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

[c_watson1]

<p>Following on from Fred G.'s point above, it's clear that Karsh produced "mythic" images. Since "myth" is the history "everybody already knows, " according MIchel Tournier, then Karsh's portraits aren't especially revealing or informative compared to the deeper historical record. The Churchill Life cover VE portrait seems the best example of this problem.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Impossible to say if one is better than the other - both were produced by expert photographers who fully achieved what they were aiming for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>David, it is possible for me to say which is better: the Avedon portrait. There, I said it. I understand completely that each achieved their goal. And I respect each man for having achieved their goals so expertly. Achieving one's goals is very important. Art-wise and taste-wise, I still allow myself to prefer some photos to others, even when the goals have been achieved.</p>

<p>"Better" is a tough call. Is it some universally objective standard or a subjective matter of taste? I'm not claiming the former. But I have no problem claiming the latter. So, if it helps, Avedon is no better than Karsh. But I prefer Avedon to Karsh even though they both achieve their goals expertly.</p>

<p>Here's one simple thing you said last week in the Mortenson thread:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can't decide if I actually LIKE his work, but I am glad to have had occasion to view a selection of it!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And Mortenson likely achieved what he was aiming for. Still, you may not LIKE his work. And I may not LIKE Karsh's portraits as much as I LIKE others'.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Apparently, Karsch was looking for something beyond the obvious and expected in Marian Anderson, the singer, that Avedon captured. Maybe he saw better than we see. Or at least different.</p>

<p>http://www.karsh.org/#/the_work/portraits/marian_anderson</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"What struck me most...when I photographed her at her home in Connecticut in 1945, was her simplicity and peacefulness...None of my early shots satisfied me in the least. All of them, I felt, has missed the intangible target. I began to despair. Then, towards the conclusion of the sitting, Miss Anderson's accompanist came in for a rehearsal. This seemed to be my chance. I asked him, in a whisper, to play very softly the accompaniment to 'The Crucifixion', one of the singer's favourite compositions. Unaware of my innocent little plot, she began to hum to herself. Hurriedly, I snapped the camera. When I developed and printed the film I felt like it contained what I had seen with my own eyes. This is the portrait of a harmonious soul revealing itself unconsciously in song."</em></p>

</blockquote>

[AlanKlein]

<p>His capture of Casals was in the same vein.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I think what Karsh felt and what I see are two different things.</p>

<p>I was re-thinking whether or not Karsh may actually have accomplished his goal. If his goal was to portray Anderson as "a portrait of a harmonious soul revealing itself unconsciously in song," I'd simply say I'm glad he felt the music and the moment but I don't see what he does in the photo. I think he got it with the Casals portrait, which is quite special, IMO.</p>

<p>Regarding many of his photos, I'm not sure he's achieving his stated goal of portraying "all there is in a man's mind and soul and spirit." First of all, it's such a lofty goal, I'm not sure it could ever be achieved by anyone, so in that sense it's a little hyperbolic and, therefore, may be meaningless. But in many cases, I just see very professionally-lit and professionally-posed likenesses of people (which is certainly an accomplishment in its own right), but still very much lacking in mind and soul and spirit. So, who gets to judge. Karsh? Coleman? Me?</p>

<p>[Remember, not all or nothing. I've mentioned and linked to quite a few Karsh photos that I think are swell!]</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I don't see it either, Fred. That's why I said that he saw better or differently than us.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Alan, I'm missing your point. We're asked to respond to and/or critique someone's work. If I don't like it and the photographer who created it presumably does like it which is why he's chosen to show it, naturally we could boil it down to our seeing differently (or one seeing better than the other). But where does that exactly get us? It's kind of a given that we each see differently. Otherwise, we'd likely all come up with the same picture. Even if I liked the portrait of Anderson, I could still be seeing it differently from Karsh or anyone else. If the answer to a critique is, "well, I'm seeing something you're not," so be it. It can mean one of several things, including "I'm immune to your critique," "I'm kidding myself and the photo is not so good," "I'm a visionary and that's not being recognized." We may never know. These discussions are places to each air our reactions to photos. I don't know if it's a place to determine whose seeing better than who else. And it's likely a place where different visions are going to be at play.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>I may be missing your point too. All I was saying was if we don't "get it", maybe that's our problem, not the photographers. Maybe it's our limitations that prevent us from seeing what he saw. On the other hand, maybe his ego is seeing something that really is not there. That only he sees.</p>

