No title

Physically the taking of these photographs wasn't particularly easy - each exposure was eight minutes; it was made easier because I was alone, but to get a similar position for each of the three poses took a bit of guesswork. I sat for them in the reverse order that they appear, but on review the initial three seem to encapsulate my thoughts of "me" better then the second set of three. I've never tried self portraiture before this course, I have never had the process of thought that might want to engage in this form of expression. I had taken a "portrait with no face" earlier as part of the Roswell Angier "Train Your Gaze" assignment, which seemed much easier as it wasn't me it was a character being portrayed by me.

Eight minutes is a long time. You get to think about quite a lot in eight minutes and when there are six eight minutes it is even longer, much too long for self contemplation. "Why am I doing this?" was a question that raised it's head a few times, it was therefore a force of will to stay the course, to see the process to a conclusion, at each phase of the operation. I had no idea of the outcome, there is no viewfinder in the zone plate camera to enable some information to gauge the likely area to sit and pose, the wide angle (20mm equivalent on a 35mm camera) would make it easy to get "in" shot. I had "pre-visualised" the transient shot - but that is about all. The post process time isn't short either; I took the shots on Wednesday, developed them on Wednesday evening; scanned them on Friday and post-processed them on screen on Saturday (I had a good idea what they were like when the negatives had dried i.e. that the exposure had worked etc, but it is only in the print that reality starts to kick-in). All through that time I could have given up or given in and not finished the process. I'm still not sure why I did finish, or why I didn't give in to temptation and go and do something less painful.

So why? And why these shots/poses? I thought about artifice, or at least the lack of it; I wanted to have as little affectation as possible and thought of the classic "offender" shot - left, right and face on. I knew that the diffused effect was an artifice, I knew that it was therefore, in part, a cop-out, I also knew this was a "way-in"(which is why I took another with the 35mm camera and have included it at the end of this post).

The photographs that best express myself at the moment are the transient images, the three that have me half there and half not, either having left, or, more likely, still trying to get there. Simply by leaving the chair after four minutes and allowing the film to continue to expose for another four minutes would provide this ephemeral image. The chair staying solid and consistent, the sitter part there, part somewhere else. The "offender" kept re-appearing as I sat there. Guilty or not guilty?

Technical details:

Top six: Zero-image zone plate camera, Technical Pan developed in Technidol

Last shot: Pentax MZ-5, Fuji Neopan 1600, developed in Prescysol, 90mm lens

Portraiture, Richard Brilliant

Portraiture by Richard Brilliant, pub by Reaktion books; ISBN 978-0-948462-19-1

Rarely has a reference book given me so many ideas to think about. Normally I would look to fiction to provide me with concepts regarding the human condition, Chekov, Dickens, Murakami etc. Brilliant's book has four chapters and 174 pages that are liberally laced with illustration and illumination. I have included a thought of his in a previous post as it chimed with my thoughts on the fictive and non-fictiveness of a portrait, whether it can hold the essence etc. of a subject and reading this I found myself being reassured - maybe that's the wrong word - that it wasn't an isolated thought, for example:

Isambard Kingdom Brunel, standing in front of the launching chains of the 'Great Eastern', 1857...

Howlett, Robert (1831-58)

Private Collection - Bridgeman

This is quite a famous photograph, and despite the limitations of reproduction here, Howlett's view of the "great man" is quite easily found on the web at a larger scale for easier viewing. However what I did find interesting was Brilliant's use of the language when coming to describe this image: "In this regard, Brunel appears like an actor playing a part, the part of the "great engineer". But this is not a part he puts on or off like an actor on the stage; rather, the part is a permanent aspect of his being, of his identity, from which he cannot and, if properly portrayed, should not be parted. In this portrait of Brunel, the engineer, the impersonation is so complete that there is no other "Brunel". p99
Brilliant discusses identity and how we all "impersonate" how we all do it deliberately, and sometimes sub-conciously, but in a portrait more determinedly so. I can identify with this proposition in my notes from the book I say "There is a restriction that is offered by "a" portrait, in that that it is only "one" view. The same can be clearly said about a landscape, but a portrait taps into the viewers psychological appreciation of the subject, the more so if the subject and viewer are known - EVEN IF THE KNOWLEDGE IS A ONE-WAY STREET > AGAIN KARSH'S CHURCHILL" (see over re: Daniel Webster) - I decided not to scan my notes as they are barely legible, the Webster reference is in regard to:

Daniel Webster (1782-1852) c.1851 (daguerreotype)

Southworth, Albert S. (1811-94) & Hawes, Josiah (1808-1901)

Museum of Fine Arts, Boston,...Bridgeman

"In respect of portraits of people from the past who become part of history Brilliant states "Therefore, the Daniel Webster in the photograph did not always exist, although some changeable being bore this name and eventually became the person we know"" p59.

