Portraiture in photography is a lost art today. Portrait studios in Sears, Wal-Mart and Any Mall USA have demeaned this once most noble of endeavors. Why is this so? Why has the photographic portrait so integral in sculpting the face of who America is been remaindered to the ash heap like so many other skilled crafts of the past?
Photographers such as Yousuf Karsh, Arnold Newman, Edward Steichen, Alfred Stieglitz and Paul Strand each incorporated portraiture into their quiver of artistic expression. Today you’d be hard pressed to find a photographer with the vision, skill and caring to render a 3 dimensional portrait of the person willing to sit. The results today are more than likely a 2 dimensional evacuation from the bilge of a computer printer.
The digital revolution as egalitarian as it seems has nonetheless lowered the bar of what we are willing to accept as portraiture. Color, evenly lit digital renditions from a mall chain have a relationship to art as boloney sandwiches have to fine dining. Digital photographs from the smock wearing, hourly drones at Wal-Mart has neutered the serious practitioner to the point that commerce has finely triumphed over art like Muhammad Ali standing over Sonny Liston.
Behold the work of Mike Disfarmer (http://www.disfarmer.com) a photographer who had a portrait studio for 30 years in Heber Springs, Arkansas in early to mid 20th century. Working in mostly abject obscurity he fashioned a body of work that very view photographers ever approach. What can you say about it other than all of the tribulations and bittersweet back stories of the local habitués of Heber Springs are clearly visible in every portrait Mike Disfarmer ever made. This corpus is almost a catalogue raisonné of everyone who lived in that little town.
No one will ever say that about Glamour Shots!
The portrait photographer’s objective and for the most part what all great portrait photographers are able to accomplish is to extract the essence of the sitter and translate that on to 2 dimensional photographic paper. How does he or she do that? How can 2 strangers meet for a brief period of time and in the end the result is a work of art?
This is where the artist separates himself from the craftsman. The artist is willing to go deeper than the mere recording of a façade. The artist wants to record the full value of this person by taking the time through talking or being in the presence of the sitter a palpable simpatico suddenly presents itself.
I know this seems impossible, but I’ve photographed many models over the years and never achieved even mild success unless I did the pre-photographic work of discovering common ground by relating a story or experience that put the goals of myself and the model's within view of each other. If this can be consummated a portrait of considerable depth should appear at the end of the experience.
Paul Strand said that for a portrait to be successful the viewer upon looking at the photograph for the first time must be imbued with a desire to want to know more about the sitter. Look at the portrait at the top of this page. It was a graduation photograph taken of a MIT student taken in 1906. I bought it at a flea market for $1.00 and yet it has all of the ingredients I speak of.
The photographer who took this had to create an atmosphere conducive for each sitter (I am sure this wasn’t the only photograph he took on this day) to reveal a more faceted countenance than would have ever resulted from the droppings of a drugstore photo booth. I believe this photographer was victorious for there is nothing more edifying than a true portrait of flesh and blood.
Photographers such as Yousuf Karsh, Arnold Newman, Edward Steichen, Alfred Stieglitz and Paul Strand each incorporated portraiture into their quiver of artistic expression. Today you’d be hard pressed to find a photographer with the vision, skill and caring to render a 3 dimensional portrait of the person willing to sit. The results today are more than likely a 2 dimensional evacuation from the bilge of a computer printer.
The digital revolution as egalitarian as it seems has nonetheless lowered the bar of what we are willing to accept as portraiture. Color, evenly lit digital renditions from a mall chain have a relationship to art as boloney sandwiches have to fine dining. Digital photographs from the smock wearing, hourly drones at Wal-Mart has neutered the serious practitioner to the point that commerce has finely triumphed over art like Muhammad Ali standing over Sonny Liston.
Behold the work of Mike Disfarmer (http://www.disfarmer.com) a photographer who had a portrait studio for 30 years in Heber Springs, Arkansas in early to mid 20th century. Working in mostly abject obscurity he fashioned a body of work that very view photographers ever approach. What can you say about it other than all of the tribulations and bittersweet back stories of the local habitués of Heber Springs are clearly visible in every portrait Mike Disfarmer ever made. This corpus is almost a catalogue raisonné of everyone who lived in that little town.
No one will ever say that about Glamour Shots!
The portrait photographer’s objective and for the most part what all great portrait photographers are able to accomplish is to extract the essence of the sitter and translate that on to 2 dimensional photographic paper. How does he or she do that? How can 2 strangers meet for a brief period of time and in the end the result is a work of art?
This is where the artist separates himself from the craftsman. The artist is willing to go deeper than the mere recording of a façade. The artist wants to record the full value of this person by taking the time through talking or being in the presence of the sitter a palpable simpatico suddenly presents itself.
I know this seems impossible, but I’ve photographed many models over the years and never achieved even mild success unless I did the pre-photographic work of discovering common ground by relating a story or experience that put the goals of myself and the model's within view of each other. If this can be consummated a portrait of considerable depth should appear at the end of the experience.
Paul Strand said that for a portrait to be successful the viewer upon looking at the photograph for the first time must be imbued with a desire to want to know more about the sitter. Look at the portrait at the top of this page. It was a graduation photograph taken of a MIT student taken in 1906. I bought it at a flea market for $1.00 and yet it has all of the ingredients I speak of.
The photographer who took this had to create an atmosphere conducive for each sitter (I am sure this wasn’t the only photograph he took on this day) to reveal a more faceted countenance than would have ever resulted from the droppings of a drugstore photo booth. I believe this photographer was victorious for there is nothing more edifying than a true portrait of flesh and blood.
|
|
|