born with certain natures and that mine and my brother's were just so different. Yet, I like to think both he and I are of similar character. So there may be a refinement here of seeing nature and character differently. Perhaps nature is some sort of given, the start. Character is built.</p>

<p>A great question you ask, Phylo. Can photographs of characters have character? I say, yes. That's why I don't set boundaries for myself, tend not to put any particular subject or type of subject off limits. Though I will put ways of shooting people off limits for myself, always aware that my limit can be removed in an instant. Believe me, this week when I took out my camera as I approached the cute Abercrombie and Fitch guys, I felt I was transgressing a boundary I had set. I haven't shot cute guys on the street in quite some time. I did it anyway. Maybe I'm becoming more like my brother!</p>

<p>There's been a lot said in this thread about types of people. Thinking in types can be a danger in that it often invites stereotyping, even prejudice. But types exist, at least in my mind, as surely as individuals. I find a healthy tension in the dynamics of people falling into a type as well as being individuals. That's just another thing to work with when I photograph.</p>

[jtk]

<p>Fred, I shouldn't have drawn attention to your particular "hairy old sea captain" because his role-playing is probably what he is about...that is, I doubt he's especially nautical. Maybe I should have said "hairy old rabbi"...we see many more of them than hairy old sea captains on P.N (tho the standard P.N sea captain affects a pipe, unlike the standard rabbi).</p>

<p><strong>By the way, you've just demonstrated how much can sometimes be added through narrative </strong>. I hope you are writing something along with your portraits...they stand on their own as images, of course, but it's within your reach to greatly increase their significance (there's that word again). </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Thinking about Phylo's question, "Can photographs of characters have character?" and Fred's responses, for some reason made me think of department store Santa Clauses. How the person underneath or inside the costume always shows through and the whole interest in them is that "real" person sort of radiating out from under. In the movie "Miracle on 34th Street" the real Santa Claus shows up, and he totally creeped me out. I seem to want "my" characters (in Phylo's first sense), "my" Santa Claus to be only in my imagination, not claimed by some fleshy, gray (not white!) bearded fellow.</p>

<p>But, on the other hand, in the movies I want good acting before all else (plot seems to be fading in importance, the older I get). I am guessing that this is because the characters being played aren't (already) mine. I have always hated movies about religious or mythological stories. On the other hand stereotypical characters don't seem to be "mine." I enjoyed John Travolta playing Mrs. Turnblad, the stereotypical fluttery, house-bound, big-assed mom, in "Hairspray". Hmmmm... but maybe, like the Santa Clauses, that was because I enjoyed spotting John Travolta inside or underneath ...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Cool, Julie, and I often enjoy spotting the character on the outside or the one I can imagine and impose.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>So, there he was on his beach chair, no pants, jerking off. And me, I look over at him, point to my camera for permission to photograph him, to which he nods his assent, and I shoot him from the <strong>waste</strong> up. Totally changed the character of the potential photo I had."</p>

<p>So did that caption!<br /> ___________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>John - "</strong>Fred, I shouldn't have drawn attention to your particular "hairy old sea captain" because his role-playing is probably what he is about...that is, I doubt he's especially nautical."</p>

<p>Seems like he's more naughty-cal, though I've no doubt he's spent many years before the mast.</p>

<p>______________________________________________</p>

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong>Thinking about Phylo's question, "Can photographs of characters have character?" and Fred's responses, for some reason made me think of department store Santa Clauses. How the person underneath or inside the costume always shows through and the whole interest in them is that "real" person sort of radiating out from under."</p>

<p>I've <em>been</em> the person underneath, Julie. Being Santa is different than theorizing about it. I was visiting a friend in Wisconsin who played Santa at several locations at Christmas time, and after a night of heavy partying (at my urging), he became sick. There were no other Santas available, so for the next three days, I <em>was </em>Santa. The Santa character I had discovered to be a fake at an early age and made fun of countless times. Yes, the guy in the suit. It's hot in there, specially with the prosthetic gut. The only way to keep from suffocating is to be very still and calm. So I meditated inside Santa. You can barely see through the fake eyebrows & hat. The field of view is a hairy horizontal slit. Soon, one gets used to fine monofilament hairs, scores of them, in your eyes and mouth, some of them halfway down your throat, without gagging. It's a lot like being in an isolation tank covered in wool and nylon.</p>

<p>Maybe my experience was unique, though I doubt it. When I donned the jolly suit, a transformation happened: I was possessed by the spirit of, and<strong> <em>became</em></strong> Santa. Sure, you can say it was me radiating, and to a degree I'm sure it was, but from inside the suit, it felt like Santa had taken over and I had been relegated to homunculus status. Some of it is the suit, the "Village" atmosphere, the tween-aged elvettes buzzing around posing the kids & taking pictures, but a lot of it comes from the demand characteristics and projections from adults and children who <em>believe in you.</em> Some of it from the inside, some from the outside, and it created a boundary layer, however thin, in which Santa came to life.</p>