More notes:

So, question!  How do you project different character references/sides of the sitter?

Identity vs denotation

The use of a name - denoting a sitter 


The "face" - which face? The face we want to share; the face we want to hide, the face we "put-on" ???

Well you can see why I didn't choose fine art! Brilliant talks a lot about identity, about impersonation, about acting and about masks. The mask is an intrinsic metaphor on the stage, actors apply a face to perform.

At times during an amateur production, if they are lucky or have worked hard to achieve it, the players will "become" the part. That is to say they will leave their own life behind and adopt the personna of the "part" they are playing. I am sure that professional actors experience this all the time. It is a real "feeling" as you emotionally don the attire of the part, the audience can also experience it as they feel drawn through the fourth wall. It is less about impersonation more about the adoption of the character, how they would walk and talk, how they would think and react, how they would present themselves in the situation provided for them by a script. I can see what Brilliant meant when describing Howlett's photograph of Brunel. Brunel is "the great engineer" it is a part he has adopted and become and from which he can never be part(ed).

The actor can of course be parted from the role, from the part he or she has been playing. The drawings above are meant to depict my thoughts regarding masks. I feel a tremendous empathy towards the notion of masks. I feel as if I have adopted them all my life, the one that I show to the world - even and especially from when I was a child I had the need to create a mask - and the one that I revealed to me, that what was(is) me.

The book centres on the portrait as a whole medium, not just photographs, and in fact photography as a medium isn't that prevalent. It discusses the role of the portrait and the relationship of the viewer to the sitter, the sitter to the viewer and of the question of identity of both in todays world. And apart from ripping me wide open I have found it very worthwhile. So I wonder why with this abundance of ideas gained from this book and my thoughts around it all am I feeling so low about my ability to carry any of them through to any meaningful conclusion.

Train your gaze - Assignment 2

Putting on a face.

The assignment calls for a self portrait without showing your face, but "face" has many meanings, many connotations and even many lives. We show different faces to different people and to differing versions of our lives - home, parent, work, friend, spouse, lover. Usually these "faces" are the outward expression of the various personalities expressed through our face - diligence, care, compassion and love. Our faces can change with emotion - "I love that look", "I almost didn't recognise you", "I hardly recognise you" - are expressions that work from the face and the "face" that the inner self wants to express.

Make-up, still largely the realm of the female especially in western society, seems to be as much about how to present oneself to the public, and therefore about self worth or lack of self-loathing. In the theatre, the use of make up has a double use. The reliance on lighting on stage has evolved, but essentially it is used to enable the audience to "see" the play (it has the added benefit for the players as it erects a "fourth wall"), but, especially as the strength of electric light has grown, the face needs to have help to find "colour" as the light washes the face with it's incandescent power. The actor also uses make-up to paint a mask, to change age, to become a baddie, to be a goodie, to change gender and so on. In other words the use of make-up as a mask to better become someone else.

It is with this in mind that I looked at how I could make a self portrait without showing my face. I thought about what it is that defines me....my wife, my family..., the books that I have read and am reading....my political thoughts....my lack of religion...my aspirations?? I thought about these and thought that with these metaphysical elements I would be the only one to recognise me from them - this type of portrait would be so personal, so introspective as to probably be impenetrable to anybody else. So I decided on a physical model and then I thought about a mask and how I could adopt a mask to present myself, faceless. Women often say I need to "put on a face" before going out and meeting with their public, are they really saying I need to "put my mask on"?

The theatre is again where I have gone to find a route into this assignment. An actors wears the metaphorical clothes of another person in the character that they are portraying. An actor can feel the personality of the part they are playing by a number of means, not least of which is the donning of a costume and the wearing of make-up. Make-up erodes the personal identity of the actor, decouples them from the audience and alleviates some of the pressure to create a character. Being "made-up" readily allows the actor to move to a character displacement, to allow this other character to inhabit their body. When the actor looks into the mirror they are likely to see the character they are playing - not themselves. More difficult is when the character/writing leaves the actor without modification in any way, other than a little dusting and everyday clothing to make that transition, they tend to feel "naked"; a term that is used quite often behind the 4th wall. The pantomime Dame is a role - with its own mask - that I have adopted every other year for a little over a quarter of a century. Interestingly my first role in a Panto' was as the beast in Beauty and the Beast where I had to wear a full head mask! But it is as a Panto' Dame that I have thought about for this assignment. I asked the same make up lady who normally prepares me to make me up, although I always apply my own lipstick, and asked our costume supplier if they would loan me some costumes. Both obliged and the following photographs are the result.


