WEEKLY DISCUSSION No.31 - Winston Churchill Portraits by Yousuf Karsh

AJHingel · June 23, 2014

"“Within every man and woman a secret is hidden, and as a photographer it is my task to reveal it if I can."

So my question is did Karsch believe he succeeded in that task with the Churchill portrait?"

For me the answer is obvious: A great NO ! Churchill played the role he decided to play for the public and Karsch executed.

charleswood · June 23, 2014

The main question in my mind, to restate, is what did Karsch think he captured, mere role or a lifting of the mask? Did he truly think that he captured a lifting of the mask in most of his portraits???!!!

AJHingel · June 23, 2014

In the case of Churchill, he caught the mere role. The smiling Churchill version, that Karsch is said to have liked better, might be more interesting and intimate in terms of looking behind the mask.

AlanKlein · June 23, 2014

I think it shows Churchill as most people remember him. Determined. Firm. Steady in spite of the cane. Isn't that what makes a good portrait? I don't understand trying to get inside to shoot the real man. Maybe this was the real man.

</blockquote>

Pugnacious. I forgot pugnacious. Wasn't that Churchill? Didn't Karsch capture it? See the story of the picture. http://www.karsh.org/#/the_work/portraits/winston_churchill

c_watson1 · June 23, 2014

Funny how the American Churchill cult seems far less meditative and calm than the British version, especially after 9/11, when ready-to-wear rhetoric out of Washington invoked Churchill repeatedly. I'm guessing that's where the affinity for this portrait is at least partially traceable.

charleswood · June 23, 2014

Alan I think Karsch captured those traits you enumerate. Yet can we say those traits were not generally known of him at the time? Probably not. So what I'm wondering about is if Karsch met his own standard of portraiture in the Churchill portrait, and I'm trying to evaluate Karsch according to one of his own standards. That particular standard would hold him to the task of revealing something in the subject that we the viewers didn't already know about the person.

Anders suggests that the smiling Churchill photograph better met that standard, the standard of lifting the mask a bit. I think that though to me the smiling one is not as powerful or memorable a photograph: I agree with Anders that it does show something that, speaking for myself, I wouldn't have expected in a portrait of this particular 'great' man.

With Mandela it's generally what I would have expected. Yet even so it is a very warm and relaxed Mandela. To me it has an intimate feel to it. Would that sense of intimacy in the Mandela shot be an example of a lifting of the mask?

Part of the reason I'm brooding over this point is that I like that standard, yet how do we practically realize it in our own work?

And in which particular photos did Karsch meet that standard himself? With the Jung as subject, it's an environmental portrait and to me meets the standard. In an earlier of these weekly discussions many thought the Pablo Casals photograph, also an environmental portrait, met the standard. How about the Georgia O'Keeffe photograph?

aplumpton · June 23, 2014

It's particularly interesting I think that when Karsh is criticized it is often from the observer's perceived feeling that the subject is not being portrayed very deeply, that the photographer is photographing a sort of "mask" rather than the real person, or that he is portraying the subject in his "role", whatever that role is. While I agree that in more than a few cases Karsh is portraying his subject in a favourable light or according to a stereotype that has been accorded his subject by others. This role quality is often known to the general public who either do not know the individual or who know him as portrayed in old newsreels or newspaper/magazine images, interviews (often not very probing or enlightening - most public persons are good role players).

Who knows what is the real essence of a public person being photographed? Sometimes even those of his or her close entourage (circle) might be pressed to define it. I agree with Charles that we can find Karsh portraits that seem to portray the real quality or character of the person and perhaps the Mandela, Casals, Kruschev, Grey Owl and Georgia O'Keeke images are of the real person and give us a facet of their personalities. I also think the Eisenhower portrait, while old style formal, depicts the essential honest and determined qualities of that man. Churchill was an exceptional leader in most difficult times and it can be argued that had he not acted so forcefully (and carrying with him his citizens) when Britain had only its Commonwealth affiliates to help protect it in active combat, the war might well have taken different directions than it did (the fall of Britain in 1941 would have made it difficult to change the course, despite Russia and the USA later on). The so called scouling portrait shows that resolve and will and I think Karsh was wanting to show that rather than the kindly faced persona of the other image, however that also revealed a side to Churchill.

It is even more interesting that while such criticisms are made of Karsh and his style, I have never seen them apply in other quite apparent cases such as the constructed portraits of Liebovitz and so many other photographers, well known or not, who portray famous people as role players or actors in masks. It seems a lot easier to criticize Karsh than some of these other icons of photography, for whatever reason.