<p><em>"But where does that exactly get us?"</em> you ask. Maybe no where. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." "There's no accounting for taste." Sheesh! It's only one picture out of billions and billions. Life goes on. Excuse me while make lunch.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Alan, thanks for the explanation. There seems to be an undercurrent of the thinking that says "If you/we don't get it, it's your/our problem" running through this thread. What if it's just a very natural difference in taste, and not anyone's problem? Most importantly, though, enjoy your lunch. :-)</p>

[James G. Dainis]

Karsch would develop his own large format negatives. He would do it by inspection with a green light rig that he constructed. That allowed him to make a thin exposure and bring up high contrast with extended development showing every pore, age spot and wrinkle of the men and older women that he photographed. He certainly didn't try that with younger women. His photos of the men remind me of the standard B&W photos that I often see on Photo.net of wrinkled up old men smoking cigarettes.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thanks, James. Wasn't aware of the procedures that led to this look and appreciate that info and agree with your analogy to some PN wrinkled-old-man photos, though I think some PNers take it to an absurd extreme.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>""What if it's just a very natural difference in taste, and not anyone's problem?""<br /><br>

That we don't agree on something is nobody's problem, but if we translate all different points of view into just a question of differences in personal taste, there is not much reason in discussions like these ones. We are all wasting our time then.<br>

Discussions like these become interesting and worthwhile if we all force ourselves to try to formulate the big WHY! Why we believe that specific photos are good or less good and in some rare cases why they are even exceptionally good.<br>

The critic forum here on Photonet is filled up with thousands of one or two word appreciations of our photos using superlatives like : beautiful, awesome, fantastic etc. The No-Words forum is a place where we can breathed and share photos without these one word appreciations and POTW and this specific Weekly Discussion are havens for more elaborated exchanges. So let us preserve such places for explaining our appreciations leaving the question of personal taste in the background wherever possible. </p>

<p>No! You surely don't have to agree with me on such viewpoints, but please don't suggest that it is all a question of taste, like liking chocolate or not. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Good points, Anders. I agree. I was wrong to reduce it to just a matter of taste. My chocolate/vanilla metaphor was ONLY meant in response to what Julie had said and shouldn't be extrapolated to apply to this entire discussion or all discussions of photos. As is probably obvious from all I've written here and elsewhere, I do try to use more detailed descriptions than "beautiful" and "nice shot" and "I like it." So, yes, there are reasons for our reactions to various photos and a good, solid discussion of those is what has been ensuing here.</p>

<p>At the same time, if someone wants to simply say they like something and not give reasons, I'm certainly open to hearing that. Everyone will approach a photo in their own way and some definitely don't like to think about it as much or try to put a lot into words.</p>

<p>It's a bit of a balancing act. We don't want to be seen as having some sort of visual or mental problem or failing for not appreciating a particular photographer. And others don't want to be seen that way for appreciating someone we don't. Like I said, I sensed in some of the posts that those of us who didn't like the Karsh photos (and we've given ample substantive reasons why not) were subtly being told we were either missing something or not seeing him in the right light or comparing him to the wrong folks, etc. When it DOES become more than a mere matter of taste, then it's possible that some (including me sometimes) may start to think they have the objective rationale on their side, and that can be problematic as well. This dilemma is nothing new in photographic and artistic criticism.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>By the way, I agree with Lex that we should not start a POTW type of discussion on how to choose photos for this weekly discussions. The way we are doing it seems to work well, but Allan Herbert had a point earlier on the interest of discussion more recent photographers and their work. It might be interesting to discuss the most recent creative photographical work, that we have discovered. "XXI century photography" that has inspired us could be the theme. Maybe another initiative or maybe just one of the future weekly selectors in this series of discussion, could be invited to think about it.</p>

[aplumpton]

<blockquote>

<p>So, who gets to judge. Karsh? Coleman? Me?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not to disappoint any of those three, I would suggest none of the three, but rather all of those viewers, wherever, who take the time to look at one or more of the 15000 or so portraits he produced. Who gets to judge Warhol's work, or Burtynsky's photos, or the works of Aubrey Beardsley. The same large section of humanity, more or less.</p>

<p>While it hasn't been manifest in my own comments, I hope in future to shy away from so earnestly wanting to have others accept my point of view, as seems also apparent in many of the comments made this week. The comments are very good, but as Shakespeare said in 1602, "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". Better I think to critically analyse the photo presented and maybe one other of the artist's (or artisan's) works, than to deconstruct tens of images of the photographer of the weekly discussion as we have been doing, and to try too hard and repetitively to convince others of a personal opinion. Which other of the photographers to date have had the luxury of a comprehensive review of their photos in the weekly discussion which has mainly cited only one or two images ?</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Arthur, "critically analyse"? <em>Really</em>? This is what art (or good pictures, if you don't like the a word) is for?</p>

