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.

Portraits and Persons by Prof' Cynthia Freeland

Freeland is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of Houston, Texas and her book "Portraits and Persons" is published by OUP in 2010.

I was troubled by this book from the outset. Chapter One - "Animals".
Can there be portraits of animals? 1 was the first sentence; the chapter goes on to describe that a portrait is not a one dimensional piece of art, but can, and surely does at least with humans as a subject, bring self awareness and self presentation and other metaphysical qualities to the cooperative venture that is portraiture. Freeman concludes with a qualified yes, animals can have portraits, they .."meet my first two criteria for portraits, representing a recognizable living object in an image that also expresses consciousness and inner states."2 Freeland goes on to say that "...I am sceptical about the chance that animals can fulfill the third criterion required for portraits in the fullest sense, which can be met by adult humans, the factor of posing or of self-presentation."3 In my view that means that pictures of animals are one dimensional likenesses, and if one of these animal sitters looks remotely in the right direction for goodness sake take the picture.

Chloe feeling rested, and apparently wondering about the next meal or sleep.

Chapter two - Contact, discusses the moment when she and her mother search through photographs of her grandmother to determine which one has her "air" as Roland Barthes describes it in his book Camera Lucida, whilst searching for a picture of his mother. The fundamental issue I have with this is that whilst Barthes discusses the one picture that for "him" is the one which captures her, the one that defines for him the "essence" of his mother, he doesn't share it knowing that it is his picture, it is the recognition by him of her, from all that he knows of her. A deeply personal and almost reverential iconic representation of his mother. Whereas Freeman proposes that anyone could possibly recognise the essence or air of her grandmother in her found photograph. This premise that a sitter can display their innermost personality in a photographers studio is I think fanciful.

Despite my reservations on the underlying philosophical proposition of the book I ploughed on through it because it dealt at the end with some post modernists photographers, Sherman, Goldin and Morimura whom my tutor had recommended to me after seeing my self portrait work earlier. I have to say that I needn't have taken it all in, there was little to add to my research elsewhere, other than to say that his more recent work with respect to political reconstructions have a more cutting edge.

I was though interested in her view of Lucien Freud's nudes, about which she quotes Freud as saying "...I used to leave the face until last. I wanted the expression to be in the body. So I had to play down expression in the nudes" 4,5 This seems to go against all the text in her book that treats the face/portrait as the means by which the sitter delivers the "air". Freud attempting to express the essence of his model through their bodies, their limbs as he tried to equate their heads to.

At about 300 pages it is a long read.

1 - p4
2 - p40/41
3 - p41
5 - p201
6 - Lucien Freud quoted in Judith James, 'David Hockney: A Lifetime in Portraits', 15th March 2007, The Independent, downloaded PDF file from the website, p1

The Family of Man

The Family of Man, Created by Edward Steichen, Museum of Modern Art, New York

It is now 60 years since the start of the process to what has been called (and probably rightly so) the greatest photographic show on earth - and still probably has claim to that title

Three years curating over two million photographs.....Reduced to 503 photographs, 273 photographers and from 68 countries! (see Bill Jay's essay below). And now running the risk of being accused of institutional racism. 10 photographers were from non-western countries - 7 of them from Japan - the bulk of the photographs stemming from the USA and Western Europe.

That being said the images have been curated to show the various phases of life; a universal life including births and death, love and love-making, joy and pain, work and play. These emotive scenes - all set before the date of the collection 1955 (so 1952 and before) - were therefore, both timeless and already dated. The photographs and photographers include some of the most famous that have existed, however they (collectively) have a look of the past captured, even in the universality of the topics they cover.

If there were a Steichen alive today and he was asked to produce another "family of Man" it would be more inclusive, cultural and political sensitivities would ensure the requirement of more imagery from Africa - of the 6 or 7 photographs from that whole continent in the Family of Man were all taken by an American, of the 3 or 4 from China only 1 was taken by a Chinese photographer and of the few from India, Satyajit Ray contributed only 1. Would the latter day Steichen ask an Indian to take some pictures of Cincinnati? It is unlikely he would ask an Iranian to do the same - despite the reputation of photography from that country. Yes, I know I'm being naive. It is worth a look, the book has hardly been out of print since the exhibition opened.