AlanKlein · June 23, 2014

During his career he held 15,312 sittings, produced over 150,000 negatives. Yes, we seem to be very harsh on Karsch.

An extract from what he thought:

The endless fascination of these people for me lies in what I call their inward power. It is part of the elusive secret that hides in everyone, and it has been my life’s work to try to capture it on film. The mask we present to others and, too often, to ourselves may lift for only a second—to reveal that power in an unconscious gesture, a raised brow, a surprised response, a moment of repose. This is the moment to record.

</blockquote>

Maybe he caught moments that are more clear to him since he was there. I often see things in my pictures that no one else seems to notice or value. Don't we all?

Norma Desmond · June 24, 2014

"It is even more interesting that while such criticisms are made of Karsh and his style, I have never seen them apply in other quite apparent cases such as the constructed portraits of Liebovitz and so many other photographers, well known or not, who portray famous people as role players or actors in masks."

Leibovitz has often been criticized, and I've read such criticism on PN, for her Hollywood star portraits. I happen to like a lot of her stuff.

I like photographers who explore and exploit masks and personas, so that wouldn't be my own criticism of Karsh or anyone else. My criticism of Karsh is his heaviness of touch and, as C Watson above notes, Karsh's more taxidermist approach to his portraits. Leibovitz for sure constructs and often photographs her people in their roles, but she does it, IMO, with more flare and more personality than Karsh. Karsh's portraits look very much the same from person to person, in terms of lighting and other starknesses of his approach. Leibovitz seems to vary her approach, even though it evidences her particular style, depending on the person and the personality trait she is looking for.

Going with the mask, especially of famous people, seems very appropriate for a portraitist, and there can be great depth and authenticity in doing so genuinely.

Karsh's statement of his own goal to uncover the person behind the mask sounds like something cool to say and something I've heard said before and since. But it doesn't sound like it really reflects what he was doing and it rings hollow coming from his lips. I think people doing portraits of people who are not well known are more likely to achieve and want to achieve such a goal. I am conscious when doing portraits of unknown folks of the relationship of and tension between masks and candor. There is no clear line of distinction and I enjoy the interplay.

I often find I have to look at someone's work, sometimes in addition to listening to what they say and sometimes instead of listening to what they say, in order to determine what they're actually doing. Artists aren't always the best at describing what they are doing or even what they are trying to do, though I try to listen to them carefully and can still learn a lot by doing so, even when they miss the mark as I think Karsh did.

Norma Desmond · June 24, 2014

Arthur, it helps me, in understanding some of the comments about masks, to keep in mind that these are in part responses to the OP, who used Karsh's own words to describe what he is doing in the Churchill and other portraits as unveiling the secret behind the mask. Many of the contrary comments come from those who disagree and think Karsh has not done that but instead has shown the Churchill and Kennedy we know in their roles as statesmen. The comments mostly haven't really judged whether showing the public role is a good thing or not. They've judged Karsh against the standard he, himself, set and simply make the point that Karsh hasn't accomplished what he said is the job of the portraitist. Even Coleman didn't criticize Karsh for playing up the roles of his subjects. He criticized him for being monotonous and allowing his own heavy style to consistently take over the subjects.

Norma Desmond · June 24, 2014

"The revelation, if it comes at all, will come in a small fraction of a second with an unconscious gesture, a gleam of the eye, a brief lifting of the mask that all humans wear to conceal their innermost selves from the world. In that fleeting interval of opportunity the photographer must act or lose his prize."

Charles, this is what Karsh said and I think he meant it to but it doesn't apply to his own portraits. I'd change the prize in referring to Karsh. The prize was not a lifting of the mask. The prize was actually capturing the essence of the mask on film.

What he might have more accurately said is this:

"The revelation, if it comes at all, will come in a small fraction of a second with an unconscious gesture, a gleam of the eye, an epitomization (or signification) of the mask that all humans wear in their adoption of their role in the world. In that fleeting interval of opportunity the photographer must act or lose his prize."

Karsh actually seemed to come up with those gleams and gestures that epitomized the role rather than finding what was hidden behind it. I just don't think he did it uniquely for each subject and his work doesn't engage me to actually get much feeling for the masks or roles.

charleswood · June 24, 2014

Fred: "The prize was actually capturing the essence of the mask on film."

