Norma Desmond

<p><em>"no complete portrayal of the essence of a subject may be possible by the limited means of a photograph"</em></p> <p>Arthur, I agree with you.</p> <p>And I would especially want to add that no complete portrayal of the essence of a subject may be possible by any means conceivable, be it photo, essay, novel, Bible, movie, painting, series of paintings, book of photos, finger painting, coloring book, Torah, architectural blue print, driver's license . . .</p> <p>The interesting question, for me, is not what a photo or all these other things can't possibly do but what a photo <em>can</em> do and if there's something special or unique a photo might do in portraying a subject that other means are not as good at.</p> <p>:-)</p>

<p>By the way, just ran across <a href="/photo/14363895">THIS PHOTO</a>, which I think is narrative.</p> <p>Kudos to Line Martel for telling this story with a picture.</p> <p>And just to make me skeptical of my own skepticism about essences, I may still not know the essence of this particular child, but the photo seems to capture some of the essentials of childhood, parenthood, feeling protected, and love. Normally, I'm not such a romantic, but I've been allowing myself that liberty lately . . . on occasion!</p> <p>_____________________________________________</p> <p>Michael, I think you hit on something with abstraction. Essence is an abstract concept. It almost has to be. Since there's likely something essential about form, in that it is a distillation of what is, in that it is structural, abstracting something via photographing it (often absent a context and absent literal content) might be an entryway into something's essence (again, if there is such a thing, which I still doubt in my own curmudgeonly way).</p>

<p>Was sailing along nicely and just got one at 12:43 pm, PST.</p>

<p>The refresh click tends to bring back the page right away in the case of a 503 and 504 error, or at least within a few seconds or more. But when the Bad Gateway 502 error occurs, I usually have to wait at least 20 minutes before having access again. I haven't noticed the time that it happens but it's kind of amazing that it's timed down to the minute! </p>

<p>For me, it's a matter of empathy and intimacy as well as knowing what to include in the pictures themselves, bits of information and expression. Avedon talked about the importance of surfaces (as opposed to cores or essences) and he noted that a good surface is full of clues. Trying too hard to get to the core might work against some photographers. Staying grounded and present and not reaching for ideals can sometimes achieve more far-reaching and penetrating results. A portrait can guide a viewer through clues.</p> <p>As to performance, I try to see myself as a performer and sometimes will lead my subjects by example, engaging them in ways that allow them to act as if they were on a stage yet also get real. Most actors will tell you that even though they are acting, they are being very real and drawing from real experiences to create their characters. I try to seek out the character in my subjects.</p> <p>Getting a subject to relax can work, and I understand the effectiveness of that, but even that can sometimes work against a photographer, especially if it starts to be too manipulative of a subject who is not terribly relaxed. Some really good portraits portray discomfort, tension, anxiety, uptightness, when they come across as authentic. Sometimes it works to let the subject be who they are at the time and feel their feelings fully and find ways to work with that rather than changing them to suit what a photographer thinks will make the best photo. Other times, a good photographer has to sense when it will work to intervene and to what degree.</p> <p>While some of it is intangible and almost happens by some magic, observing what works for others and for yourself and analyzing what you actually see in your own and others' photos that moves you will help you include in the photo some of those things which will ultimately add up to a good portrait.</p> <p><a href="http://laemyi.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/tumblr_kqi0qamo5h1qa2hzgo1_2501.jpg?w=500">Stieglitz and O'Keeffe</a> had a way with gesture, especially of hands. Her hands almost become personified. Note the intentionality of the gesture and the way the artifice of pose becomes something we accept as genuinely expressive rather than stilted or self conscious. Note how her hands work so well with and yet stand out from the background (through the use of harmonious shapes and lines along with the lighter hands contrasted against some darker tones). All that while her soft and demur expression can't really be distracted from. Not only her hands, but all of her is very much alive in this photo because she is perceived as doing something and also as reflecting and aware in a very palpable way.</p> <p><a href="http://www.photography-now.com/images/Bilder/gross/T28256B004534.jpg">Steichen and Astaire</a> relied on prop (top hat, which gets rhythmically repeated in the photo) and shadow, associating Astaire with a Hollywood feel that suits him well. Something I try to keep in mind, even though I work with people who my viewers don't know (as opposed to Astaire who most people are at least familiar with as a performer) is using a style and elements in the photo that seem to go with their personalities and character, to the extent I know what that is (and I sometimes have to get that in the few minutes I spend with people during a shoot only). Even though the viewer doesn't know the person, I think that sense of harmony (or even discord) that comes from stylistic's and technique's considered relationship to the individual subject will make for a portrait that people will think is genuine and that will do the subject justice while moving the viewer.</p> <p>It can be important to give and/or allow one's subjects a voice . . . visually.</p>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<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>

