"If one photographs people, it is their inner look that must be revealed."

[ferider]

Just what is an "inner look"?

Maybe something was lost in translation. It might have been "silence intérieur"
like in "Le silence intérieur d’une victime consentante" ?

 

[Spider67]

Nobody expects....

Nobody expects....

ooohh, blasphemy.. ,-)

the rangefinding inquisition!

The stake the stake...next thing they say is that earth is not a disc!

 

[FrankS]

Along the vein of finder's post, I think a picture, any picture, needs to make a connection with the viewer, to be successful. Success is more about the viewer than the subject.

 

[sirius]

In the words f the great man himself:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4074157481455007235

 

[ray_g]

Another yes and no answer. IMO, one has to know the subject really well to capture that "inner look" - either through an intimate acquaintance, or by the photographer immersing himself in the subject's environment and condition. I find this in photos by James Nachtwey, for instance. To do something similar after meeting someone for the first time in the studio, I think, would be difficult. Even moreso for a street photographer lurking like "a fly on the wall."

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

Humble, honest and serious question: Do you people think HCB's sh*t don't stink?

I'm sure it did. A lot.

 

[sirius]

I think HCB was talking about how to make photos that will endure the test of time. Someone's picture of their lovely daughter or, the example used earlier, a fashion photo, may be excellent photos but not necessarily ones that will endure.

I think you're correct in saying that HCB was talking about his own type of photography. That said, there are many portraits that are more an expression of the photographer's personality that the subjects. HCB's portrats tended to be very quiet and still moments when people are not putting on their "face" to the world.

Matisse often watched his models during their breaks to see how they posed. In this way he was able to find natural poses that expressed more about the model's personality, their "inner face".

 

[ruben]

Hi Fellows!

What a great thread we are having here! At least for me, and it is my sincere hope the same is for everyone else. So I would like to deeply thank the posters and future posters too.

Soon I will be replying to most of posts. Just now I have either catched a cold or need a good sleep, since I am not feeling good enough, and the thread deserves my most serious attention.

The only thing I can say now, it is that by some process of evolution, my attention in Photography is being shifted to the image itself, rather than the process and the gear. So I am trying to clarify a bit, for myself, what the hell am I doing when roaming at the streets. Perhaps some of you are asking this question too, or have asked it in the past, or may ask it in the future. Or this question doesn't bother at all.

Most of the chances are that this process is a circular one, and at the future I will find myself again highly interested in darkroom and gear issues. All what we can "suck" from Photography for honest satisfaction and pleasure is legitimate, of course.

Much of our photography at the streets is focused on people. Are they decorative devices in our pics? Are we abusing them for self expression ? Are we revealing indeed their inner silent, or at least minor parts of it ? Is there a kind of "street poirtrature", beyond posing, within Street Photography ?

So with this no-much-contents hellow, I am going to bed and hope to awake like a tiger.

Greatings again to all the posters.
Cheers,
Ruben

 

[jaffa_777]

Ruben, don't worry, asking myself this question constantly every day. Ultimately the gear talk ultimates to wanting to use the best gear I can to shoot someones soul. I think it's only human for most of us to concentrate on the gear while a few talented people out their who have gotten over their gear facinade are concentrating on the craft of caputuring a persons soul. But at the end of the day, you still need the gear to do it though.

 

[Finder]

I am not sure that "knowing" the subject well is a secret of good portraiture. I have taken many good photographs of people who I just meet and never knew for more than a brief moment. Other photographers can be commisioned to take a portrait of the "famous" and are only give a small amount of time to take it. Certainly they don't have the time to chat.

The only thing the photographer can do is TRY to make a strong image for the viewer. I doubt there can be any real objective statement made about the subject.

The photographer's motivation is an individual issue, not a collective one.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I view many of Cartier-Bresson's images in pure wonder and admiration, however I believe that he may well have been determinedly elusive in many of the statements he made about photography. From many of his interviews and books that he has written I have formed the very personal opinion that he had little time for photography that did not fit his strict, and personal intellectual values and codes. I tend to admire his pictures but not get hung up on everything he said. Like everyone, some things people say make good sense to you and other things make less sense...so you decide for yourself whether to ignore them and find your own way.

As for the original question. I find it hard to trust an image or photographer that openly purports to reveal someone elses "inner-ness" ( for want of a far better phrase) through one of their photographs. Whilst I'm in no way a good enough photographer to compare myself to the level of work we're probably all thinking about whilst discussing this, I will make the comparision in how we work. When I raise my camera to my eye it is not in the knowledge that the scene/situation before me will be revealed in my image as a truth or an insight into a persons "inner-ness." It is simply that instinct, your instinct, your eye, your head and your heart, makes you release the shutter when you do and at what.

