February Guest Blog: Chase Jarvis

To kick off our new guest blog, we've asked Seattle-based commercial photographer Chase Jarvis to look through the March/April issue of American Photo and expound on anything that struck his fancy. Here's what he came up with, cross posted on his own blog. We're excited to be adding voices like Chase's to State of the Art, but we want to hear yours too. Leave your thoughts in the comments below.
~Miki Johnson

The Dichotomy of the
Photographic Portrait:
Portrait Not as View of the Soul,
But as Personal Advertising?

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?

--Chase Jarvis

(Photo (top): Chase Jarvis/Courtesy Chase Jarvis)

 

Comments

[David]

I do think you have a very valid point, and I agree that there is often a coercion involved in photo shoots, by the mere presence of the photographer. But there are portrait photographers who do make photographs that get close to portraying the "essence" of a person. I'll use the tall tale about Sebastio Salgado as an example - the story that he showed up at the house of an Italian dignitary to make a portrait. "I'm very busy," the sitter replied when asked for a portrait. "Is fifteen minutes enough time?" "Definitely not," Saldago replied. "I need at least two days!"

In conjunction with the Leibovitz idea of not forcing or coercing a picture, the only way for a subject to become "real" is for the photographer to hang around long enough that he/she "disappears."

What if the advertising guys were not chosen for their boisterous personalities or astronomical hourly rates? What if they were more like a Salgado or Sam Abell - quiet, observant, patient?

"Everybody has an angle" would be your point, I suppose, and I can't argue with such a notion. But I can't help hoping that there are photographers who, even if just for an split-second, can set the "angle" aside for the greater purpose of making an honest, intimate image. I have to believe these photographers exist. . .I long to be one of them.

[Jack]

In its painterly tradition, the portrait was quite often a flattering picture of a rich person, done for hire. This is still commonplace in photography, whether it's a celebrity burnishing his or her image or a CEO posing for an annual report. Still, the process is collaborative: The portrait is a combination of what the subject reveals about his- or herself and what the imagemaker chooses to show about that person. In the best scenarios, a bit of authenticity peeks through the artifice.

[Scott R.]

I believe that there is a function of time that needs to be addressed here. Surely, it is not possible to "capture the essence" of a portrait subject when working within the confines of busy schedules and tight deadlines faced by celebrated personalities and photographers. Subjects and photographers who enjoy the luxury of limitless time are far more able to develop a level of comfort and intimacy, which can feasibly become so powerful as to negate the existence of the camera. Documentary filmmakers often have the freedom that time affords, and are truly able to capture subjects in an unprotected state. It is a war of attrition with the self-consciousness of the subject, and time is the best weapon. If the subject and the photographer believe in the mission of capturing true reality, it is only a matter of diligence and patience to break down the facade. The art is in the motivation and practice of rendering on film what a subject is conditioned not to show when a camera is present.

[Chase Jarvis]

Alas, David, according to your comment above... The irony of my point is that I long to be one of the photographers who can get that shot too ;)

I'm also wondering if it's possible along the lines of any reasonable time commitment to get that shot. A couple of interesting points have been made regarding the same cross-posted story at my blog that are worth a read. As Scott points out above, time is key. Most of the time shooters only have a limited time with their subjects. minutes, hours, or days if you're lucky. what about having years? Some photographers get that luxury if they're on a really long term project. Is that what Kerstens is getting at with portraits of his daughter? I dunno. But i do know that I'd love to really get AT someone's soul in a photo... I'll keep on gunning for it.

[Eric Carroll]

Nice insightful post, Chase. I feel like you're striking at the fundamental problem of photography in it's effort to portray 'truth', 'reality', or whatever you want to call it. I'm reminded of the paradox Ross McElwee discovered in the making of his films--you can either document life, or you can live it. In the case of portraits, I'm afraid the 'real' portrait might only be avaiable whenever there's NOT a camera around. Then again, if you can accept reality exists in fractions of a second, perhaps a photographic record of it would suit one just fine.

[Chase Jarvis]

Eric makes a great point in his last sentence here regarding "fractions of a second"; and it's at the opposite end of the spectrum of time that Scott and I were talking of above... We were lamenting for limitless time, but Erics point wisely notes: what about next to zero time, a blink? anything that can happen *before* the subject and the camera/photographer settle in is just as valid.

[Benjamin Winters]

A well articulated and thoughtful post from Chase. Exactly what I would have expected. Here is something I have posted elsewhere about the same topic, but thought it might be of interest here as well.

There is value in façade. There is value in authenticity. Why is the staged portrait less valuable than the candid portrait? I would argue that neither is more valuable. Value is contingent on the objective.

The value of any shot should be decided within the appropriate context, without a context it is virtually impossible derive meaning.