<p><em>"a successful portrait can go a long way, and sometimes surprisingly so, at defining the character or true essence of the subject"</em></p> <p>Arthur, maybe there's some wiggle room there. Maybe a portrait is not as good at <em>defining</em> the character or true essence but it can still provide a viewer with a unique kind of <em>feel</em> for that character or essence. Photos likely don't define in the same ways as words or personal knowledge of a person's actions and deeds. But they have an uncanny ability to create empathy between viewers and the subjects photographed, or at least some kind of almost unnameable connection that brings them into a relationship. The photographic relationship between myself and the portrait subject is not as literal as the one created by words and first-hand knowledge. But that photographic relationship still can have a significant kind of intimacy and provide a fruitful but different and sometimes furtive kind of understanding. </p>

<p>Arthur, I agree with you and wasn't meaning to suggest that portraits are a better way than others in which to get to know people. I was simply dialing back my own earlier emphasis on portraits being something we can project onto. This thread has been great for me in helping me sort out a variety of sometimes conflicting thoughts I have on the subject. What I am getting at in the last post is not that portraits compare favorably in terms of providing an essential look at their subjects. I was getting at the ways in which a portrait can provide an essential look at a person. And I just don't want to shortchange the potential of portraits to carry and express significant realities about their subjects in addition to providing our imaginations with stimuli and to also telling a lot of (very significant) lies.</p> <p>There's also a sense in which that old adage about one picture being worth a thousand words is very relevant. That one stilled expression might just give us a kind of insight into someone that a long resume of that person's accomplishments will just not quite provide.</p>

<p>Thinking a little more about the last point I made . . . Most people who have viewed the photos of Gerald, and <a href="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/9728413-lg.jpg">HERE'S</a> one more that's usually seen, have said he seems to exude sexuality. I agree, both from knowing him and I, too, see that quite strongly in the photos. So there's a case where I think the portraits do capture something very real and we can know something about Gerald from seeing the photos even if we don't know Gerald independently.</p> <p>I think Brad is right that some portraits only go for and only achieve things about the looks, and many do that quite well but they remain, IMO, somewhat superficial and often, to me, less engaging. I think Stieglitz captures something very authentic about O'Keeffe that goes well beyond simply what O'Keeffe looks like. I think Leibovitz captures something very truthful and real about her parents and Susan Sontag in her more personal family photos that are lesser known than her celebrity pics. I think Weston captures something quite genuine about Charis Wilson which goes well beyond what she looks like and I think Dorothea Lange captures something about Florence Owens Thompson that is very personal and real even though it is also representative of migrant workers at the time and has become quite iconic as well.</p> <p>I actually think many portrait photographers go awry and create lesser compelling portraits because they limit themselves to a more visual and graphical approach to their portraits, not fully committing to them as expressing the reality of thriving human beings who can be to some extent exposed in very real and truthful terms through a photo. </p>

<p><em>"Without that you're just guessing. Considering Fred's photos above, because I do not know personally or know of Gerald (other than he is a friend of Fred's), they tell me nothing about his personality, character, attributes, nature, or other properties of what he is about that would ultimately concentrate into an "essence." I could guess, but that's all it would be. The two photos do tell me what he looks like in two different situations."</em></p> <p>I think guessing can be a very significant aspect of photos, especially photos of subjects unfamiliar to us. Go ahead, guess. That's what a lot of people are stimulated to do when looking at photos.</p> <p>When I had my one and only (so far) show, most people who viewed my portraits did a lot of guessing about what they saw. It didn't matter whether they were "right" or not and I didn't offer much in the way of affirmation or denial on what they projected onto my subjects. But I do think it's natural to project and I think many portrait-makers, whether photographers or painters, purposely include things (matter, symbols, signs, props, environments) that will encourage such projections. Some subjects also do that, either intentionally or by default. That way, whether realizing it or not, what's happening is that a relationship is being constructed among photographer, viewer, and subject. They are guesses, but they are still tied to what's being seen. What's important for me as a photographer hearing viewer reactions is not whether they're right or not, it's whether they're sufficiently moved or prompted to project their own imaginations into the portrait. I'm not after accuracy. I'm after a human experience built on visual cues leading to emotional reactions of whatever sort. The connection felt may not be to the "real" Gerald, whatever that is. It's to the photographed Gerald. The photo of Gerald, if there is such a thing as essence, has an essence in addition to, and maybe quite different from, whatever is the essence of Gerald himself. Viewers and even myself as photographer conflating those two things can be where much fun can happen and much creativity can be released.</p> <p>As Brad said above, and it's well stated, <em>"some are confusing this [essence] with the ability of photos of unknown people having power and the ability to release (some kind of) narrative."</em> That that narrative feels real and convinces us that we know the person shows the empathetic character of both photos and viewers (and photographers who bring them together). The essence of a photo has a great deal to do with the imagination unleashed in the viewer, with the photo's help. Photos can help direct viewers' imaginations and can have a profound impact on them while never being able to fully control those imaginations. </p> <p>On the other hand, I also think photos of unknown people do carry with them some truths about the people themselves to lesser and greater degrees. And the photos can also fool us. That's the fun part. You just never really know. But I try to leave room for all sorts of possibilities and connections, even ones I don't quite understand or even trust.</p>