It is as well I think to start at the beginning, or at least in this case, with the foundation garment. It is curious to note the gender reactions to this adoption of a "cross-over" role. I hadn't ever thought that this role was about playing a woman; whilst the role is a Dame, it is about a male playing the role of a male who dresses up as a woman (albeit very badly). For me the role is definitely not camp, although the role is generally one or the other dependant on who is playing the role. Men, in the cast, tend to treat me just as they would normally. Whilst the women seem to try and appropriate me into their camp, they tend to compare figures (always favourably against me), they often want to physically gauge the texture of my "falsies", 44 FF's by the way and filled with old tights. The women tend to view me in a queer halfway place. Whereas again, the audience know very clearly what I am and dish out all sorts of banter they would never dream of saying to a female. One other incidental piece of trivia associated with this piece of costume is about buying them. Marks & Spencer advertise within their lingerie section a personal measuring service. The first time I tried it, some years ago - I had my wife with me at the time - the flushed female shop assistant pointed to the tape measure as if to suggest I do it myself, whilst she beat a hasty retreat in the opposite direction. Two years ago when I went back there was a different shop assistant who was altogether much more obliging, she measured me and proposed several items for me to consider - she didn't though suggest I try them on in the changing room. One step too far methinks.




Left, post original edit. Pre-wig, pre completion of make up and use of blur to "de-capitate". Blur added as a post process.

Back to the assignment and back to basics. Technically I decided that I would light this with a couple of 1 metre soft boxes both slightly to the rear and each side of me. I then placed a white reflector on each side slightly in front of me, I knew this would provide some facial modelling, but it was always going to be a bit hit and miss as I was photographing myself. I set up the camera, a Nikon D3 and a 95mm lens set at f8 1/125th sec - found the focal area and moved between the two places after pressing the time delay shutter release. I did have a change of dress provided but decided that other than changing the wig I would keep it simple.












So what did I feel about the results and was I able to discover about myself?

It is clear that my face is there in the photographs, but I feel it is buried. There are some devices I have used to take my face and remove it. Firstly some of the poses are from unusual viewpoints, secondly I have tried to hide my eyes, always for me the most interesting facet of a face and thirdly, through post processing. The first few shots - with the bra and the side view have very little of "me", the first fits the assignment perfectly - no face - and the second it is not my figure, not my hair, not my clothes, I don't wear make up; they are another entity. But together they are the establishing shots, they put the rest into perspective. These photographs provide the viewer with all the information needed to assimilate the information embedded in the following images. The shot left where the eyelashes cover the eyes; as the eyes are for me the critical feature of the face, I decided to try and keep them from normal view as much as possible. Whereas the shot on the right has been ostensibly taken from underneath, in fact I am leaning back after trying to keep my head in the focus "zone". This is not an angle that many people would ever have of me and with the make-up it adds an additional remove to the portrait.

The most contentious are these, firstly they are the same shot, firstly one (right) being post processed and secondly it is a conventional portrait i.e. nearly full frontal face. But I am only considering the second as part of the assignment, the other image (left) is there to show the model would look without the edit. Deliberately I have clumsily "photoshopped" the image to make it more "beautiful", thereby removing "me" from the image. This subversion of the image and the political issues surrounding this type of editing has long concerned me. I know it is a process that has it's roots from the very dawn of photography, but never more so than currently with its association with self loathing and body fascism.

Both of these photographs have been added after the original post. Left, a view as if from behind, as if from the players perspective, looking to the audience. I had some problems to get the "face" in focus and allowing the back to be slightly out of focus. The hands are important and are part of the expressive tool set of the player and this Dame. Another advantage of these two additions is the emphasis on gender. Neither of these shots are in the least feminine.

And the paraphernalia of the Dame, important to bear witness to the encumbrances associated with me as a Dame to complete a portrait of this Dame. The shoes were second hand in 1989 when they made their debit on the stage and have been in every Panto since - they have been augmented since with other shoes; but these pinks get a new lick of paint every few productions. The other stuff being weighed down by the 44 double F's.









When I first read the assignment brief and thought about how I would go about fulfilling the requirement, I had thought that this idea would have had more profound outcomes. I feel a bit deflated now, maybe I didn't consider things widely enough. It is a portrait of the Dame not a portrait of me, but a portrait of the physical embodiment of me whilst I am the Dame. These two are so intertwined that it is difficult to see where one ends and the other begins. I think I need to think this out all over again, but whether I get the chance (or the time) to recover this assignment I am not sure.