Character

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Matthew, I like your description of a photogenic person. I would add that they don't necessarily make my job as photographer easier. As a matter of fact, sometimes I feel like I have to work harder just to do them justice. Their being photogenic means the camera loves them, which is a really good start.</p>

<p>Photographic tools and photographic gesture come to mind as far as your last question. I may not try (or be able) to translate specifically their depth of experience to the photograph, especially if I try to do that literally. But I can allow that depth of experience influence over my photographing. I use pose, lighting, juxtapositions, composition, texture, depth, focus, color (or different approaches to black and white) to bring the kind of photographic depth that will suggest it within the subject. I especially like to use backgrounds and envrornment. I may bring in another person as part of the photo to set up a dynamic which will visually show depth of experience. I might work to give the photo a dramatic character, an intellectual character, a geometric character, a strong or mellow character, etc.</p>

<p>Yes, and because wrinkles scream life experience and beauty screams other superficially about youth I will work hard not to allow all this screaming to get in the way of a genuine and nuanced expression.</p>

<p>Arthur, thanks for posting your photos and thoughts. I can't do them justice at present, but will address your photos tonight or tomorrow.</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>

 

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>Do these images suggest a quality of character to others, or is this not what you think the term is all about? - Arthur</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, I think what you were describing is more the context of your photographs, as seen from your unique perspective of creating them. Most viewers wouldn't now a photograph's particular context in that way ( even if the photographs do communicate something, if not only on a visual level ), so I think there has to be something more to character than context driven only. I need not know the context of your barn photograph for example, knowing the photographs context would perhaps lessen its character as I perceive it, more than it would actually strengthen it.<br>

A photograph's perceived character doesn't need to depend on it being anchored in reality.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>"I think what you were describing is more the context of your photographs, as seen from your unique perspective of creating them."</p>

<p>Phylo, thanks for your comments. The mental context for me was in part important in these two images (and perhaps too personal or singular to communicate effectively), but those were not the primary unique expressions I achieved or tried to achieve. Without indulging too much in self appraisal, I think that what I communicated visually in the two images comes close to the sense of character of an image, in the sense that the visual perception I have used is unique, although some others may not feel that to be so, having perhaps seen similar types of images before. In any case, they are exploratory or unique to me and to my photography. For what it's worth, I've posted another batch of images to my portfolio and will subject them to the Photo Net critique process in the next week. Some have a similar "signature" to those posted here.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Arthur, thanks for posting and discussing your photographs. I don't approach them literally. For me, they are both more visual and more felt. Particularly the second of the two has a kind of presence that is emphasized by the shadowy suggestion of a skewed cross and the way it matches up with the side of the staircase. That gives it almost a cut-out feeling, also a kind of internal harmony. The steps are aglow and serve more of a graphic function for me than an interpretive one. I'd say that second one has an expressionist character, though I admit the more I've thought about it and the more that's been written the less sure I am of my whole post and the idea of character of a photo. I have always been convinced of the significance of the character of people and the characters we are and that's an important part of the way I make portraits, and it may be that I should stick to that notion. From the responses so far as to character of a photo <em>per se</em>, I am most inclined to accept John's talking about paper and printing as part of the character, since I came to it from the musical analogy of the timbre of instruments, which is a very physical matter. Generally, I consider literal interpretations to be about meaning, not character. I would think of character as something <em>underlying</em> the meaning. "Next to last" and "penultimate" have the same meaning but different characters.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Two additional thoughts about character . . .</p>

<p>When we say an actor stays in character, we mean he keeps to his role and doesn't let his own personality come through (or at least keeps that to a minimum). Perhaps the character of a photo has something to do with its relationship to actually being a photograph. Not about emotion, not about meaning, but about its relationship to what it is. How can it be described in terms of being a photograph? Where does it fit in historically with other photographs? How does it use light? Focus? Depth of Field? Exposure? To what extent does it remain a photograph?</p>

<p>Characters are also significant visual marks, like letters of the alphabet . . . symbols.</p>

<p>Maybe these two things tie together. Maybe the character is what is significantly <em>visual</em> about the <em>photograph</em>. Not how it feels, not what emotions it conveys or seems to convey, not what it makes me think. </p>

<p>How it looks.</p>

 

[Julie H]

<p><strong>Fred,</strong></p>

<p>The first part of your last post assumes that "in character" (via "a role") is something that one can stay "in" -- therefore it is in some way constant.</p>

<p>I'm wondering how much character is analagous to the mathematical concept of invariance. That term (as used in math) does not mean that <em>everything</em> remains the same. It means <em>something</em> remains the same. Via the dictionary, invariance means, 1. the character of remaining unaltered after an operation or (esp. linear) transformation; 2. the property of remaining unaltered or of being the same in different circumstances.</p>

