Essence in Photograph

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Ellis, I agree. A very constructive discussion in my eyes. Glad you mentioned abstraction, a quality which can provide great insight in a non-literal way. Literal knowledge of a person is one thing. A more abstract sense of that person or subject (which photos can provide) might be just the ticket for accessing anything as abstract as a notion of their essence.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Another thought has to do with whose narrative goes into making the photograph? For example, my portfolio here on P.N: how much is it a narrative about some guy, me, who wanders around taking coyote pictures versus a narrative about coyotes, less a narrative of me and more of coyote essence? Another way to say it is to ask of myself: whose essence is portrayed in my pictures? My own predominately = boring, or am I enough out of my own space that I can incorporate some other essentialnesses?</p>

[Brad_]

>>> Another thought has to do with whose narrative goes into making the photograph?

 

This gets back to the debate about "photos telling stories," Garry Winogrand, etc. So... backing up a bit, I think most people

understand that photos do not actually *tell* stories. Rather than go down that path (which has become

kind of tedious over the years) many times I will say that good photos have the ability or power to release narrative in the viewer's mind, stimulating their imagination.

 

Yes, there are many different narrative possibilities, including those with different perspectives, and to a viewer one that resonates with them may

likely be different than one that resonates with me when I clicked the shutter - or afterwards when I'm processing the photo at home. That's OK - I like making photos that have ambiguous aspects. That's why up above I qualified

"narrative" as (some kind of) narrative.

[ellis_vener_photography]

"Narrative" implies that there is a story arc embedded in a photograph : a beginning, a middle, a denouement,and a

conclusion. For me, photos that work, whether they are ones I have made or those made by someone else, are more akin

to either a haiku, a limerick or a pun.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Charles et al, I think often a body of work, more than an individual photo, can provide a glimpse or more into the photographer. You referred to that as a narrative about the photographer and I have no quarrel with that but it doesn't have to be called that and can be called something else. What I take away is that something, whatever, is revealed about the photographer.</p>

<p>As I become familiar with various photographers, whether famous or ones on PN and here in San Francisco, I'm often amazed at how much the things people say about photography seem to comport with what they show and how they show it in their photos. Sometimes I get a better and more nuanced picture from the photos than from what someone says about themselves or about photos. On the other hand, sometimes people say things that aren't reflected in their work at all. There can be a disconnect between one's own ideas and what one produces. I've heard people describe themselves or their work in terms I don't see in their photos.</p>

<p>I tend to choose my words carefully, sometimes even managing to obfuscate some realities about myself with my words and I suspect others do as well. My photos can sometimes be more revealing (of the good and the bad) than my words and sometimes I, myself, don't even realize how much they're revealing about me until someone points it out to me. My own guardedness, I think, can come through in my photos as hesitation or tentativeness. It's something I can either work with and explore or try somewhat to change . . . or a little bit of both. At the same time, I think—and hope—that my belief that a portrait can do more than show what people look like is also reflected in my work.</p>

<p>These dynamics and the tension between the alignment and non-alignment of what we say and what we produce are fascinating and probably worth an entire thread. Karsh is for me an example of someone whose words and descriptions of the goals of a portrait photographer don't comport with what I see in his work itself. Winogrand's ideas and statements seem much more in line with the work he produced.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>I suppose as to guessing unguided by prior knowledge of a subject: sure, guessing can be an educated guess, a guess educated by prior knowledge; or the guess can be a guess uneducated by prior knowledge. But I think also that the photographers do at times close that distance between guess and reality by providing other educating information in a photograph.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"But I think also that the photographers do at times close that distance between guess and reality by providing other educating information in a photograph."</em></p>

<p>Charles, I agree. And in addition to educating information, a photographer can provide a somewhat intangible feel for his subjects, whether people or otherwise. Clues are just that . . . clues. They guide me toward something. Their power and mystery is that they can lead me astray and just as often they don't.</p>

<p>Something that helps close the distance between guess and reality is a photographer's ability/willingness/proclivity to give his subjects a <em>voice</em>. Maybe that's a better (or at least different) way of thinking about it than considering a more complete or literal narrative.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> At the same time, I think—and hope—that my belief that a portrait can do more than show what

people look like is also reflected in my work.

 

I don't know any portrait photographer who does not believe the portraits he/she makes reveals

something about the subjects they photograph. Can you imagine if that were not the case? The question

posed though, is: "Is it possible to capture a subject's essence in a photograph?"

