Chase Jarvis Chase Jarvis
  • Photos
  • Projects
  • About
  • Blog
  • Book
Chase Jarvis Chase Jarvis
  • Photos
  • Projects
  • About
  • Blog
  • Book

The Dichotomy of the Photographic Portrait.

Portrait Not as View of the Soul, But as Personal Advertising?

What is the relationship between portrait as collaboration and portrait as unbiased recording? If the eyes are windows to the soul, and if in advance of a portrait sitting you’ve basically had the windows washed and lined up all the furniture inside and put on your favorite clothes for an open house, are the photos that result from that sitting any less “real” than a haphazard photojournalistic snapshot someone grabs of a subject at 10PM on a Tuesday night? Are the results from one portrait style more authentic or merit-worthy than another? I recently wrestled with these questions when I got my hands on an advance copy of the March/April 2007 American Photo “Portrait Issue.” Editor, David Schonauer’s piece got my mind really moving–it’s definitely worth a read.

I’ve long had huge respect for great portraits and pure portrait photographers. Shooting great portraits can be intense–wonderfully exploratory sometimes, but almost always intense. Especially if you set out (as many photographers claim) to capture an image that authentically and reasonably addresses the sitter, and the photographer’s vision of that sitter.

In reading comments from numerous uber-talented colleagues featured in Schonauer’s piece, like Leibovitz, Watson, Rolston and others, one thing that was inferred by many, but not directly addressed to my satisfaction by any, was the idea NOT of portrait as hollowed ground or sacred view into the soul of the sitter (there was some of that), but rather that nearly all portraits–from your high school yearbook shot, to family shots by Yen Lui, from glamour shots by Deb, to Oprah Winfrey shot by Leibovitz–they’re all fundamentally ‘portrait as PR or personal advertising.’

With the exception perhaps of candid street shots or environmental portraiture, surprises, and the occasional lucky grabbed shots, isn’t it legit to consider that all portraits (anybody who pauses, “sits”, for any photographer), where there’s an active collaboration between photographer and sitter, are NOT aimed to produce a balanced and sacred view into whom the subject really IS, but rather aimed at creating a manipulated view of the subject and how his or her photographer wants the subject to be? (a la the perfect little Beaver Clever family, your “good side” for the junior high dance photo, or in the case of Mark Laita’s interesting picture on page 63, always surrounded by prostitutes–and definitely dressed up for the shot, etc, insert your ideal vision here…)

Only one brave shooter in the article, Laita (who does beautiful work btw), claimed outright that he represents people as they really are: “I’m just showing them [his subjects] the way they are.” Whereas another shooter, Hendrik Kerstens (equally talented), almost made as bold a claim in saying he believes he accurately captures everyday life–even during a more formal portrait sitting–when he likens his portraits of his daughter to the portraits of Dutch master painters, “seen as a surface which can be read as everyday life.”

Personally, while I’m always impressed by the work of these shooters, I’m surprised that Laita thinks he–or really anyone–can reach into the honest depths of their sitter, and somehow get at fundamental reality. I fully acknowledge you can get closer through relaxing your subjects, knowing things about them, yada, yada, but I’m of the opinion that a large portion of portraiture is more like façade-laden (another quote from Kerstens) “paintings of the Italian Renaissance where a story is told,” than it is an accurate, honest tell-all of the subject. I’d go even further and suggest that not only is a story told by photographer and a collaborative sitter, but, like all good art, that story is intentional, planned, executed, even scripted–less rooted in honesty and more in, perhaps, fantasy.

If you’re having trouble swallowing this idea, I understand. Heck, I’m not sold. But consider for a moment how you feel when someone points a camera at you, not even for a formal portrait, but even just at a birthday party. As an ad hoc sitter, don’t you now internalize this act? Even if it’s incredibly subtle, you are coerced into something when that camera’s pointed at you; it could be a smile or even attempting NOT to act (smile, turn away, etc.) required some coercion from the camera, right?

