Wednesday, December 23, 2009

Portraits: What Puts the Icon in Iconic Portraits?

I was thinking about portraits. You know, those often-formal (or not) pictures of people that say something about who and what they are.

My stream of consciousness started overflowing its banks, leading my thoughts to iconic portraits snapped by iconic portrait photographers.

I started asking myself, "What or who mostly makes a portrait iconic? The photographer or the sitter?"

Then, it hit me. Not like an epiphany but more like a fog-lifting awareness which, in truth, is how many things become part of my awareness. (More truth: Rarely does the fog completely lift.)

For the most part, when we see portraits that are proclaimed "iconic," it's very often because of who the sitter might be rather than who the photographer might be. Certainly, that's not an iron-clad rule--think Steve McCurry's Nat Geo photo of the Afghan girl with those feakin' eyes--but, in the world of portrait photography, it's often who is in front of the camera, not behind it, that matters most in terms of creating iconic portraits; make that portraits that, later, are perceived as iconic.

In some ways, that kinda sucks.

I don't know about many of you, and this ain't me getting full of myself, but I believe I can snap portraits that are pretty damn good--photographically good--just like many master portrait photographers have and still do except, in my case and probably yours, I don't have sitters who will automatically elevate my portrait-taking into the realms of renown. Generally, my subjects don't have the juice or position or celebrity or status to make my stuff particularly memorable--regardless of how good it might be--in the minds of the masses... nor is it likely that, as a consequence, any of my stuff will ever be dubbed, "iconic," by whomever does the dubbing.

As an example, if you consider the famous photo of Winston Churchill, snapped by Yousuf Karsh, the one where Churchill has that tough-as-nails resolute scowl on his face, did it really matter who snapped it?

(Update: Here's a link to an interesting account of Karsh's encounter with Churchill. I've read the same or similar accounts elsewhere.)

I'm not taking away from the considerable skills and talent of Yousuf Karsh. The man was one of the world's great portrait photographers! But still, if almost anyone else had shot nearly that same photo, and then that photo became, as Karsh's photo did, a big part of Britain's war propaganda machine against the 3rd Reich during WW2, whoever snapped the image would, quite possibly--perhaps even probably-- be hoisted to a pedestal as a world-class portraitist and, perhaps, even have gone on to be dubbed another "Sir Icon."

(Updated Note: I'm not saying all pics of iconic sitters become iconic pics. I'm simply saying it often takes an iconic sitter for a pic to become iconic... if that makes sense.)

Anyway, read what you will into what I'm saying because, as usual, I'm just saying.

Pic at the top is the Goddess of Glam, Tera Patrick. I snapped it in her home, uhh... I don't remember when but it wasn't all that long ago. The photo certainly does NOT have iconic status nor any other particularly meritorious status. Nor, I'm sure, will it ever. In fact, few have seen this pic much less commented one way or another on its merits. (Or lack of them.) Tera, of course, does have a certain iconic status, albeit mostly within the world in which she has worked.

11 comments:

Gary said...

I think you might be right about the subject making things iconic but I think there is a need to have the right photographer there to capture it. Some people just see different and get what is necessary.

I recently watched some of the videos of Platon's shoot at the UN for the New Yorker and it shows there is something about him that makes him better than others at taking those kind of portraits than some other photographers.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon

Anonymous said...

Considering that there were a lot of Churchill portraits that aren't Iconic, I find your argument all wet.

Karsh has many iconic images, so I think it has much more to do with the guy behind the camera making the best image of whoever is in front.

Maybe gets more world awareness if the subject is a celebrity of sorts, so more see it and are aware of it, making it even more iconic, faster.

jimmyd said...

@Anon,

Considering that there were a lot of Churchill portraits that aren't Iconic, I find your argument all wet.

I'm not saying all pics of iconic sitters become iconic pics. I'm simply saying it often takes an iconic sitter for a pic to become iconic... if that makes sense.

jimmyd said...

@Gary,

I think you might be right about the subject making things iconic but I think there is a need to have the right photographer there to capture it. Some people just see different and get what is necessary.

Altho anyone can snap a portrait that, for one reason or another, goes on to be labeled, "iconic," I think the sitter is, generally, the more important contribution to a portrait reaching iconic status.