<p>I would suggest that the caring, the 'too much protesting,' is exactly what art or good pictures <em>should</em> do.</p>

<p>To Anders, here's my in-a-nutshell feeling about the place of taste/preference in the judgment of art/pictures:</p>

<p>Liking and preference (chocolate or vanilla) are what move me <em>when I'm looking at the picture</em>. My judgment of its worth as art or its power as a picture are what it does to me <em>when I'm not looking at it</em> -- after I've walked away, for a day, a week. Does it call me back? Does it make me need to see it again? In other words, does it get hold of me? Change me, move me, whatever you want to call it, genuine good work stays with me. Work that is thin, weak, or pedestrian doesn't. Out of sight, out of mind.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Julie, fine, but I was referring not to the critical analysis of the individual photo presented, but the need for many to to review a great number of the artist's works rather than the one in question (yes, I am guilty of that too, but can also see its excesses) and to carry out the type of fortress approval or condemnation that we see, repeated over and over, rather than shaking that rigid cloak for one that is a bit more incisive and comprehensive of the approach of the photographer and to see that in its particular context, which may possibly have been the intention of the OP.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p>Most pros tend to have, metaphorically speaking, two separate switches in their heads when judging pictures - one is labelled "good/bad", the other "like/dislike". On this basis, it is possible to recognise that a picture shows great technical skill and almost certainly represents a 100% fulfilment of the photographer's aims and at the same time not personally like the work at all. I have very strong personal like and likes - on my bookshelf are, however, some books by photographers I really do not like at all but whose books I have bought in an attempt to reach a balanced judgement.<br>

One example is the book "Murmurs At Every Turn" by Raymond Moore. RM is lionised by British art photographers, I recognise his long-term commitment to his art and his skill in capturing his vision on film, but I just can't stand his work. Another book is by a former president of Magnum, whose workshop I attended and with whom I had a volcanic row prior to walking out - I thought and still think the guy is an a**hole but bought a book to try to understand how he had managed to have a career and be honored by his peers at Magnum.<br>

The "2-switch" approach is also very valuable when curating other people's work, as I have on many occasions, being responsible for a number of years for a small exhibition of contemporary photography in my area. Time and time again I selected work because I felt it was good, far too good to reject, even though I personally didn't like it at all. The same applies to picture editing - it is important sometimes to recognise that a certain picture is perfect for a certain purpose, even though I myself don't like it.</p>

[cyanatic]

<blockquote>I'm just a go-between, things discover me, I don't discover them. But in them I can find myself and grow"—Raymond Moore.

<h2> </h2>

</blockquote>

<p>David, interesting you should mention Moore. I don't dislike his work, but I struggle with some of it. Seems easier to grasp on a visceral level than an intellectual level. </p>

<p>I like your metaphorical switches. Makes sense.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I fully agree, when looking at art, the personal taste for what you like/dislike; what stays with me/gets out the mind is essential and one of the reasons why I also come back to images, museums, expositions and maybe even buy art.<br>

But there is another dimension to art. Art is also an institution, a social and human movement, expressions of the world we live in. To live with art, to look at it, to study it seriously, is one of the ways we have to better understand the world. This latter dimension is related to "understanding" what we look at when we look at something presented as "art". To see it in the context of other works of the same artist or in the context of his/her time and art of time period, can be essential for this neck-breaking and time consuming effort of trying, sometimes desperately, to understanding what you look at. You might dislike what you see, but yet it might play, and have played, a central role for artistic expression of our period or of the past. </p>

<p>Therefore, yes, some works of art stays with me because I like it. Other works of art stay with me because I believe they are parts of the puzzle of understanding art. Being attentive and receptive to art is maybe the most important aspects of my relationship to art, more than tasting.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Anders, "Art" may be, as you describe it, an "institution," but each individual work of art is not. With that in mind, notice that you and Arthur seem to agree about Art but disagree about this particular work of art (or non-art).</p>

<p>Arthur, you wrote: "Better I think to critically analyse the photo presented and maybe one other of the artist's (or artisan's) works, than to deconstruct tens of images of the photographer." The thing is, photography is ... photography. In order to sort the photographer from the incidentals, if we want to locate him/her in any one work, we need more than one work to sort of triangulate what puts him/her into the work. </p>