I’m inclined to think that photographic portraits are extremely difficult to make in a purely authentic manner. (This begs the question ‘what is authentic?’ of course…but save that for later…) Just like the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle which says roughly that you can’t actually measure the location of electrons in sub atomic physics because by attempting to measure them, you’re inherently interfering with how they behave, so you can’t possibly get an accurate measurement–it’s equally questionable whether or not you can really get to a person’s unadulterated essence by pointing a camera at them if they’re conscious of it. That act alone interferes.

It’s important to call out that, while I may be stating the obvious to some, I’m not attempting to undermine the incredible history of this recently refreshed art of portraiture, or the sacred relationship between photographer and sitter–I’m merely likening the process of shooting/sitting for a portrait as a proactive relationship attempting to create a controlled message. Isn’t this something worthy of mention? While I’m indebted to, and often highly inspired by, images that result from great portrait sittings, I feel somewhat compelled to note that these themes of a controlled message closely relate to something that pervades our culture: advertising. From Wikipedia, “Advertising is paid communication through a non-personal medium [print or file] in which the sponsor [sitter agrees] is identified and the message [resulting photo] is controlled [by the sitter and the shooter].” The […] marks are mine. One could argue that the definition of ‘advertising’ seems scarily close to what we talk about when we discuss the collaborative efforts of sitter, shooter, and viewer in photographic portraiture.

Thus, having earlier tossed aside candid street/environmental portraiture and the like as exceptions to this train of thought, and focused here more on all other portraiture, shouldn’t we agree, as most all shooters interviewed for the article claim, that there is collaboration, and this collaboration has an end goal not of capturing the soul, but of creating a measured, “advertising” picture of the sitter? Nigel Parry gets his subjects to “cooperate”, and Matthew Rolston seeks a “private performance.” Only Leibovitz (which surprised me) says she feels “cheap” when she “tries to make something happen”.

So what am I getting at: Are
all non-candid portraits lies? Certainly not. But is there an interesting dance–with image, authenticity, or lack thereof–that shooter and sitter, engage in when portraits are made? Absolutely. The sitter most often chooses her clothes (or his fake blood, note Nicholson when you read the article); the shooter chooses her camera and lighting, etc. It’s an elaborate, sometimes incredibly subtle, plan that often closely resembles some never discussed personal PR or advertising. Kerstens comes clean in a sense when he reminds us that he has to make good images of his daughter because “It’s a responsibility we take very seriously … these pictures will be around for 50 years.”

Sounds vaguely like ‘long-term branding’ to me.

We all seem ready to call the portrait a “collaboration” artists and subject’s alike, but isn’t my point here just really taking this one step further and recognizing that people are motivated to put forward a message? Sometimes happy, other times sad, sometimes powerful, other times subtle, and sometimes the message of a non-message. And isn’t this a lot like advertising?

(FYI, this is cross-posted at American Photo’s great blog, State of the Art – check it out.)

Related Posts

051026_ChaseJarvis_einstein_writing_vlrgwidec
Writing Makes Photographers More Creative — 5 Easy Tips
How to Charge What You’re Worth — Which is 3 to 10x More Than You’re Getting Today [with Ramit Sethi]
How to Turn ‘No’ Into ‘Yes’ + Get What You Want [An Essential Strategy That Will Get YOU Hired]
The KEY Characteristic Shared by All The Most Creative People I Know — And It Can Be Yours Too
chase jarvis jp canlis glass
LIVE Shoot from Inside a Frickin’ Volcano [RENEGADE #cjLIVE — this Friday, Jan 17]
chase jarvis travis rice
The Artist as Athlete as Artist –> Travis Rice on Creativity + Art Galleries + Taking Risks

15 replies on:
The Dichotomy of the Photographic Portrait.

Comments navigation

Next
  1. Roy Budhu says:
    May 2, 2013 at 2:02 am

    In case you are however undecided: snap up your favorite earbuds, venture into a good Biggest Score and get to be able to connect him or her perfectly into a Zune afterward an iPod to see what type appears easier to an individual, and additionally of which slot allows you to be look additional. You will understand that is ideal for you.