<p>For example a (topological) knot may look completely different in one perspective from another perspective. A property of invariance would allow you to prove/confirm whether or not it was in fact the same knot in both views. Conversely (pointing out the obvious) it's a way of finding if two knots are <em>not</em> the same.</p>

<p>Might character in a photograph be comparable? If there is some descriptor or quality that everybody seems to see in a given picture -- or that the same person always sees over repeated viewings over long periods of time (one can't change the perspective on a flat photograph)?</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Phylo, Fred,</p>

<p>Your arguments about character not being related to a literal sense or to the context of an image are appropriate I think, and those aspects are probably not very useful in describing "character in a photograph". That a person being photographed shows (or the photographer accentuates) his unique or oft-seen character in an image is not for me character of the photograph, unless the way the photographer has perceived the person is unique. We have all seen multiple images of persons of strong character which have little to say about the character of the photography. Of course, there are some that show character of the photograph. Elsewhere, I cannot accept John's explanation that the way a print is made (paper, printing) or displayed is a significant expression of character in a photograph. That is too superficial a quality for me to recognise as being the important character of a photograph or of a series of photographs. Style and character each come from the photographer and are different, although each merits the title of "having a unique quality". Do the once popular David Hamilton photographs of dreamy scenes involving nubile young ladies bring to mind style or character of the photograph? I tend to weigh in on the side of style but the way and why he photographed may indicate character (although I am not impressed greatly by his work). August Sanders photographed in a particular way, as did Avedon and Penn. Can we say that their photographs had character (unique quality), apart from their context or literal meanings? Probably, although defining that character is not always easy.</p>

<p>Julie,</p>

<p>In pursuing the above thoughts I think your introduction of invariance is pertinent, in the sense that the property or character of "remaining unaltered" can well define the unique quality of a series of photographs, their character that remains evident despite the changing context of the images. But invariance can also relate to some property that is not a unique quality, but just some simple and often seen characteristic that remains unaltered. In photographic terms, in terms of the character of a photograph, that latter case would not be relevant, although others might be.</p>

<p>Fred's keen sense of observation noted the apparent cross shaped form of the shadows and their relationship to the rest of the image (ledge, steps). It is enigmnatic, which pleases me, but also are the highlighted steps (thanks in large part to the capacity of the fairly recently deceased Kodak IR film), which symbolise the steps of life, or the history of, or necessity, of decisions. But this is all context or literal meaning, not necessarily character. The way I photographed the image may, or may not, define character of the photography. The same for the cemetery shot example, although I tend to think that any unique quality of that image, if it is there, has to do not with the context but how the image was perceived.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I do think there is something to the constancy of character that Julie has suggested. Style is much more likely to vary than character. And nature, as I said with the differences between my brother and me, is probably even more stable.</p>

<p>I think I could easily take a photo, and I have, that most people would say is out of character with the rest of my portfolio, for instance a sunset on the beach photo. But I could do that in a variety of styles, form postcard to high technique.</p>

<p>I agree with Arthur that the constancy wouldn't need to be unique. Many photos and bodies of work share a similar character without varying that much from each other.</p>

<p>Character can be good or bad.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Matthew,</p>

<p>I missed your earlier August 22nd post, but saw it today and appreciate your comments about my portfolio. I often think that my work could do well to be better focused, at least in terms of subject matter. Your impression of some of the things that drive my interest to photograph, which I agree may be common to my approach and which probably affect why and how I photograph, is very useful to me. It is a feedback and learning position from which I can analyse and reformulate my intentions and future work. I find these critiques, like others on specific images from Fred, John, Phylo and others, to be very valuable in considering one's approach. Thanks.</p>

<p>Contemplating photographic works takes time, and apart from occasional comments on the work of fellow photonetters, I have yet to devote enough time to that, but hope to. Whether they deal with the traits of a photographic approach, or the specific messages obtained from an image, comments like yours are important in learning how our work affects others. </p>

[Julie H]

<p>"I am a flame through which will eventually pass, according to Buckminster Fuller, thirty-seven tons of vegetables ... among other things*." -- <em>Hollis Frampton</em></p>

<p> <em>gnōthi seautón </em></p>

<p>Which ties character to personal narrative. Who you are is inseparable from everything else. To know one is (necessary) to know the other. Or, to put it another way, to not know one is to not know the other.</p>

<p>*roses</p>

[jtk]

<p>To be sure that one "knows" anything suggests self-deception. "Failing" to be sure hints at wisdom.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Julie, yes. I think an awareness of what one is doing and what one is about, a degree of intention both in one's work and in one's goals and life path is an important part of character. That's why I think photographic character is probably best looked for in a body of work rather than just in individual photos, just as character in a person is best looked for over a series of actions rather than in one particular action. I think it's easier to pick up on style in one photo, but for character I'd want to look at more of the work.</p>