For a more comprehensive re-appraisal of the exhibition and a different view of the outcome have a look at Bill Jay's essay on the subject - he is one of my favourite writers on photography and wrote this in the late '80's http://www.billjayonphotography.com/Family%20of%20Man%20Exhibition.pdf

What did amuse me however is that the catalogue - which might be different from the exhibition print - contains a Bresson India print that has been cropped and "levelled"! "Kashmir" p161 - if you have the book.

See http://www.afterimagegallery.com/bressonsrinagar.htm which is a copy of the original

Kertesz - Michel Frizot / Anne-Laure Wanaverbecq, Jeu De Paume

You know how it is, you put someone on a pedestal and then you either meet them or read about them and what you subsequently find out about them either confounds or compounds your previous view. Probably because you didn't really understand much about them in the first place and your knowledge came from too narrow a source. How does the saying go? "Too little knowledge is a dangerous thing!".
This book is a large and superbly put together tome, some 350 plus pages that delivers the 3 1/2 (I'll explain shortly) phases of Kertesz's life and 100's of his images all beautifully portrayed and sensitively curated.

Roland Barthes said of Kertesz that he he produced "a photography that thinks" preface page 238. I would be immensely proud if anyone ever said that about my photography and it was John Szarkowski who said "The vision they (Kertesz and Lartigue) share belongs to no school or aesthetic theory, but to photography itself" .  Kertesz and Lartigue were born three weeks apart in the same year 1894; both were amateur photographers - in that neither had been formally trained, Kertesz being proud to call himself an amateur through his life time.

Kertesz spent the first phase of his life in Hungary, served in the trenches in the first war, which left emotional and physiological scars for the rest of his life. But he took his camera into war and unlike virtually all other nation states at the time Hungary allowed their soldiers to take pictures. Despite initial family concerns he finally decided on photography as a means to earn a living and his family supported that decision and helped fund his move to Paris and his second phase. In Paris - where he hardly spoke any French - he fell in with a group of Hungarian artists and developed his photography and technique 'till in 1936 he moved to New York to begin the last phases of his life. He lived in Paris for only 9 years, but those years remained in his memory for the rest of his life as the most productive, the most enchanting of his life. New York was initially depressing and until he gained his US citizenship in 1944 very limiting from a work and artistic aspect. It has to be said that Lertesz never learned to speak either French or English to any great extent, indeed Hungarian contemporaries have stated that he wasn't that fluent in his native tongue  but he certainly expressed himself through his art.

Fork, 1928 (silver gelatin print) Kertesz, Andre (1894-1985) Bridgeman

This, one of Kertesz's most iconic images tended to suggest that he was aligned to the Surrealist movement - something he always refuted saying "I have never just 'made photos', I express myself photographically."





Continual searching for new expressions, Kertesz explored the Paris streets by night and certainly inspired Brassai who once, famously said of Kertesz - "Whatever we (Brassai and Capa) have done, Kertesz did first".

Notre Dame at night, Paris, 1925 (silver gelatin print)

Kertesz, Andre (1894-1985) Bridgeman

His final phase came in 1963 when MOMA, under the stewardship of John Szarkowski, awarded Kertesz with a one man show. The award was initially discussed with Steichen, Szarkowski's predecessor, but they didn't see eye to eye. Szarkowski then curated the "The Photographer's Eye" in 1964 which had 6 images each by Lartigue and Kertesz only Mathew Brady and "unkown" had more entries, quite remarkable when less than 10 years previous Steichen never even asked Kertesz to submit work for the "Family of Man"exhibition (but there have been many things said about the content of that event and subsequent publication!). Kertesz was able to live comfortably now and found a new lease of life, with shows and books and recognition.

Around Gracie Mansion, New York, 1948 (silver gelatin print)

Kertesz, Andre (1894-1985) Bridgeman

It is difficult to describe after looking at Kertesz's images through these phases how clear the melancholy  pervades his work during the American phase and how that improves when he finds "overnight success" in 1963/4. It is also curious how the patronage of one man can change a photographers fortune - the same is largely true of Lartigue post his one man show at the MOMA.