<p>I channeled Santa at a small, ritzy, boutique mall by day, and at night, at a different company party -- for three days. Many little girls handed me long lists and gave me voluminous, detailed directions (Now, <em>pay attention, Santa!)</em> as to how to tell a particular model toy from a far less-desirable one that amost looks identical. One sad-looking little boy (5?) asked for me to find his father a job for Christmas. Some kids stared at me wordlessly, intensely spellbound, in total awe and reverence. I looked back lovingly, and in the same way, each of us a mystery to the other. A few babies exploded in tears when handed over...and/or in their diapers, but most were good. Some little Luis-es yanked on my beard, instantly blinding me. Little bastards!</p>

<p>Then there were the adults. I hadn't imagined that adults would sit on your lap. The many men who were put up with it by their wives and girlfriends, all of whom wanted cars...Porsches and big Beemers. The women... most wanted to get married, find love, happiness. Or happiness in their fading marriages, for their kids & husbands. One asked to conceive and give birth to a healthy baby after losing her first one. The 40-something aging beauty who confidently teased me, then drew very close and whispered in my ear that what she wanted was for her mother to live long enough to celebrate her next (70th) birthday. Another wanted her cancer to stay in remission so she would see her children grow. The drunken women at the company parties, happy and gleefully lewd, a few of which did lap dances for Santa, and the few who wanted me for Christmas, no, no, it was Santa they wanted. My Ho-ho-ho's got better and better. They all had their picture taken with Santa, though I'm somewhere in there.</p>

<p>[inside Santa, as I sometimes do with a camera, I felt like one of the angels in <em>Wings of Desire.</em>]</p>

<p>It instantly dawned on me that this was all about faith, make-believe (in a far more benign, therefore imaginary, world) and childhood, inner and outer. The easy ones just happened effortlessly, save for me palming the toy lists secretly in the Mom's hands.</p>

<p>The sad and difficult ones, the ones that took my breath away, and made me fight back tears, shocked me. As they spoke, at some level, I initially became terrified. What COULD I possibly tell those total strangers sitting on my lap asking for the impossible? How could their flickering hopes be kept from going out? How could I ever do this in real time? Terror acid-rained inside the suit, panic welled up inside me...but... somehow, I took a breath, and the right words emerged from my mouth every time, and on time. Santa's words.</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p><strong>Luis</strong>, I enjoyed that story very much.</p>

<p>Now I have a thought-experiment. We have Luis in the dressing room, down to his under-whatevers (or not as the case may be; people should put those little computer blot-outs over your imagination if necessary). Next to him is the Santa Claus costume. Red, red, red, plus boots, beard, hair, fake fatness and so on. Luis puts on one item, then another. The thought experiment is this: at what point does Santa Claus "happen" and "Luis" disappear (if he ever does)?</p>

<p>Conversely, if Luis/Santa is standing or sitting or doing the tango and has had a few too many and he starts to disrobe, at what point does Santa Claus "unhappen? Disappear? And ... tada! Look, it's Luis G!!</p>

<p>In other words, at what point does "a" character take over?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>John, no problem at all your drawing attention to my <em>photograph</em>. After all, that's what it's about here, right? I'm confident enough in my work to have it questioned, though I never took your reference to sea captains personally, since I don't approach my work in the way in which you generally use the phrase to refer to a kind of work or approach. I do think many photographers approach rabbis, etc. with limited vision, as I've said recently, as mascots. But that won't eliminate rabbis from my repertoire, though getting them to take their clothes off for me might be another matter. I may have just found a niche!</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Julie asked the usual trick question - "</strong>In other words, at what point does "a" character take over?"</p>

<p>I answered that clearly in my story: "...a lot of it comes from the demand characteristics and projections from adults and children who <em>believe in you.</em> Some of it from the inside, some from the outside, and it created a boundary layer, however thin, in which Santa came to life."</p>

<p>[No, I didn't get Santa's "Santo" and break onto a bout of ecstatic dancing, either.]</p>

<p>I also clearly indicated (because I had a feeling this very question was slouching toward my Bethlehem) that I never totally "left":</p>

<p>"Sure, you can say it was me radiating, and to a degree I'm sure it was..."</p>

<p>"from inside the suit, it felt like Santa had taken over and I had been relegated to homunculus status."</p>

<p>"Some kids stared at <strong>me </strong>[Not Santa] wordlessly, intensely spellbound, in total awe and reverence. <strong>I </strong>[Not Santa] looked back lovingly, and in the same way, each of us a mystery to the other."</p>

<p>"The drunken women at the company parties, happy and gleefully lewd, a few of which did lap dances for Santa, and the few who wanted <strong>me</strong> for Christmas, no, no, it was Santa they wanted."</p>

<p>"The sad and difficult ones, the ones that took <strong>my </strong>[Not Santa's] breath away, and made <strong>me </strong>[Not Santa] fight back tears, shocked me. As they spoke, at some level, I initially became terrified."</p>

<p>No, I wasn't method acting Santa, either. Is an electron a particle or a wave? It depends on how you look at it. When, I mean, on what day, did you become an adult? In whose eyes? Santa came and went. I've done a little acting in community theater in the past, and it's very different when you have a script from when you're doing improv. So was there a discrete point? No.</p>