The better the portrait photographer, of course, the better the odds of capturing an image that becomes iconistic. (Is that a word?) When the photographer him/herself becomes an icon, more of that icon-shooter's work becomes viable as an iconic image.

Stephen Cupp said...

I think that if the photographer behind the camera wasn't good the iconic subject wouldn't have them there. Not everyone gets a chance to work with people like Churchill.

jimmyd said...

@Stephen Cupp,

I think that if the photographer behind the camera wasn't good the iconic subject wouldn't have them there. Not everyone gets a chance to work with people like Churchill.

Ain't that the truth. The trick, I guess, for photographers, is getting past that tough line to the place where opportunities present themselves to photograph subjects that then help take you to where your subjects become more and more of the iconic types. I mean, there's plenty of shooters who are good, really good, but who never manage to get to that place. I guess there's only room for so many on photography's Mt. Olympus.

John said...

I wouldn't discount the fame of the subject, but there are, I think, a lot of "iconic" portraits - the Mud Men, for example - that aren't famous people. Or Dorothea Lange's "Migrant Mother?"
Personally, I think it has more to do with the emotional impact or strength of the image. Whatever that means.

The season's best to you.

Anonymous said...

From reading Portrait in Light and Shadow: The Life of Yousuf Karsh (Amazon link), I know that Karsh deliberately set out to photograph very important people. When Karsh himself was shy and just starting out, his first wife Solange through her work arranged for Karsh to photograph dignitaries in Ottawa. From there, his reputation and opportunities grew.

It would be easy to say that Karsh was lucky in being able to meet famous people. In fairness to Karsh, however, he deliberately set out to photograph interesting people. Of course, he still photographed commoners to pay the bills.

Any portrait photographer wishing to make her mark needs to find a way to photograph VIPs. Perhaps, she engages in a personal project where she photographs local political and business leaders. And that in turn leads to other opportunities.

Portrait photography is a people business. Thus, important people as subjects leads to more exposure and more opportunities, and, to your point Jimmy, to iconic images.

KS

jimmyd said...

@KS,

Portrait photography is a people business. Thus, important people as subjects leads to more exposure and more opportunities, and, to your point Jimmy, to iconic images.

Word.

MarcWPhoto said...

A bad photographer will produce an iconic portrait only if God reaches down and snaps the shutter button through them, no matter the subject.

A good photographer can produce an iconic portrait with an iconic subject and a little bit of providence.

A great photographer can, if they summon up their Attribute and take on their Aspect, make an iconic portrait of anyone at almost any time.

Consider the portrait in this blog entry:

http://photodino.wordpress.com/2009/12/10/you-get-what-you-give/

Most people, I'm guessing, would have looked at the subject as he drowsed on his barstool and thought, "Bum. Meh." But this photographer reaches through the lens and says, "There's a HUMAN BEING in there. You will LOOK and you will FEEL."

Now, absent great good fortune this image will never be "iconic" in the sense of "famed and renowned." But it has the gravitas, the power, of what I would consider a potentially iconic photograph, and it was essentially a snapshot taken in a bar.

I think producing iconic portraits is a matter of luck, but I think it is especially susceptible to the concept of, "The harder I work, the luckier I get." Talent is needed to get the benefit, or at least to maximize the benefit, of the work that makes one "luckier," but all the talent in the world is no substitute for knowing what to do and how to do it.

Anonymous said...

I think the big mistake many do is that they want to take a photo of someone without allowing this someone to be him\herself by neglecting the nature of the sitter then what are we shooting? a portrait to be a portrait needs to have some of the sitter soul in it, not like you will steal his\her soul with the camera :P but you need their personality to flourish in front of the lens for you, because a portrait should say more about the sitter rather than the shooter, a great portrait photographer is the one who captures in a photo the real "persona", the person behind the shell all humans put to protect ourselves from everyone else out there, it is in that instant when the real nature of the person is exposed that a portrait becomes a portrait and not merely a fancy lit photo of a dull\scared\stiff person.

A great portrait photographer is the one who can get a great portrait of any person that sits in front of the camera regardless of the sitter's fame status :D

The photo of Tera is beautiful! love how her sensual and elegant self is mixed with such a strong and fierce attitude!!! you did a great job!

Happy holidays Jimmy I hope you had a great time and Santa brought plenty of cool stuff :D

My best wishes to you!!
Eduar

Eduar