Finishing the book compounded my view of Kertesz as a master photographer who always extolled his status as an amateur photographer, who always strove to develop ideas and push his own boundaries, inspired countless subsequent photographers and is still an inspiration today. I haven't  remarked on his abstract work, nor his reportage, nor the other genre's that he seemed to excel in as well.
Reccomended

In England

Whilst trying not to open yet another book I reached for "In England" by Don McCullin. From where I am in this course - the beginning - it seems to me an exemplar for this course. Most of the images are, as the title suggests, from various places within England; there are prefaced by a set chiefly from his adopted home in Somerset. The main body of the book though deals with people in a place. Determinedly titled, each image is accompanied (usually) by a statement of the place and year of capture, these images are solely about the placement of the subject within the context of their environment. There is no accompanying narrative, leaving the development of raison d'être to the viewer.

McCullin's photographs ranged from Consett in the north to Eastbourne in the south, from Blackpool to Southend with a lot coming from his native London. There are very few words in the book. McCullin in his introduction barely describes his reason for compiling these images, other than reliving his memory and apart from a slight consideration of the "class" issues in his native land, no other comment is made for the reason of his pressing of the shutter.

There are two images that stand out for me - both because I am a Bedford boy and because they exemplify some of what I imagine this course is about.

The first image is I00002IFxEmgGpQM. The spectators are across the street from Bedford prison where James Hanratty was executed in April 1962. I was 9 and I remember it well. In the picture the majority of the people are staring in one direction - probably the prison gate - actually a large wooden double door, whilst a schoolboy - Silver Jubilee Secondary Modern - and another youth stare in a different direction, at the camera. I don't remember going to school that day either, though I can't believe we would have had the day off to "celebrate" the hanging.

The second image is I0000GOwh01zn78Q and for me is more telling. The crowd has grown a little by now, it looks as people have cycled to be there at the "time". The view is again opposite the prison gate and opposite a parade of shops - St Loyes street I think leading into Greyfriars. Again the majority of people are watching in the same direction, but there is a couple determinedly not doing so. They appear to be a couple, she is touching her wedding ring with her right hand - often a sign of personal concern. They could have caught the sight of something else, but McCullin has caught them juxtaposed against the other spectators, almost as if they - the couple - are not part of the general rabble, but set apart, turning their heads away from the scene unfolding inside the prison - that no-one can see anyway. There was a lot of interest in the town for this trial and subsequent execution - I remember not having much of an idea about it at the time - but the trial was originally going to be at the Old Bailey, but was changed to Bedford at short notice which caused some controversy at the time and 'till this day. Subsequent inquiries have brought various celebrities to Bedford including John Lennon who came in a gold Rolls Royce (there was a Liverpool connection).

The rest of the book also has many arresting images, though for me less resonant, but nonetheless I thoroughly reccommend the book.

Reading

An entry started just before the Christmas break and concluded after the eating stopped!

Deciding to re-read and review some of my books on portraits and portraiture:

I plan on a continuing review of these works and update them as I go through the course with new thoughts and book reviews.

Bailey's Democracy, David Bailey, Thames and Hudson                          

Horst Portraits, Terence Pepper, NPG                                                        

Beaton Portraits, Terence Pepper - Roy Strong - Peter Conrad, NPG        

Beaton, Danzinger, Holt                                                                            

Angus McBean Portraits, Terence Pepper, NPG                                      

Some Women, Mapplethorpe, Bullfinch                                                     

Performance, Richard Avedon,  Abrams                                                    

40 years of Photography, JeanLoup Sieff,  Evergreen                                

Face, William A. Ewing, Thames and Hudson
Train your gaze, Roswell Angier, AVA Academia

Nan Goldin, Guido Costa, Phaidon

Lee Miller Portraits from a Life, Richard Calvocorescsi, Thames and Hudson

The first set of books/monographs all contain one thing in common, they are photographs of people who are aware of performance and how their "face" is a matter of their persona, their position in the world, their fame and fortune. The models were all used to being in front of the camera, in a studio, adopting a pose. Very few of the poses were "cropped head shots" and not many more were "head only", the majority by far were head and torso followed by full figure, and the reason of course is context. A significant number of the shots were publicity, be it a specific performance or general publicity, so including a contextual reference could only be achieved by widening the shot. This also applied to the surrealist images of McBean and Miller. I think the surrealists require a separate discussion and I hope to come to this later. Beaton's work is the most varied and innovative

Of all of the first set it was Bailey's Democracy that stood out. 143 images of nudes. Bailey instructed his models to stand on a spot about six feet in front of a 10 X 8 camera whilst he took about six monochrome (warm tone) images set against a white background and white floor and a very simple large flat lighting set up. Whilst not a typography as the individual poses are left to the models who, on a number of plates, have an air of being "exposed" about them, the consistency of image reproduction is extremely good. Incidentally the models for Bailey were, in the main, performers, but without the artifice of props, be they furniture or clothing what is revealed is is how comfortable they are (or are not) in their skin.