  2. Lyla says:
    April 30, 2013 at 4:07 pm

    I really like the design of your blog, the information is also very interesting

  3. IronMan says:
    November 4, 2012 at 7:34 am

    How long did it take to research this?

  4. manon says:
    October 17, 2012 at 9:51 pm

    Exactly what I was searching for, value it for posting . “There are multitudinous victories worse than a crush.” by George Eliot.

  5. Neilson Eney says:
    December 27, 2007 at 9:06 pm

    My start in shooting people came recently taking stills on film sets. Starting out by taking pictures of people who were already pretending to be someone else in a context where we were attempting to tell a story was an interesting way to start out. It got me in the habit of thinking in those terms whenever a person was my subject. I find myself imagining that I’m using them to tell a story. I now habitually treat my subjects in that way even when not on a film set.

    Telling those stories using images is what excites me but until now was just an unconscious habit based on my limited experience. Therefore when you said in your post that, “like all good art, that story is intentional, planned, executed, even scripted–less rooted in honesty and more in, perhaps, fantasy” it totally struck a chord. When I read that a light went off and I became conscious of how my past gigs have formed the roots of how I approach photography.

    Thanks for sparking the thought and for taking the time to share your insights and illustrate what goes on behind the scenes.

Comments navigation

Next

Comments are closed.

BUY NEVER PLAY IT SAFE NOW!

Get weekly, curated access to the best of everything I do.

Popular Posts

20250702_CJLIVE_PillarsOfMastery_Micro_Thumb_16x9_v2.5Struggling to Improve? This Could Be Why Your Practice Isn’t Paying Off Yet
20250611_CJLIVE_ToDoList_Micro_Thumb_16x9_v2.5What If Social Media Was the Best Way to Learn New Creative Skills?
20250224_CJLIVE_DontLetYourDreamsDie_Micro_Thumb_16x9_v2.5How to Trust Your Gut (Even When Fear Tells You Not To)
A graphic for "The Chase Jarvis LIVE Show." The text is displayed in a bold, modern font with "THE" in a small, yellow box at the top left, followed by "CHASE JARVIS LIVE SHOW" stacked vertically, each word in its own yellow box. To the right, there is a stylized silhouette of a person running while holding a mobile device. The person appears to be disintegrating into small particles as they move forward, suggesting a sense of urgency or a digital transformation theme. The background is a light beige or off-white color.Stop Chasing Followers: Why Real Influence Comes from Mastery
20250505_CJLIVE_ChrisGuillebeau_Thumb_16x9_v2.5You’ve Never Heard of Time Anxiety But You Definitely Have It
Héctor García and Francesc Miralles smiling, with bold text in the center reading '4 Steps to Discover Your True Purpose' on a black background. Framed with a yellow border, creating a high-contrast, engaging design.Why You’re Not Finding Your Purpose
20250118_CJLIVE_LifeIsLong_Micro_Thumb_16x9_v2.5Is Life Really Too Short? Rethinking Our Rush To “Make It”
20250220_CJLIVE_LinkedIn_Syndicate_Thumb_16x9_v2.5How Taking More Risks Can Unlock the Life You Actually Want
20250405_CJLIVE_SeeingWhatWeHaveBeenTaughtToIgnore_Micro_Thumb_16x9_v2.5Feeling Stuck in Serious Mode? Here’s How to Flip the Script with Play
20250405_CJLIVE_TheMostImportWork_Micro_Thumb_16x9_v2.5What If Play Is Actually the Most Important Work You’ll Ever Do?

Daily Creative Projects

© 2024 Chase Jarvis. All rights reserved.

My New Book Is Here!

This book is a powerful compass for embracing risk and creativity in all aspects of life. Chase shows us how to step out of our comfort zones and become who we were meant to be.

SOPHIA AMORUSO
Serial Entreprenuer
NYT Best Selling Author of Girlboss

BUY NOW!

My New Book Is Here!

This book is a powerful compass for embracing risk and creativity in all aspects of life. Chase shows us how to step out of our comfort zones and become who we were meant to be.

SOPHIA AMORUSO
Serial Entreprenuer
NYT Best Selling Author of Girlboss

BUY NOW!