<p>At risk of seeming to deprecate Matt's admiration for Karsh, here is a more explicit comment that I was trying to put more kindly in my comment about John Wayne. To me, to my mind, Karsh treats me like a dummy: his pictures are like children's literature as opposed to adult literature. He "writes" in big type, in simple sentences, and in a 'See Spot run!' conceptual level. They seem to insult the intelligence of their audience. </p>

<p>On the other hand, as anybody who has tried to do it, writing children's books is devilishly tricky to do well. And Karsh does his very well; he knows exactly what and how much to put in and what and how much to leave out. Just like John Wayne ... If pushed to the level of a style, this can break into enjoyment for the sake of style, beyond or because of the strict and careful simplicity of the content. I don't think Karsh achieves that very often, though I think he may have (almost?) done so in several of his pictures, most particularly the Casals portrait.</p>

<p>With the above in mind, I am grateful to Matt for forcing me to notice exactly what it is about Karsh's work that has annoyed me, and what it is that might make some of his pictures worth revisiting.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>Karsh treats me like a dummy ...</em><br>

A sign of changing times - for some reason I was reminded of the magazine "Photoplay", which IIRC was sold in cinemas when I was young. In Karsh's time it was through this kind of (highly sycophantic) publication that the general public gained its (only) impression of movie stars, tightly controlled by the movie studios' PR departments. Karsh's portrait of Humphrey Bogart (and other stars) would have fit right in here - a perfect depiction of Bogie's screen image, absolutely no indication of what he was like in real life (apart from anything else, a civilised middle-class citizen who did not go around socking people on the jaw or shooting them!).<br>

Compare and contrast with today, with "Hello!" and "People" magazines, paps, etc.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>What's a portrait photographer to do?</p>

<p>If he is expected by viewers to capture "real life," where does he find it?</p>

<p>If he takes a picture of a coal miner whose face is blackened with a combination of soot and sweat has he captured that man's "real life" or must he catch him right after his evening shower when he's scrubbed clean of his day job and playing in the living room with his children?</p>

<p>Does he capture the working mom dressed in her suit and high heels at the office (which could be considered a kind of costume) or is it later on when she's put on her walking shoes and can be found casually exiting the grocery store on her way home to cook dinner?</p>

<p>Does he capture Bogart playing the roles he loves to play and was probably meant to play or is it a fleeting moment when he's on his hotel balcony in his skivvies without makeup?</p>

<p>Real life encompasses so many things, and so many roles played. How, exactly, do I know when the mask has been stripped away and when the wearing of the mask is somehow not real life?</p>

<p>Who's up there acting if not the real Humphrey Bogart?</p>

<p>Marlene Dietrich is one of the more extreme Hollywood examples of an image magnificently created and controlled. Here's what KJ Sembach has written in the introduction to a book of her portraits. It's worth considering, though more extreme, when regarding the portraits of any public figure. Speaking of her image:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Is there still a modicum of the human being in it? Or has the person in the intervening years fused completely with the creation that has been produced in her image? . . . Fifty years of artificial existence, endured by dint of self-discipline, must have created someone whose individual traits have merged with and finally been subsumed by the official image which she has given to the world. The power of metamorphosis cannot be reversed. . . . Her personality has not become some minor adjunct to her second life; instead they have fused, become one and the same. The result has been a unique existence for her, an existence that retains all its <strong>human dimension</strong>. But it is no longer free and arbitrary. Chance and accident have become things foreign to her. In exchange for this redemption from earthly vicissitudes, however, her transformation into a human being as a form of art has been a small price to pay. Presumably the one is impossible without the other.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The thing I ponder when making and looking at any portrait is to what extent the "official image" we give to the world is significant and meaningful. In portraits, significance may be go deeper even than reality. In the case of Dietrich, and to some extent all of us, the significance of our "official" or posed image <em>is</em> also a reality.</p>

[dhbebb]

<p><em>If he takes a picture of a coal miner whose face is blackened with a combination of soot and sweat has he captured that man's "real life" or must he catch him right after his evening shower when he's scrubbed clean of his day job and playing in the living room with his children?</em><br>

As you may be aware :-) this question has puzzled people before:<br>

<a href="http://shadowoflight.bigcartel.com/product/northumbrian-coal-miner-eating-his-evening-meal-1937">http://shadowoflight.bigcartel.com/product/northumbrian-coal-miner-eating-his-evening-meal-1937</a></p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Yes. Thanks, David. Good link. Questions without clear answers, IMO, but ones that might offer insights into portraiture.</p>