It's incongruous that Karsh would describe a standard to which for the most part Karsh didn't work; in passing I wonder if Karsh was a superficial thinker, e.g., the standard met with a candid of a great person eating a sandwich, 'captured' as just a regular guy.

Are there ready examples from others who clearly worked to that standard as most conceive it?

(To C Watson - I think more than a few in the USA after WWII appreciated Churchill in wartime and nevertheless didn't want him to be in politics after the war.)

c_watson1 · June 24, 2014

(To C Watson - I think more than a few in the USA after WWII appreciated Churchill in wartime and nevertheless didn't want him to be in politics after the war.)

British voters' views were a bit more decisive about Churchill in July 1945 when they voted the Conservatives out of offfice...

Norma Desmond · June 24, 2014

"It's incongruous that Karsh would describe a standard to which for the most part Karsh didn't work; in passing I wonder if Karsh was a superficial thinker"

Like I said, artists aren't always the best ones to describe what they're doing. Much as many people don't like hearing it, Coleman (whether or not one likes his style of writing or tone of voice) described Karsh's photography better than Karsh did (assuming Karsh was describing what he thought his portraits did).

I am finding that most who write about Karsh (including in Wikipedia) interpret Karsh's statement about lifting the mask to mean simply getting to the "essence" of his subject. But they don't say what that "essence" is and don't seem to differentiate between signifying, capturing, and epitomizing the role we know them in and stripping away that role. Many authors seem to feel the quote in question was Karsh's own self assessment, as if he believed he was accomplishing this.

I think what Karsh did was to reinforce and emphasize the role famous people played with a very particular photographic vernacular, one that he honed and repeated and aimed at a variety of public personas in a similar fashion, finding gestures and expressions that the world would clearly associate with the particular characters he photographed.

Where Karsh says he "stripped away", I'd say he did not. It seems to me he associated, emphasized, and reinforced in strong, formal, and somewhat starched visual terms.

c_watson1 · June 24, 2014

"Where Karsh says he "stripped away", I'd say he did not. It seems to me he associated, emphasized, and reinforced in strong, formal, and somewhat starched visual terms."

Yup. Here's how Avedon famously managed to uncover two lifelong masters of camouflage(whom he personally didn't like much, either):

<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/richard-avedon-photographer-of-influence-review.html?_r=0">http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/nyregion/richard-avedon-photographer-of-influence-review.html?_r=0</a>

Norma Desmond · June 24, 2014

I think one thing to recommend Avedon's approach to photography is what seems to me a bit of skepticism about the seeking of so-called "essences" or the supposed stripping away of masks. Though I have my own critique of some of Avedon's work, he suggests a groundedness, humility, and concentration on what looking and seeing provide when he says:

“My photographs don’t go below the surface. They don’t go below anything. They’re readings of the surface. I have great faith in surfaces. A good one is full of clues.”

I think Avedon comes closer to doing what Karsh thought he, Karsh, was doing and it may be because Avedon didn't feel the need to strive for essence and that may have allowed him to capture more of it, if essence exists at all. I'd say no one captures an essence. What we think of as essence is more a significant kind of input from and alignment of subject, photographer, and viewer. IMO, the open-endedness and expansive character of clues allow for deeper reach than the more quixotic search for essence.

Norma Desmond · June 24, 2014

"candid of a great person eating a sandwich, 'captured' as just a regular guy.

Are there ready examples from others who clearly worked to that standard as most conceive it?"

<a href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-oxYBXebQpYA/Tvx1DRqpOfI/AAAAAAAAqDQ/J0KkoRI5NYI/s1600/Candid+Portraits+of+Celebrities+by+Norman+Seeff%252C+1970s-80s+%25282%2529.jpg">JOHN TRAVOLTA</a>, by Norman Seeff

<a href="http://seattletimes.com/ABPub/2009/10/21/2010112583.jpg">ROBERT MAPPLETHORPE</a>, by Robert Mapplethorpe (compare this early polaroid self portrait to his later more staged, intense self portraits that were so much about a specific sexual role and identity)

<a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0168e8e1352c970c-600wi">BOB DYLAN</a>, by Jim Marshall

dhbebb · June 24, 2014

I think Avedon comes closer to doing what Karsh thought he, Karsh, was doing

If so, I think a large part of the reason is that Avedon was primarily concerned with advertising and fashion, not portraiture, and took portraits for editorial use rather than as commissions by his subjects. The same applies to David Bailey and many others.