<p>I came across a well-executed and intriguing high contrast photo recently in the critique queue. I immediately went to the photographer's portfolio only to be disappointed in finding that pretty much every one of the hundreds of shots posted, no matter what subject, was handled in a similar way. The character of the work was diminished by this undiscerning, seemingly rote, approach.</p>

[Julie H]

<p><strong>Fred</strong>, Interesting ideas in your second paragraph. I'm still thinking about that.</p>

<p>To amplify (or clarify) my own previous post, I don't mean to say that personal narrative is necessarily in any way IN one's photographs -- unless that is one's intention. What I mean is that knowing the nature of one's relationship(s) with/in the world allows you to know what that relationship is "doing" (or not) in or to your pictures. And I think that is key to good photography and is apparent in the character of one's photographs.</p>

<p>To emphasize that I don't mean that one's pictures are "about" one's self narrative, but that they nevertheless spring from it, here is a quote that I agree with from Edward Weston's <em>Daybooks</em> (285 pages of personal narrative in my edition):</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Nature must not be recorded with a viewpoint colored by psychological headaches or heartaches: petty personal reactions from everyday situations are not to be exploited, such can be recorded in daybooks -- a good place to evacuate, cleanse the heart and head, preparatory to an honest, direct, and reverent approach when granted the flash of revealment."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The word "preparatory" is what I'm after in advocating the importance of personal narrative -- to clear the way. Please note that the above quote describes Weston's personal view on the role of the personal in his work. Another photographer may choose, deliberately, to use his or her personal narrative, but that person can't do that if they don't know what it is.</p>

<p>Lastly, for those who believe that all this "knowing" is the wrong approach; that instinct is the way to go; that "knowing" actually gets in the way rather than founding good pictures, I give you a little bit of Freud:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>Instinct is an urge inherent in organic life to restore an earlier state of things</em> which the living entity has been obliged to abandon under the pressure of external disturbing forces; that is, it is a kind of organic elasticity, or, to put it another way, the expression of the inertia inherent in organic life."<br>

[from <em>Beyond the Pleasure Principle</em>]</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Inertia and restoring an earlier state of things is not what I look for in good pictures.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes, Julie, I understood you as far as one's character or personal narrative not necessarily being IN the work. I was analogizing the character of a human (over a series of actions) to the character of a body of work (over a series of photographs), not suggesting a direct or really any relationship between the two though, as you say, there may be such a relationship and often is. </p>

[luis_g]

<p><em></em><br>

<strong>Julie, </strong>relating to the Freud quote, do you equate a true <em>instinct</em>, like a baby's fear of no visible means of support from a heightened position (even though there's many pictures of babies thrown into the air by their fathers smiling ecstatically at the apex) with experience-based intuition? I do not. I believe it is a dangerous notion to think of practices diametrically opposed to ours as atavistic.</p>

<p>A lot of what has been discussed is neither pop psychology, nor a repudiation of knowledge, particularly in favor of the scientific definition of 'instinct'.</p>

<p>If you re-read Weston carefully, what is he saying? He is first eliminating "petty personal reactions", the stuff of self, and preparing by emptying his mind: "a good place to evacuate, cleanse the heart and head". He goes on to say that the goal is: "... an honest, direct, and reverent approach when granted the flash of revealment." Wait...reverence? A direct approach is an unmediated approach. Unmediated in what way? Notice how he is consistently playing down the importance of the "me, myself and I" self? He is humble. And then he uses the word "revealment", and that he is <em>"granted" </em>it. Huh? Who or what is granting this revelation? There's a lot between those lines besides the preparation.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Eliminating petty personal reactions is difficult. One may espouse reverence for humility and still not practice it. Playing down the importance of "me, myself, and I" is not humble. Acting, treating people, and responding to people without feeding "me, myself, and I" gets closer to humility. That's why I look for character in people over the course of their <em>actions </em>(and in photographs through a body of work or perhaps at least a series).</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Ok, eliminated was too strong a word, what he is doing is actually far humbler and more difficult to do, which is to <em>set them aside temporarily.</em></p>

<p> No, we're not talking about an absolutist perfected enlightmenment, but a human approach, full of stumbles, imperfections and as John reminded us, failures.</p>