Lee Miller's work is a curious mixture of reportage/celebrity/experimental and of course WWII. Such a range of image making that I will probably come back to this in a separate essay. Which leaves Golding,  Ewing and Angier. Golding's work is well documented - a life lived in the viewfinder of her own camera, the context being her life, her passage through it and out the other end. Whether she intentionally relied on the prurience of the viewer or whether it was a psychological need perhaps only she will know, but there is a beauty in her honesty (I don't mean to damn this with faint praise!).

Ewing's "Face" is true to it's word; it is about the face. There are a plethora of photographers that Ewing employs to describe the various uses a face can be put to and I will return to them at a later date. A recurring motif running through the text is that of the mirror. The mirror as a physical thing, reflecting the (or our) image through to the recording plane, be it an emulsion or pixel. The mirror as a reflection of society - held up for our gaze. And the mirror to ourselves as viewers, holding us hostage to that gaze. It is the latter that I think is the most critical. It is often said that portraits betray something of the "personality", the "soul" of the sitter; but I am coming to the thought that it might reveal more about the viewer, or rather it might expose more about the viewer TO the viewer. In other words the pose of the subject (whether the subject is aware or not) can reveal various prejudices, preconceptions or other emotional responses to portraits that are revealed by the development of the relationship of the viewer to the image.

Consider these these two photographs of Ellen - I know which her mother favours - what do they reveal about me as a photographer and me as a viewer? I felt that even the positioning of the two images in the blog affected my response to them i.e. if they were transposed on the horizontal would they have a materially different resonance - looking away from each-other as it were?

Back to "The Face", a couple of quotations I thought were also very interesting - Ewing liberally scatters quotations in the body of the text:

"Look: this shows what retouching can do, 'said the photographer. 'But the retouched one does not look a bit like the woman who sat for it, 'I exclaimed. 'Of course not, 'replied the photographer. 'That's the beauty of it'"  The Photographic News, 1890

"What is the function of a portrait? What degree of manipulation is correct, acceptable, between the sitter and the photographer, and should art concern itself with accuracy? Shouldn't photography worry about that even more?" Richard Avedon 1993

"Composite portraits are absolute quackery! What next, composite landscapes?" The Photographic News, London 1888

I put the last one in for all the landscapists who are concerned with veracity! The prior two about manipulation talks to a concern I have had for some years and one that I have written about before. There is a notion abroad that "Photoshopping" is a modern idiosyncrasy for the digital age; well whilst the adjective may be modern the practise is as old as photography, and as old as portraiture as a genre. This does not of course negate the ethical issues surrounding the practise and I am sure I will return to this at regular intervals during this course.

The other reference book I am reading (for the first time) is "Training your gaze" by Roswell Angier. It is a very inspiring text and is challenging a lot of my personal views in portraiture, about what I think it is about, how my attitude and preconceptions need to be rethought. The book comes in about 10 sections with assignment suggestions in each - some of which I intend to attempt (time allowing). This is the only book that I am reading which is new to me for this course. I am slightly concerned about that as I realise that I may be coming to the course with a lot of preconceptions - but to my defence I suspect everyone has preconceptions.

As this is my first blog entry post-Christmas I thought I would list the books that Santa brought: Monographs by Model, Modotti, Siskind, Evans and Eggleston as well "The Family of Man" Steichens collection for the exhibition of the same name and "50 Photographers you should know". But the one that is by far and away the best present this year is "Andre Kertesz" by Michel Frizot/Anne-Laure Wannaverbecq published 2010 by Hazan and published as part of the "Mois de la Photo" in Paris, November 2010. It is a definitive work on someone I have felt for a long time as one of the great photographers.

With so much to read and digest after the excesses of the Christmas period I'm hoping to survive the New Year celebrations with some serious work on exercises, projects and assignments.