Coleman, for whom I have no great affection, is right when he says Karsh displayed no artistic development during his career but dead wrong to assume that Karsh’s work is art (despite what YK himself said) or that any successful portraitist is an artist in the sense of being on a relentless crusade for truth.

If I think of any celebrity portraitist (for example, Mario Testino) what they are about is a high level of craftsmanship coupled with excellent people and business skills, all directed towards pleasing the subject (usually but not necessarily by flattery).

ellis_vener_photography · June 24, 2014

To C. Watson: "Ellis, the Japanese didn't attack Hong Kong till December 8, 1941."

While the military attack came on December 8, the USA and the Commonwealth had been working to curtail Japanese

imperialist expansion and unfettered access to natural resources in indochina and the South Pacific throughout 1940 and

'41. China and the USA engaged in a similar non-military confrontation over China's attempt to enlarge their sphere of

economic influence and control of natural resources today but I doubt (and pray) that this will lead to open warfare, the

economic costs and likelihood of what that would quickly escalate into are recognized by both sides as just being too

great.

ellis_vener_photography · June 24, 2014

To David Bebbington:

"If so, I think a large part of the reason is that Avedon was primarily concerned with advertising and fashion, not

portraiture, and took portraits for editorial use rather than as commissions by his subjects. "

Coincidentally I've just finished watching the 1955 documentary (hagiography?) on Avedon that PBS produced for their

American Masters series "Richard Avedon: Darkness and Light"

Outside of his editorial portraits and fashion work Avedon considered that he had a completely different body of work ,

one that was purely art. This is his "white background" work, the most most famous body of which is the "In The American

West" folio. This is arguably, with the exception of the " Natasha Kinski And The Serpent" and "Dovima with the

Elephants" the work for which he is best known for today.

He describes his thinking about these portraits as going through a series of "noes" to arrive at a "yes." He says very

forcefully "No to exquisite lighting; No to a background, No to props; etc." also used this approach for a lot of his

editorial portraits.

This is the body of work that he describes as being about the surfaces of a face.

The documentary is on YouTube and runs a little under 90 minutes.

c_watson1 · June 24, 2014

"While the military attack came on December 8, the USA and the Commonwealth had been working to curtail Japanese imperialist expansion and unfettered access to natural resources in indochina and the South Pacific throughout 1940 and '41."

Sorry, Ellis, but that ignores nearly a decade of unchecked annexation and aggression against China beginning in 1931. The late game oil embargo came only in the summer of 1941.

Norma Desmond · June 24, 2014

Reminder: These threads are about photos and photographers. While tangential matter may come up as it relates to the photos, and it often makes sense that it does, best to keep that tangential matter at least related to photography. Stuff unrelated to photography that comes up as a result of discussing the photos might best be shared outside these threads. Thanks.

ellis_vener_photography · June 24, 2014

We are getting rather far afield and into weeds Mr. Watson, but I am very, very aware of what the Japanese had been up

to in Manchuria and other parts of China throughout the '20s and '30s, so please spare us all your condescending tone.

You're not some public school master and I'm not one of your schoolboys.

ellis_vener_photography · June 24, 2014

Agreed Fred. Back to the point: Karsh figured out a formula that he found clientele for and flogged it mightily. He was a

one trick pony, but the trick paid handsomely and his clientele felt flattered because this was the photographer who shot

other great people. I suspect his bread and butter clients were Canadian politicians and business executives. Because he

had his formula, sold the hell out of it along with his reputation (today we call it "branding, a term I detest), and so he must

have been seen as a "safe" choice f you were important in the region.

dhbebb · June 25, 2014

Outside of his editorial portraits and fashion work Avedon considered that he had a completely different body of work , one that was purely art.

I am sure this is true – quite a few commercial photographers do “side” projects for their own pleasure. Among the largest project of this kind that comes immediately to my mind is the “Antlitz der Zeit” (“Portrait of An Age”) project by August Sander, which started out as a sociological record but then became political when the Nazis didn’t like him portraying Germans as ordinary folk instead of superbeings.

However, the principle still applies – if you’re doing a side project, you’re almost certainly going to have show potential subjects some of the work you’ve done already as examples of what the project is about, and if this work is not sympathetic (it probably doesn’t always need to be overtly flattering), your project won’t fly!

Sign In

WEEKLY DISCUSSION No.31 - Winston Churchill Portraits by Yousuf Karsh

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in