<p>______________________________________</p>

<p>BTW...to answer another question...and you answered it yourself...on "We have Luis in the dressing room, down to his under-whatevers (or not as the case may be; people should put those little computer blot-outs over your imagination if necessary)."</p>

<p>First, a complaint: Hey, hey, what's with the "<em>little </em>computer blot outs"? Geez.</p>

<p>It's cold as hell around Christmas in Wisconsin. NO ONE from a tropical country free *beep* at that time of the year!</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>I have a difficulty not so much with separating style of a photograph from character of an image, but in defining specifically character itself. It has nevertheless for me something to do with what the image communicates, why and for what reason it was made, and how it communicates something unique. One day I may remember how to provide a link to the two following images, but in the meantime here are some examples of my own work that I think define that quality. One is taken from a short series of shadow self-portraits made at a time of difficult choices in my career (e.g., the steps, the strong late day lighting), the other during a time I photographed gravestones in a sort of symbolic way of remembering my deceased parents, and others. The wind hollowed cavities around the stones suggest to me the "presence" of the two former beings. Do these images suggest a quality of character to others, or is this not what you think the term is all about?</p><div></div>

[aplumpton]

<p>And the self-portrait</p><div></div>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>In other words, at what point does "a" character take over?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>When the make-up's put on and the lights are on. Thinking about Heath Ledger's Joker, and how Jack Nicholson apparently warned the actor about "the dangers" of playing such a role. Another question could be then, at what point is one able to shed of ones character, as soon as the lights are switched off ?</p>

[matthew_tyler]

<p>So, now I ask myself - what makes a compelling photograph? What first comes to mind is symbolic contrast within the content. For example, two five year-olds, one male, one female - sitting on a park bench, dressed in fashions that are 60 to 70 years past, feeding pigeons and reading newspapers - in a style designed to mimic seniors whom often fit the "feeding pigeons at the park" image. Or, perhaps a person in an overcoat holding an umbrella above his head to escape the rain - on a sunny day.</p>

<p>To me, a photogenic person is an individual whom I can photograph with little or no effort to portray them in the photograph as I do within my minds eye. This applies to aesthetics, behavior, and many other factors. Sometimes beauty is a factor, and sometimes it's not.</p>

<p>As for choosing an individual for a fictional or theatrical portrait… for this example, let's say we're constructing a portrait of someone who's led a long, weathered life with constant problems and obstacles. Let's pretend we're photographing them "at the end of the road". It would typically make more sense to choose someone with intense wrinkles who is underweight, with a tired yet determined look in their eye. They look the part. However, heck! For all we know, they could have had the easiest, pampered, and privileged life with no tough times whatsoever.</p>

<p>Wrinkles, to me, scream "LIFE EXPERIENCE"…. and, I too, recognize that wrinkles are just as superficial as perceived physical beauty. That statement brought to mind the many "young beauties" that have more experience than we can image - perhaps they traveled and moved frequently alongside a military family, suffered physical and sexual abuse, lost parents at an early age, and perhaps had to father/mother their young siblings due to parents (deceased). Sure, it's an extreme example--I use it however because it is a real profile (not of myself, but of someone I know). </p>

<p>How do we bring this "depth of experience, character, and personality" forth in a portrait of the example - if that hypothetical profile is our subject and happens to be a "young beauty"? How do we implement this in an honest fashion?</p>

 

[aplumpton]

<p>"Do some/many/all of your photos have a character you are aware of and can describe? (Fred, in his OT)</p>

<p>The character of an image (and not uniquely the character of a person) is what I think the OT questioned. </p>

[matthew_tyler]

<p><strong>Arthur:</strong></p>

<p>Many thanks for sharing those photographs! Before I continue with my thoughts. In my teenage years, I was trained to look at the essence of a photograph by viewing the photograph for literally "a moment within the blink of an eye". During this lesson, photographs were viewed "in a blink" while being held right side up, up side down, sideways, etc..<br>

The tombstones portrayed a sense of loneliness, unity, and isolation. The self portrait conveyed strength, and a sense of emptiness which is caused by lack of direction, and an arrival at a destination of which there is nowhere to go.<br>

As for character of photographs, your photos inspired me to view your portfolio. The original post referred to recognizable character within all of your photographs. So, I would say - on your behalf (if you don't mind) - that your photographs definitely have a distinct character (personality) that is universal within your photographs which can be described. Here are some of the words that come to mind after viewing your photographs, regarding character:</p>

<p>Patterns, offset by contrast.<br>

Emotional, introspective, internal appreciation.<br>

Opinionated strongly, strongly sensitive to others.<br>

Outgoing, fueled by interest and curiosity.<br>

Respect, to not interfere.<br>

Determination, to share feelings.<br>

Focused, without distraction.</p>

<p>I was inspired to share this because, in my opinion, your photography has a consistency within it's character. The subjects (people, or objects), from my perspective as a viewer, are utilized to infer a sense of character. They have purpose, visually.</p>

<p>How do you feel my perceptions of character within your photography apply to "the truth" as you (the photographer) know it to be, or intended?</p>

<p>Regards - Matt</p>

<p> </p>