<p>There have been many technical problems lately which Jin has been working on, all kinds of Gateway errors. This means that sometimes pages have been drawing, when they are accessible at all, without those little icons. A consequence of technology going awry more than punishable human behavior would be my guess. :-)</p>

<p><em>"A good likeness is a distillation of an average look from varied looks where in the result you can recognize the person from their photo, the essence of their likeness."</em></p> <p>Charles, I'm honestly of two minds on this one.</p> <p>One, I kind of like the idea of the essence being the look of the subject (though, as I said above I might take issue with too much emphasis on recognizability). When we concentrate on physical looks, we get to take the portrait on . . . ahem . . . face value, which seems appropriate and effective.</p> <p>Two, though, a "distillation of average" being the essence in question bothers me. Average, and I understand what you mean in terms of a distilled variety and recognition quotient, can be so hum-drum and reductive as to not picture an essence at all. A good portrait will often find the more extraordinary view and still be an essential insight into the person. It's why I think single portraits can be wonderful but often don't quite give us a full insight into the subject. We often build up a better picture of a person in series of portraits, not trying to realize average views but rather showing different exceptional views that, together, might create a more exhilarating and multi-dimensional picture. Range, here, might be more significant than average.</p> <p>While I don't buy into the traditional notion of essence, it's a workable term and does have meaning to a lot of people. And I'm not sure what a lot of folks think of as essence would be shown by concentrating on an average view as much as by homing in on a bunch of unique and telling ones, some quite different from the others.</p> <p>Would you get the same essential information if I had averaged these two sides of Gerald together into a single and still recognizable portrait or are you getting more than the sum of the parts and in a sense more of this so-called essence when you see both of them?</p><div></div>

<p>And I had been getting the 502 Bad Gateway error from the time you recently posted, Jin, until just now, when it cleared. It's the typical behavior that we've been experiencing for the last few weeks. About 20 minutes to half an hour of Bad Gateway and no access followed by a return to regular access for no apparent reason.</p>

<p>And just got the 503 Service Unavailable message.</p>

<p>Still occurring for me. Just happened. 502 Bad Gateway.</p>

<p>Portraits sometimes don't tell us much about the person who's the subject. They can sometimes actually show us a side of a person we haven't really experienced. They can sometimes tell us more about humanity or human expressiveness than about the individual portrayed. Gestures, poses, accessories, environment can all play crucial roles in the narrative that a portrait can sometimes be. Likeness is but one significant aspect of portraits, and it is an aspect that can sometimes be dispensed with.</p> <p>Some of my favorite portraits are ones where I step back and say, "Wow, I would never have recognized him." They show me something I didn't already know. Non-likeness can be illuminating, whether about the individual portrayed or about people in general. A portrait can be about both, the individual and a more universalized sense of the human being or animal as expressive creature. Just as the house pictured in Arthur's photo above is a picture of <em>that</em> house and also a signifier pointing to many other houses and to homes the viewer may have known.</p>

<p><strong>Reminder:</strong> <em>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.</em></p>

<p>To give a bit more context to Michael's OP, when I said what Michael quoted, it came just after I included Avedon's words:</p> <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></p> <p>I think clues are an alternative to essence.</p> <p>I think essence is an ideal and ideals are hard to achieve. In photography, I find significant and relatable moments and expressions more realistic goals.</p> <p>The minute I were to think I've captured an essence, someone would show me another side of themselves and I'd be glad for that.</p> <p><em>"<strong>essence</strong> is the attribute or set of attributes that make an entity or substance what it fundamentally is, and which it has by necessity, and without which it loses its identity."</em></p> <p>I'm skeptical of the concept, especially as it refers to a person and their portrait (which is what I was talking about in that other thread). People are constantly defining and redefining themselves and often surprising us in a myriad of ways, if we pay careful attention and don't pigeonhole or stereotype them. There is no fundamental "is-ness" of individual people, IMO.</p>

<p><em>"candid of a great person eating a sandwich, 'captured' as just a regular guy.</em><br> <em>Are there ready examples from others who clearly worked to that standard as most conceive it?"</em></p> <p><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</p> <p><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)</p> <p><a href="http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c630a53ef0168e8e1352c970c-600wi">BOB DYLAN</a>, by Jim Marshall</p>

<p>Jin, as others have noted in other threads as well, there seem to me more 503 Service unavailable errors and long delays in the last couple of weeks, not as bad as but still reminiscent of days gone by on PN, in addition to the more frequent 502 Bad Gateway messages.</p>