 

That's a much much taller order. Especially, if that essence needs to be sussed out by a viewer

independent of any previous knowledge about the subject. Essence is the distillation of

aspects/attributes, a concentrated shorthand notation of sorts that speaks to who a person is. I would

very much like to see a portrait of someone I don't know or know anything about and then asked if I can

determine their essence - without any supporting information or facts. Of course I can guess and make

anything up, much like a fortune teller does with safe/obvious assumptions, but then the question

becomes moot if in the end there is no interest in actually determining if my conjured essence is at least

somewhat accurate. Getting back to Gerald, I would not know where to begin.

[sjmurray]

<p>I think we humans are essentially “wired” to “read” expressions from each other in order to better understand the meaning of a situation, which would include some kind of communication, expression of emotion, etc. A photograph gives us a frozen moment in which to apply all this “computing” and of course we do, instinctively. What it actually means is up to our imagination. Looking at a photograph of a face is a delightful exercise in relating our own experience and interpretation ability to this captured moment, but we have no way of knowing how accurate we are. Public figures already have a public persona which we automatically apply to the equation when we see a photograph of them.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Understood, Brad. Sorry, I may not have made clear that I'd moved past the original question about essences, since my own input about whether they exist or can be captured seemed a bit futile, especially since I'm skeptical of the concept to begin with.</p>

<p>What I was driving at was not just whether photographers have a belief that their portraits reveal something. I was answering Charles who asked about what our photos show about us and saying that I believed that that belief that something known and significant can be revealed in a portrait is reflected in my work. I was just taking a stab at Charles's question by reflecting on some of the ways my photos say or show something about me, both for good and for bad.</p>

<p>A belief in the revelatory nature of portraits about their subjects is not sufficient to ensure that the portraits themselves will, in fact, be revelatory. Many an otherwise good portrait does not give the subject a voice, despite the portrait looking like the subject and having strong visual and graphic impact and appeal.</p>

<p>One quality that I think helps produce subjects with a voice is marrying stylistic and graphic choices as well as environments and other key ingredients (including those bits of information Charles refers to as well as a less tangible <em>feel</em> for and expressiveness about the subjects which I mentioned) to the individuals being shot as opposed to having a style that is less related to the particular subjects or that is more generic and similar even when working with a wide range of subjects, something Karsh did and others do to the detriment of their portraits, IMO. Avedon sometimes did it but his ability to zero in on key expressions allowed his subjects more of a voice considering his rigid (?) and consistent approach stylistically in some of his work. The American West style Avedon employed in some respects leaves me cold but does at least seem harmonious and even personal to the folks he was shooting. I think it took Avedon a lot of subtlety and attention to what else is written on those faces and even to what their clothes give them in personality in order to make those portraits work the way they do.</p>

[michaellinder]

<p><em>“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.”</em><br>

<em> </em>In the thread to which I referred in the OP, Fred provided the above quote from Avedon. I think it may provide answers to the three questions I initially posed.</p>

<p>(1) What constitutes a subject's essence, like what constitutes anything's essence, is a fundamental question of philosophy - metaphysics in particular. As such, I don't purport to be able to answer it without doing a lot of rereading and even more thinking. But, in light of the quote and some of the thoughtful posts I've read, perhaps it is simply fruitless to think of a photographic subject's essence in static terms. Maybe it is more fruitful to regard it dynamically - as a goal in the photographic process. <br>

(2) Hopefully I'm not sounding too glib by saying that anything's possible, especially in photography. Whether a photographer succeeds in capturing a subject's essence depends on what he/she is trying to accomplish or emphasize.<br>

(3) Many of us may think that chasing a subject's essence is a waste of time. However, there are many different types of subjects - people, scenery, buildings, events, and . . . then there are abstract subjects - sometimes, identifiable subjects rendered unidentifiable through various photographic or processing techniques, and sometimes such items as shapes, lines, colors, shadows, or light.</p>

[Brad_]

>>> I think it took Avedon a lot of subtlety and attention to what else is written on those faces and even to

what their clothes give them in personality in order to make those portraits work the way they do.<P>

 

For me, as one who holds Avedon in highest regard for his broad range of accomplishments over his

career starting with working for Alexey Brodovitch at Harpers in the 1940s where he transformed fashion

photography, a lot of that comes from his love of people and his child-like playfulness/inquisitiveness that

allowed him to easily connect with subjects. There's a lot to observe and learn from his past.<P>

 