<p>This *is* difficult. Hell, just talking about it is difficult. Espousing ideas, even without practice, is difficult, let alone practice without ideas. If it was easy, we'd all be Masters, and it would mean little.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I hadn't zeroed in on "eliminating." I was focused on the difficulty part. Even setting "me, myself, and I" aside temporarily is obviously difficult. I wasn't thinking of the word "eliminating" in the exaggerated or absolutist fashion John thinks of the word "knowing" or I took both you and John to be considering the concept of "self narrative" when you talked about it being a delusion. I understood the non-absolute and fallibly human gist of what you meant, just as I did what Julie meant when she spoke about knowing and narratives. Knowing, and creating narratives, doesn't negate questioning and wonder nor does any of it seem a delusion to me, though they both certainly <em>can</em> be.</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<p>Here's an <a href="http://elsadorfman.com/barthes.htm">interesting read on character</a> in photography ( though specifically in portrait photos ) in context of Roland Barthes' Camera Lucida. Barthes believed that the character of a photograph ( like when he's discussing the picture of his mother as a young girl, as being a picture of his *true mother*) is only inherent from the subject photographed.<br /> But like the photographer in the link writes, I also think that that's underplaying the role of the photographer a bit too much, and how the photographers character and interplay with subject can translate to the photograph's perceived character too.<br /> There's also the talking whether or not true character can be found in one single "perfect" picture or in a series of pictures of the same subject. And how materials used affect the character of the photograph : like the photographer from the article using an 20*24 polaroid camera for making portraits.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Speaking about how one feels of one's work or approach in the first person is not I think a petty personal reaction or a statement lacking humility. That Weston can do so without invoking the first person is perhaps admirable, but I don't think the use of I or not has much to do with what he is saying about cleansing his "heart" (I presume he is refering here to his emotions, but maybe not?) and head.</p>

<p>It is the way in which we use the first person that is important, which can run the gamut from poorly disguised self "agrandissement" to an unimbellished sincere thought. It is often not difficult to separate the two and that allows us the advantage of discrimination rather than being lost in the communication. On the subject Weston is referring to, I think that to remove the stuff of self has its limits, and that stops where a photographer does not use only instinct but also his prepared mind, which is the stuff of self.</p>

 

 

<p>"There's also the talking whether or not true character can be found in one single "perfect" picture or in a series of pictures of the same subject. And how materials used affect the character of the photograph : like the photographer from the article using an 20*24 polaroid camera for making portraits."</p>

<p>Phylo, you are right in attributing character asa product of the photographer. The 20 x 24 Polaroid portraits haveas much input of character as one going from 35mm to 4x5 inch. Technical clarity, for whatever that is worth (It doesn't seem to influence our perceptions of our low resolution monitor images here). I have difficulty seeing character in a single image, which does not express a unique quality of character as imbued on a series of images by a photographer. A single image may suggest character, like a single encounter with ordstatement from someone, but it is not until more than one encounter occurs that the nature of it is confirmed.</p>

<br />

 

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>The stuff about the first person is nicely said, Arthur.</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"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?" -- </em>Matt<br>

<em></em> <br>

My only answer is to treat the subject as more than object, or to skip the "opportunity." </p>

<p>For that reason I almost never photograph people with whom I can't converse or if they're pretending to be somebody other than the person I think I'm facing. It's fine with me if others want to photograph pretense, or think they can reveal something behind it. Not my cup of tea.</p>

<p> I met a recent high school grad who has bad skin, bad teeth, and is a creative writer. A couple of weeks earlier I met a USAF pilot who's blandly good looking, also a creative writer. They're both very much present as individuals: for starters, the pilot is having non-political doubts, the kid is excited and frightened about his new adventure (college). <em>They'd both be difficult for me</em> to photograph in ways that'd be interesting to others without meaningful setting or props, but maybe they'll both be more my kind of subjects when they move along a little in life...I hope we maintain contact and that I'll be a better photographer by then.</p>

[jtk]

<p><em>"Speaking about how one feels of one's work or approach in the first person is not I think a petty personal reaction or a statement lacking humility." </em>-- Arthur</p>

<p>It's commonly said that ratio of "I" to the rest of the words in one's writing (word count) does directly measure a writer's interest in the response of readers. Editors rigorously use software to fix that, teachers teach about it, and there's an old-fashioned matter of manners (!).</p>

<p>High "I" count seems typical of Internet posts written as reflections, which also suggests disinterest in communication. Weston, whose Daybooks were also reflections, seems to me to have been centered on his work and his relationships rather than self-aggrandizement...his only anxiety about recognition (ego) may have been his jealousy of Stieglitz's greater fame. </p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>There is also the rhetorical device of using "we" and "us" either as a substitute or disguise for "I" or, in many cases, "you".</p>

<p>I agree with John that the writing of articles where there are editors and academic papers where there are teachers is different from a more personal type of writing. I've engaged in all three and have different approaches and styles, and choose my words differently, for each.</p>

<p>And manners come in many forms.</p>