‘Disarming the Pose’

From an early stage in my portraiture work on the OCA Advanced Photography course the direction of my investigations has been greatly influenced by the following quotation from Roland Barthes’  Camera Lucida (Barthes 1999, pp 13-14).

‘In front of the lens, I am at the same time: the one I think I am, the one I want others to think I am, the one the photographer thinks I am, and the one he makes use of to exhibit his art. In other words, a strange action: I do not stop imitating myself, and because of this, each time I am (or let myself be) photographed, I invariably suffer from a sensation of inauthenticity, sometimes of imposture (comparable to certain nightmares).’

What Barthes is suggesting is that because of the conflicting demands of the subject, the photographer and ultimately the viewer, in his experience, photographic portraits invariably lack authenticity and take on the character of a masquerade. Look for example at this portrait of Barthes on a book cover.

Barthes is cast in the role of Rodin’s ‘The Thinker’, which is a bit obvious to say the least. His hand is raised to his chin. He is  gazing into the distance lost in thought. He is placed to one side of the frame rather unconventionally which might be to signify his iconoclastic nature. The lighting on his face adds a little drama. There are many such portraits of the great man.

Barthes statement lead me to question what strategies photographers could adopt to achieve greater authenticity and avoid overt self conscious posing in their portraiture. In the projects I’ve undertaken during the course I have explored such strategies under the banner ‘Disarming the Pose‘.

The question of what makes a portrait seem authentic and unposed is complex. There are many factors to consider: Is the portrait a good likeness of the subject? Does it look idealised? Does it seem like the photographer has manipulated the way the subject looks? Is the way the subject looks consistent with their position in society? Does the portrait reflect the character of the subject if this is known?  Does the subject seem to be putting on an act?

In this post I present a discussion of these factors and outline the general approach I have taken in my own work.

Likeness, Idealisation and Photographic Manipulation

A photographic portrait ought to be a ‘realistic’ representation of the subject. The indexical nature of the medium creates a direct link between subject and image. That said appearance is not as fixed as one might immediately think. People can be made to look different depending on their facial expression; how they are dressed; the presence or otherwise of make up, wigs and such like; the photographic lighting; the background setting; their posture; any re-touching or remodelling of the image; and of course when the portrait was made.

Whether a portrait looks like the subject can only really be determined by those who know the subject well. In the case of a portrait of someone not known to them, the viewer will rely upon their expectations (culturally and socially defined) of how such a person might be expected to look. If the person is a public figure what we know of that person will also impinge on our expectations.

The manipulation of photographic portraits is often thought of as a new phenomenon arising from the emergence of digital imaging. This is not the case. Retouching has been around since the beginning of photography. Commercial portrait photographer’s reputations have always depended on how good they were at flattering their subjects.

We are very adept at interpreting faces and spotting when something is not quite right. We are also very suspicious these days of the ‘Photoshop’ effect. Very few people today believe that publicity portraits of celebrities are true representations. Here is an interesting blog post showing how some celebrities look before and after retouching of their portraits. Ordinary folk visiting their local photographer’s studio have come to expect the same kind of ‘enhancement’.

Apart from outright manipulation the photographer has many other tools at his/her disposal to ‘manage’ how a photographic portrait turns out. High key and low key images have  quite different connotations. Dramatic and flat lighting also result in quite different representations. A low viewpoint gives the subject stature. A high viewpoint makes them look humble. And then there is choosing the moment to ‘click’ the shutter and deciding on which image out of several during the sitting to use. The subject could be made to appear  angry, morose, truculent, etc etc simply by selecting the right image. In truth is it quite surprising that vestiges of photography’s hold on ‘realism’ remain.

For my own work I have chosen not to idealise my subjects. I have made no use of make up, retouching and such like. I have also tried to restrict the influence of photographic artifice on my portraits. I have generally used even lighting. Backgrounds have been neutral or out of focus. Most often I have placed the subject centrally in the frame. And perhaps most importantly I have selected images which show the subject with a neutral expression. All of this is intended to add authenticity to the work.

Type

This issue refers to the question of how consistent the portrait is with normal (culturally and socially defined) expectations for such a person. An obvious example of this would be a portrait of a member of the Royal Family. The Queen is expected to look regal. Representing an average person in the guise of a king or queen would be laughable and would destroy the credibility of the portrait. Sander used a typological approach to categorise his portraits of the German people. His subjects were presented appropriately dressed and in the case of non-professionals with the tools of their trade. I have previously presented my thoughts on his work here. The background setting and ‘props’ can also be used to place the subject within a typological context.

These days however categorisation of people into types according to class or profession is much more problematic. Lifestyle factors have become far more important descriptors of type. In our commodity driven society people buy into particular types or as Judith Williamson says in Decoding Advertisements ‘This – a Lifestyle Kit – is precisely what ads offer us. In buying products with certain ‘images’ we create ourselves, our personality, our qualities, even our past and future.’ (Williamson 2002, pp 70).