<center>

.<P>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Avedon1.jpg"><BR>

<P>

.<P>

</center>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>What matters to me photographically, among other things of course, is not just that he could easily connect with subjects, which is a very good start, but that he could translate not only part of that connection but also allow his subjects a voice in the photographs that resulted from those encounters. I hold Avedon in high regard photographically speaking, though seemingly a little less high than you, more because of his photos than because of his behavior in getting them.</p>

<p>[Hitchcock, for example, is notorious for mistreating some of his actors and yet his films connect strongly with me because he knew what to include and when to include it (or not include it) to make his films work so effectively. Despite his own human interaction issues, the human interactions in his films, such as Vertigo, are amazingly sensitive, revealing, and enlightening.] </p>

<p>In any case, I didn't mean to get too specific into the workings of either Avedon or Karsh and surely not Hitchcock but instead was emphasizing what, as seen in photos themselves, gives subjects a voice and reveals things about them.</p>

[Brad_]

Fred, there have been many discussions about Avedon's work here in the past, so rather than talk about his photos, which I also hold in high admiration for many reasons, I

thought it more interesting to speak to a few aspects that allowed for their creation.

[Norma Desmond]

<p>By the way, lest we get too serious (is it too late for that?!), some portraits are made just for the hell of it or the fun of it. They don't look like the person because sometimes we don't even see the person's face and they may not reveal much beyond a little whimsy.</p>

<p> </p><div></div>

[Brad_]

>>> By the way, lest we get too serious (is it too late for that?!), ...<P>

 

We? Do you have a small mouse in your pocket? <P>

 

Sorry, a bit of forum humor, not wanting to be too serious... :)<P>

 

Whimsy?

<center>

.<P>

<img src= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/Bride.jpg"><BR>

<i>

San Francisco • ©Brad Evans 2014

</i>

<P>

.<P>

</center>

[dcstep]

<p>If you Google Images of Mother Teresa, you'll see hundreds of images of her, usually in 1/4 profile and some with hand in prayer position (she would tend to do this when she greeted people). I think these types of images became the world's view of her "essence", but one or two out of a hundred images show her carrying a weak child or soothing a suffering, emaciated adult on a very simple cot. I might argue that these images of her "serving" may be closer to the "essence" that I understand from reading about her life.<br>

Both images are valid. The problem with the word "essence" is that it is supposed to be the one thing that best exemplifies the true nature of someone or something, so we can always argue over which image shows "it."</p>

<p>If I'd had the chance to shoot Mother Teresa, I'd be trying to capture her at her work, showing her and the response from someone she was helping. That's my perception of her essence, but I'd probably also take the "classic" shot of her greeting me or others with her "praying hand" gesture and show the light in her eyes.</p>

 

[Allen Herbert]

<p>(1) What constitutes a subject's essence?<br /> (2) Is it possible to capture a subject's essence in a photograph?<br /> (3) If so, how? If not, what alternatives exist?</p>

<p>Does a Photograph tell a story?</p>

<p>　<br /> 1. A photograph does not reveal any essence other than mere shadow of essence..." the characteristic or intrinsic feature of a thing, which determines its identity; fundamental nature". It is a simple image percieved by the imagination and put into the imagination, through lack of data, into a flight of fantasy.<br /> <br /> 2.No, a single, or, multiple image at best is just a perception of the photographer or viewer.</p>

<p>　<br /> 3.The alternative is a photograph as a suppliment to a documentary.</p>

<p>　<br /> A photograph tells a story but a story about the journey of the imagination other than a factual discourse.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p> </p><div></div>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>This photograph has some documentry evidence "cemetery drive"...words in the photograph which narrows the perception and imagination. However, it is still speculation without a documentry. Imagination.</p><div></div>

[dcstep]

<p>I'm not seeing anything in your post Allen.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"I'm not seeing anything in your post Allen".</p>

<p>What are looking to see, David?</p>

<p>Perhaps some names, that sort of thing?</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>Let us talk.</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>" The problem with the word "essence" is that it is supposed to be the one thing that best exemplifies the true nature of someone or something"</p>

<p>And a photograph can reveal that. Just a single image?</p>

<p>Or, an act of imagination?</p>

[Allen Herbert]

<p>"If I'd had the chance to shoot Mother Teresa, I'd be trying to capture her at her work, showing her and the response from someone she was helping"</p>

<p>And I would show a photograph of someone digging up a road.</p>

<p>Would it show the "essence of them" only that they are digging up the road or caring for someone. Where is the essence of them? The inner soul....the person within.</p>

<p>The photograph reveals all...methinks not...a reflection of something. Something.</p>

<p> </p>