As such, for me the first part of the quote is the most honest and the most meaningful. Whilst I would love to be able to reveal a subjects personality and emotions I think it is fairer to say that we strive to do this but really only manage to project our belief of what that is from the information we can glean from expressions and body language. To me this is not necessarily a bad thing as photography can be/is a very personal view of the world around you.

My view on this is summed up in Oscar Wilde's quote in my signature.

 

[ruben]

Every photo of people shows less or more of their inner look. The question is: is there anyone (including the photographer) who can decode this inner look.......

I find this statement to be my starting point. Who can decode the inner look ? Most of the posters at the thread, so far, have raised their doubts about the measure in which the "inner-ness" of a person can be shown.

And if I extend myself as far as Gabriel's viewpoint, we will never achieve the 'absolute' inner-ness of a person. Although in the middle we can achieve some of it.

The reason is very simple. People change. People are subject to a constant process of change. This change affects parts of our personality while other parts remain more or less constant. Where stands the "inner-ness" ? Does it at the changing side or at the constant side?

Moreover, the process of change is not exactly constant but by periods of time. It happens at different paces for each of us.

So what exactly are we seeing when we photograph and engrave a grain of time in this life embracing process ?.

This question sounds to me as one of the greatest challenges we face. We all know that the camera is a professional lier. Overcoming this feature of our camera and obtaining a true and sincere grain of truth seems to me to be the goal. Breaking the boundaries...

At this point I have to end this post, in order to take issue with other aspects of the image as seen by other posters, whom I would like to quote.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[ruben]

I am not sure that "knowing" the subject well is a secret of good portraiture. I have taken many good photographs of people who I just meet and never knew for more than a brief moment. Other photographers can be commisioned to take a portrait of the "famous" and are only give a small amount of time to take it. Certainly they don't have the time to chat.

The only thing the photographer can do is TRY to make a strong image for the viewer. I doubt there can be any real objective statement made about the subject.

The photographer's motivation is an individual issue, not a collective one.

I think that's a great thing to aspire to, but then that means that many successful photos are a failure. Or rather...maybe the above quote is just too fundamental in its view that it does not leave room for an open mind?

I've seen that there are photos that don't tell a story, and are absolute successes.

If there's a "story" through a photo, it is as objective as its viewer.

A photo is as successful as the viewer wants it to be. It can tell a wonderful story, but we all know that wonderful stories don't make photos!

Photos make viewers, and viewers make stories for the photos.

I find that Gabriel and Finder both go more or less along the same lines, from my viewpoint. Kindly let me decode what they are telling as it is both of great interest and, against my will throw me to defend HCB view in some sense.

Both friends are discriminating between a great photograph and its true contents, which according to all are rather elusive. Both Finder and Gabriel point to the fact that a great image can be great not for its truthness but for its power to estimulate the viewer's senses.

Agreed.

But HCB is telling us something beyond that, that I will like to coin even if HCB himself was or not loyal to his word. He is sending us to seek for truth, or depth, in our images.

And at this point I ask myself how are we going to accomplish that mission in street poirtrature. Any ideas ?

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Finder]

But HCB is telling us something beyond that, that I will like to coin even if HCB himself was or not loyal to his word. He is sending us to seek for truth, or depth, in our images.

And at this point I ask myself how are we going to accomplish that mission in street poirtrature. Any ideas ?

Cheers,
Ruben

If I understand your comment, it seems you believe in some sort of metaphysical truth in art. An inherent ideal behind the forms. I don't see art that way.

In my photography I simply try to honest with myself. I try to understand what I am photographing because I want to learn - I use my photography to learn. I try to present an image I feel is honest to my perception of the situation. None of this is a recipe for making good photographs.

The photograph comes from the recognition of a balance of form, tone, and color. It also comes from recognizing the point where these forms come together to make a pleasing image. Sometimes I see it in the viewfinder, but ultimately it comes from the selection of the work in the editing process. I don't feel I can communicate what I do as it is a part of what I am - the reason photographers seem to have distinctive "styles."

As far as improving a individual's work or skill, I am not sure where I come down on the nature vs. nurture debate - is an artist born or created. I think is is a bit of both. I don't know of any artist that was able to whip out a work of art. Artist require years of practice and experimentation. But practice without the facility is equally as empty as talent without effort. My mom, bless her heart, puts effort into her photography, but will never acheive any mastery.

My favorite images are a mystery to me as I cannot credit my abilities to them. There is a quality that cannot be quantified to why the have power. At least not in a sense that it would be something that could be shared to help others or that is repeatable.

