I found this challenge the hardest so far. Thought it might be worth reflecting on what (if anything) we've learnt. I offer the following:
- Good vs great. Found it relatively easy to take a passable portrait; almost impossible to take a great one.
- My preferences are not shared by others - the ones you liked were not necessarily the ones I liked. Was this the same for yours?
- I am getting very critical of my own stuff; and begining to mistrust my own judgement. Maybe some of the ones I rejected were better than the ones I selected?
- I can see why photographers pay models! The kids won't stay still and Sarah is too self-conscious.
- It's very difficult to come up with an interesting pose that doesn't look "staged".
Any other thoughts?
Posts
12 comments:
I'd agree with you - most difficult so far. My thoughts:
*I find this sort of photography most difficult because it tends to involve actually setting up the scene, including lighting and being in absolute control (or not) of how it looks when you press the shutter.
I tend to find "reportage" photography easier where you're reacting to events and coping with lighting and composition which is presented to you.
In most situations you can blame other factors on a photo not being good (lighting was poor, things moving too fast, couldn't get good viewpoint etc). If you're setting up everything for a portrait, it's all down to you!
And yes, posing subjects is an absolute artform when done well. Getting someone to look natural and unposed when in fact the opposite is true is a hard job!
*I think the definition of "portrait" is important and Toby did more than anyone in challenging the assumption it has to be someone's face. A portrait can be simply a representation of what someone looks like. Certainly good portraiture can just be a well composed and technically good picture of someone's face.
However it can be much more than that - the difference between Toby's "good" and "great" comment. A great portrait tells you something additional about the subject, more than just the obvious visual impression. I'd also suggest a fantastic portrait not only tells you something about the subject's character, but also contains more subtle messages as well - possibly even the photographers own commentary on the subject.
*I think we all know how subjective preference for photography can be - and I alwasy find that as the photographer, I have a very different preference to those who look at my photos. Often this is because I have a much more informed knowledge of the technical process behind a specific photo - so while I might consider something a favourite, because I know it was "difficult", Alice might far prefer a snapshot which was taken without thinking.
Portraits become even more subjective, because there is much more emotional analysis going on. Do you like the person in the picture? Are they attractive in their own right? Do you know them? Do you already know things about them the photo doesn't show? Does the person or situation create emotions anyway, regardless of how good, or bad the shot is?
In a hurry as we're away for the weekend, so I'll leave you with this:
"yes, but is it art?"
:)
Is it Art? There's a wealth of philosophical head-wanking on this subject. Roger Scruton has famously argued that photography cannot be considered art - but he is a well-known reactionary provocateur. Not the most logical rebuttal, but true none the less.
Do I take photographs because I cannot paint?
Have any of you noticed that the BBC4 Genius of Photography series is being repeated on BBC2? (I think I missed the last in the series so will try to catch it this time.)
Seems to be a lot which is fairly easily contestable in his argument. Also seems to hinge on a core theme which is very subjective and circular.
Painting is art, therefore even if a painter just copies what he sees in front of him, it somehow transcends into a "representation". Only something which is artistic can be a "representation" - only a "representation" can be artistic.
Photography doesn't create this "representation" so it isn't artistic - but because Scruton says it's not artistic, it therefore can never achieve the arbitary "representation" definition he claims you need to be "art".
And his assertion that taking a picture of something is the same as pointing your finger at it suggests to me he knows even less about photography than he does about how artists actually paint pictures - which makes his argument even weaker IMO.
Well done for ploughing through the Scruton stuff. I had to read some of his critisisms of Peter Singer as an undergraduate. I wasn't impressed; there are probably a lot of faults with Singer, but Scruton managed not to find them.
What he seems not to address is the following situation. If I, as a painter, see a beautiful sunset and use my painting skills to show it I have produced a work of art. If I see the same sunset and, as a photographer, use my photography skills to photograph it, why have I not also produced an art work?
The painting and the photograph may have similar aethetic qualities, produce the same emotional response in the viewer. What is the difference?
He might have wanted to say it is easier to be a photographer than a painter, but that's not the same thing.
Exactly. What he seems to be trying to claim is that even though the painter and the photographer copy exactly the same scene - some sort of artistic magic takes place on the canvas which doesn't happen in the camera.
I may have misunderstood his argument, but it appears to boil down to: it's art, because it's done by an artist, who is an artist because he produces art.
What happens if you take a photo of the sunset, then take it home and produce a painting from that photo? Lots of artists do this and have done this since the invention of photography. It's even mooted many classic artists, working before photography was "invented", may have used a concept similar to a pin-hole camera to project scenes onto canvas which they then "traced".
Does this take away the artistic nature of a painting produced this way? No doubt Scruton would start banging on about how the artist "represents" the photo in a different way, therefore making it art!
Think you've hit the nail on the head. For me, art is broadly a reproduction or creation of something which creates an emotion or response...be that music, theatre, painting, photography or dance...and be that a positive, or negative, response.
Generally, art tends to be whatever someone wants to label as art.
You're right about the old masters: Canletto's camera obscura is in a museum somewhere and it is thought that Vermeer used one too. And, as you say, many artists work from photos. It is difficult to see at what point the "art magic" appears in one and cannot in another.
We should probably stop worrying and take some photos.
You chaps should get out more.
I am a pragmatist when it comes to this kind of thing. I take photos because it amuses me, and sometimes, other people. I occasionally think about the artistic merit of photographs, but not for too long.
What have I learned from this round? Nothing.
I knew I hated photographing people, because I don't empathise enough with the subject.
I knew my people photos were going to be a failure because my sole accessible human subject hates having her photo taken (this is one thing you have over me - choice of subject matter).
I knew that spontaneous portraits were unlikely to work for me as I'm better approaching a photo in a considered manner. Buildings don't tend to move much once you've posed them.
I do enjoy street photography in a reportage style, and perhaps we could consider that for the next challenge?
Anyhow, off to Paris tomorrow to photograph tall angular iron structures and elegant women.
Also "learnt" vs "learned".
From a teacher, too.
Grrr......
Kev: Also "learnt" vs "learned".
Your point is? I've always seen learnt and learned as interchangeable (unless we are talking about a "learned professor") with learnt being slightly more old-fashioned / British. Most of the articles on t'web seem to agree. However this article suggests a difference:
"Last challenge I learnt how hard portrait photography can be".
"Last challenge I learned to attempt more unusual portrait photos".
This is, of course, extremely pedantic and normally the sort of thing up with which I will not put!
Shall we ask the man who writes for a living?
Toby's right in this instance - either can be used other than in some specific examples. As Toby said, learnt is a bit more old-fashioned, bit like while vs whilst.
Just stumbled across this on the BBC about Caravaggio.
Post a Comment