In my own work I have produced series of portraits of people who fall into particular types, e.g.Ironman Triathletes, Artists and Rotarians. I have made this clear through my artist statements, captions and title of the series.  I have not  made significant use of supporting backgrounds or ‘props’ other than the subject’s clothing. With my Ironman Family I have perhaps  been confounding the viewer on the question of type as my subjects do not conform to a stereotypical view of what an athlete should look like. In this sense perhaps it might be said that I might have undermined the credibility of the portraits. However, the surprising ‘ordinariness’ of my triathletes is central to what I am trying to convey with this series.

Character

All portraits engage in some way with the identity of the sitter and  include the external signs of the person’s socialised self, what Erving Goffman’s calls ‘Front’ (Goffman 1959, pp 32). The question is whether it is really possible to penetrate this ‘Front’ and reveal the ‘inner self’ of the subject. Attempts to reconcile the inner life with the outer appearance have been ongoing since ancient times. Aristotle wrote treatises on physiognomy – the pseudoscience of deducing someone’s character from how they look. This became particularly popular through the work of John Casper Lavater in the eighteenth century (West 2004, pp 32).

Theories of deportment and expression have also been developed. Charles Le Brun codified expressions of the passions for example (West 2004, pp 34).In practice however it was uncommon for portraits to show overt expressions as sitters favoured neutral and studied features giving them a dignified appearance. This posed problems for the artist unable to use this tool as a means of conveying character. Expressions can also ‘backfire’. For example, laughter can be read as a sign of joy but can also suggest mania or depression. The extremes of expression are also associated with caricature and satire and as such are usually avoided.

In portrait painting these difficulties in representing character were in part overcome by the adoption of conventions for conveying meaning. Richard Brilliant refers to this as follows:  ‘The consolidation of [these] socio-artistic conventions into specific verbal-visual images allows both the artist and viewer to categorise the person portrayed in general terms.’ (Brilliant 2013 location 545). There were for example schema recognised as signs of uprightness of character. In other words with painted portraits it is/was possible for the artist to use conventions to convey information about the subjects personality. This might of  course involve modifying how the person looks to comply with such conventions. With photographic portraits this is much more difficult because a photograph is an exact copy of how the person looked at the time when the shutter was pressed.

Harry Berger has written extensively on how art historians are driven to infer the character of portrait subjects from their painted images (Berger 1994, pp 93). Berger’s work is a critique of this practice  about which he says: ‘It appears, then, that art historians often don’t hesitate to guide us through the faces of long-dead sitters and into their minds and souls. They do this using an undigested mix of archival evidence, the intuitions of lay psychology, and the record of past beliefs- physiognomy, for example-that often strike even them the art historians themselves as quaint, obsolete, bizarre, or merely tedious….’ In place of this Berger proposes that analysis should  be centred on what he calls the ‘fiction of the pose’. In other words how the painter and the subject have colluded to create the impression that physiognomy reflects character. In practice however the huge body of art historical publication on portraiture has added to popular belief that the ‘inner self’ can be inferred from the outer appearance.

Even though they may be aware of the above limitations,  most people looking at a portrait still feel that it seems to imply something about the identity of the sitter and to offer  the promise of understanding their personality.

For my own work I have attempted to steer clear of deliberately implying anything about the character of my subjects through their expressions, poses or demeanour. My subjects are not public figures and as such would be unknown to almost all viewers. I do not subscribe to the notions of physiognomy nor have I tried to build in codes to represent the character of my subjects. My intention has been to present my subjects with neutral, somewhat ambiguous, expressions. This leaves room for viewers to use their imaginations and to speculate on the personality of the subject (as they inevitably will).

Self Conscious Posing

Here I am referring the Barthes image repertoire of ‘the one I want others to think I am’. The question is whether the subject is representing themselves to be someone other than they really are. Pose, expression, background, supporting ‘props’ and costume can all be used to effect such a masquerade.

Historically public figures have been particularly adept at presenting a public ‘image’. But these days given the ubiquitous nature of photographic imagery and the culture of celebrity which abounds just about everyone has an armoury of poses stashed in their memories, waiting to be recalled and used for particular situations.

Codes of behaviour for people being photographed are also culturally defined. People are accustomed to smiling on certain occasions, e.g. weddings, family portraits, birthdays and such like. By the same token people associate not smiling with other events such as the passport photograph, being photographed at immigration control desks.

Finding ways to ‘Disarm the Pose’   has been my central theme. I have explored a number of approaches including candid portraiture, making the portrait when the subject is absorbed in some other activity, distraction of the subject, subverting cultural norms and using photographic techniques which slow down and add gravitas to the photographic process. The viewers of my portraits will ultimately be the judges of how successful my investigations have been.

References

Barthes R. (1999) Camera Lucida London: Vintage

Berger H. (1994) Fictions of the Pose: Facing the Gaze of Early Modern Portraiture Representations, No. 46. (Spring, 1994), pp. 87-120

Brilliant R. (2013) Portraiture (Essays in Art and Culture) [Kindle Edition] London: Reaktion Books

Goffman E. (1990) THE PRESENTATION OF SELF IN EVERYDAY LIFE  London: Penguin

West S. (2004) Portraiture Oxford: Oxford University Press

Williamson J. (2002) DECODING ADVERTISEMENTS IDEOLOGY AND MEANING IN ADVERTISING London: Marion Boyers