But none of my work has any absolute truth in them than a particular spatial representation at a particular moment. None have anymore meaning than what the viewer places in them. I enjoy photography and that is enough.

 

[ruben]

If I understand your comment, it seems you believe in some sort of metaphysical truth in art. An inherent ideal behind the forms. I don't see art that way.

In my photography I simply try to honest with myself. I try to understand what I am photographing because I want to learn - I use my photography to learn. I try to present an image I feel is honest to my perception of the situation. None of this is a recipe for making good photographs.

....

Yes Finder, altough I would not use the word "metaphysical", I do believe that truth and art are not contradictory. Your own trial to be honest, as you testify, is a main lever to achieve it.

I cannot but recall that great photograph of Robert Cappa about the Spanish loyalist soldier at the very moment of his death. It is a true moment of death alongside a great artistic composition.

Or if you want that other photo of Eugene Smith in Japan with the mother holding her dying son due to the polution of the place.

We at the streets seldom witness such levels of human drama. But we do witness minor fractions of the puzzle.

This puzzle, termed as "The Human Condition", is not necessarily one sided. It is not only about suffering. Or at least this is my belief.

Nevertheless, it is not exactly the commercial image of ourselves we are daily sold. If you like, finding the real fractions of daily life within an aesthetical frame can be a great something to be.

I think you are helping me to get close to what I would like to do.

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Finder]

Nevertheless, it is not exactly the commercial image of ourselves we are daily sold. If you like, finding the real fractions of daily life within an aesthetical frame can be a great something to be.

I think you are helping me to get close to what I would like to do.

Cheers,
Ruben

Joseph Campbell, by using the ideas of James Joyce and others, come up with a very suscinct philosophy of art in this regards. The idea of proper and improper art. Here proper art is art in service of itself (but not art-for-art's-sake). And improper art is service of something else - commercial or journalistic. Improper art is kinetic in that it moves you. Art which moves you to posess the object is pornographic as it causes desire for the object - commercial art. Art which repulses you from the object is didactic - journalism. Proper art is static in that it holds you in asthetic arrest where you are not moved to possess or replused by the object. Your reference to Smith's photograph from his Minamata series where the mother holds her deformed child is proper in that it is not a repulsive image, nor is it one that causes desire. You are held by the beauty of the image regardless of the moral or ethical implications. Naturally, there are moral issues surrounding the image, but the image is strong because of itself regardless of what we think of the politics or the situation. That is what J Campbell put forward.

Now, I don't know the "truth" of Smith's image. It possess a form that shows a harmony of form. We recognize a perfection of form in it beyond a conceptual construction from the physical condition of the people. I believe Kant thought "real" beauty was beyond the sentimental where there is a universal recognition of the harmony of form. From ideas in biology in superstimulus, I believe we have evolved a very sophisticated visual system where we can extract very subtle information from form visually. I think this has led to our attraction to art (a super stimuli) where we can be enraptured in the perfection of form in many levels. This is not "truth," but a profound recognition of "beauty."

 

[ruben]

With your permission Finder, I will cut it short, very short. I am not enraged with the Human Race. On the contrary I feel myself very much a part of it.

If Art cannot enrich it, then I will continue to do my own photography out of its umbrella. Humans need the help of humans and I want my hand there.

Where do you want yours ?

Cheers,
Ruben

 

[Finder]

With your permission Finder, I will cut it short, very short. I am not enraged with the Human Race. On the contrary I feel myself very much a part of it.

If Art cannot enrich it, then I will continue to do my own photography out of its umbrella. Humans need the help of humans and I want my hand there.

Where do you want yours ?

Cheers,
Ruben

i very much agree. I like what Jacques-Henri Lartigue said:

I take photographs with love, so I try to make them art objects.

 

[marke]

No, not true. It is the depth of compassion of the viewer that must be revealed.

That seems to be a great goal to reach, and would allow us to come full circle, wouldn't it?

 

[RML]

No, it's not true. What we see at the outside has no bearing with what's on the inside. A certain look, a certain gesture, a certain glance... it says diddlydoo about a person's inner thoughts. We interpret those outward signs and think we're able to read from them what goes on on the inside. But people are notoriously bad at judging others. Just take a look at the current US President. Sweet looking bloke, with a hint of naivite, or not? Or any supermodel. Sexy looking, blond and not so smart, or not? Or that grumpy old neighbour. Must be a misanthrope, or not?

People suck at judging others by the outside, and even when we think we know someone, we're often surprised about what they say, what they do, and why. To think that a portrait or photo will give is more or better clues, is ridiculous.