Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/18

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Re: Dehumanizing Portraits
From: imagist3 at mac.com (George Lottermoser)
Date: Sun Jan 18 17:23:14 2009
References: <4973D4E7.4070006@verizon.net>

again
I agree

Regards,
George Lottermoser
george@imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com
http://www.imagist.com/blog
http://www.linkedin.com/in/imagist
Picture A Week - www.imagist.com/paw_07




On Jan 18, 2009, at 7:18 PM, Carl Socolow wrote:

> You certainly brought up a subject that resonated with a lot of  
> LUGgers and engendered a goodly number of responses. And,  
> gratefully, there were hardly any having to do with equipment. For  
> my two cents, one of the pursuits of art, its holy grails, is the  
> pursuit of the thing itself. As Edward Weston wrote: "The camera  
> should be used for a recording of life, for rendering the
> very substance and quintessence of the thing itself, whether it be  
> polished steel or palpitating flesh."
> These photos may very well indeed be palpitating flesh. But they  
> are direct and honest views of the individuals photographed. You  
> have to take note that some are framed tight, some loose. I've just  
> finished a large portrait session of bank executives, albeit with  
> more dramatic lighting, and the framing varies. I think this  
> photographer worked hard. Some of the selections may be due to the  
> editing process given that there is a difference between pictures  
> and their framing. The use of the direct light and plain background  
> give us only the subject as subject; that and their universal cues  
> about human emotion. I think this is a pretty tight "shoot" and it  
> was well-executed particularly given the variables and logistics of  
> schedule and travel. With those limitations, too, you want to have  
> simplified set-up and equipment as you know you're only going to  
> get to work with the subject for a few mintutes.
>
> I also think that we fall into "canonic" ideas about what a picture/ 
> portrait should be; conventional ideas; idealized and formulaic  
> notions about lighting, positioning, viewpoint. In an image- 
> saturated world these get seen and forgotten fast.
>
> While I think it appropriate to question the esthetic values that  
> underly the making of these pictures, I don't know that it's  
> appropriate to infer that they're of nefarious intent. See Rimbaud  
> quote below.


In reply to: Message from socphoto at verizon.net (Carl Socolow) ([Leica] Re: Dehumanizing Portraits)