If the objective is capturing the “essence,” this requires a significant investment of time and emotional energy. This investment of time and energy is interestingly related to a practice in social science called participant observation (hang with me here. It’s a bit boring, but it is absolutely relevant and it comes back). All of the old school anthropologists like Edward Evans-Pritchard, Bronislaw Malinowski and Margarte Mead applied this practice (participant observation) to study indigenous cultures of the world. Their observations cumulatively lead to most of the modern discourse on our understanding of humanity. The portrait was instrumental in this process. It is worth mentioning that this research was almost always qualified with the notion that the act of observation changes that which is being observed. So, as it goes the question almost seems unanswerable, but it was well understood that the more time you spent with your subjects the better chance you had at capturing their ‘essence.’ In writing, photographs, conversation or whatever medium. The scientists mentioned above would spend months and even years living among the people they were studying.

Photography is an immediate medium, but ‘essence’ does not lend itself well to immediacy. So the next time you meet a photographer that loves to capture the ‘essence’ but schedules back to back portrait sessions on the hour. Know it for what it is. I would be more apt to trust a glamour shot. Or is it Glamour shot?

Here is a recent excerpt from an interview with Juergen Teller that illustrates this point very well. The broad line of questioning goes something like “Hey Juergen, why did you stop photographing other people and start photographing yourself taking a shit in the forest.” I am paraphrasing here, but he really did.

Vice: What is it about taking someone’s portrait that’s draining?

JT: You need to listen to them and analyze them and deal with each person. It can be done in a very short time or it can take a long time, but it’s really quite draining to be involved with another human being and to get things out of them. It’s also hard when there’s vanity involved or when the photograph is really just going to be used to promote their product, like a film or a record.

[Peter Norby]

This was an interesting read for me, as a part-time photographer who thinks he focuses on candid portraits, to re-examine what "candid" really means. The point still remains that even when disappearing into the background and waiting for the essence to appear, you are still posing the light (or waiting for it to come to you anyway), and if you are being specifically paid for an event, the subject of course is at liberty to be primped and preened even if they are not paying attention to you specifically.

Luckily, most of the time I'm taking pictures of younger children who are much less likely to care, or be affected by the presence of a camera (either through pre-existing prolonged exposure to them, or an innate open-ness that isn't chased away as easily by a photographer). The few times I have worked with older subjects I haven't felt nearly as comfortable trying to tell people what to do, as I have trouble trying to express what it is that I'm trying to capture (and with every person it's different, so how do you put that in words?). And of course, you can't just *tell* somebody to act naturally ... that seems to be one of the things that you learn in modelling is how to pretend to act like you aren't acting...

But this article underscores what I suppose is the most appealing about candid photography (for me), which is that it's not about what I want, or what they want, but what happens. I'd rather just be watching for something that "feels right" to happen and then capture it than to impose my own views, poses, backgrounds, lighting, or whatever on the subject. Decisive moment or otherwise, I just want to be a silent observer.

-/\/

[Aino H.]

I think Roland Barthes said it all in his book Camera Lucida (Barthes 1980). He writes how a portrait-photograph is a meeting-place for four imaginary characters: ”In front of the camera I am at the same time the one I think I am, the one I want people to think I am and the one the photographer thinks I am and the one he takes advantage in order to represent his/her art." Even if Barthes writes about imaginary characters, I think the interesting idea is that although they are imaginary, they might true to those people who imagine them. The translation from the book may be inaccurate, because I made it from finnish to english, sorry about that.

[Miki Johnson]

Zoe Strauss ( http://zoestrauss.blogspot.com/ ) recently posted a commentary from Avedon about his Kissinger portrait that speaks to many of the issues raised above...especially in that he relies heavily on Barthes. Check out the original piece by Avedon here: http://www.richardavedon.com/conversation/kissinger.php

[Dmitri]

Shooting great portraits is not easy. More and more however I see mediocre portraits. I don't know if it's because of all the digital cameras that allow everyone to be a "great portrait photographer". Either way, it gives an impression for clients that this is all there's to it.

[kabyfrafe]

6 bankruptcy discharged in less loan month personal than <a href=http://nupper1.vidilife.com>sprinkler system contractors figuring loan payment </a> quikpaydayloans<BR>auto loan new car <a href=http://nupper2.vidilife.com>associated general contractors of california igroup loans limited </a> alfred p sloan<BR>loan with bad credit rating <a href=http://nupper3.vidilife.com>contractors contracts</a> veteran lan

[Kallfuffestaf]

ussk please visit odaback.1d cialis <a href=http://odaback.1d>cialis</a> fr531

[Kawevolalef]

calculator loan motorcycle <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/loan_payday/>payday loans</a> low interest college loan<BR>debtbusterloan.tv <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/ofikoleule/>no credit check payday loans</a> car loan cedar rapid iowa<BR>interim loan <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/ocanukalili/>payday loan store</a> docum

[Gawantarl]

stafford college loan <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/siutobihine/>big payday loan</a> loan rates compare<BR>second chance loan <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/hyfugifiipu/>christian payday loans</a> federal loan online student<BR>federal government loan programs <a href=http://www.viddler.com/explore/epedugylobarofo/>payday loan no employment verification loans+cheap </a> interest loan lowest r