Kevin Bjorke
New member
I love portraits and have long found the idea of them -- the fundamental nature and purpose of portraiture -- to be something of a paradox. To simply recreate a likeness is seemingly trivial, though we all have had the experience of making (and appearing in) "better" or "worse" likenesses. Does the portrait require the face? The body? How recognizably unique must it be? Can it be?
Ralph Gibson once said that there are photos that show a specific person and photos that show Everyman, and that the most interesting photos are those where the two categories overlap. I love this statement in part because it seems like clear instruction and yet who the heck knows what it means when you're actually in the process of making pictures.
The inner state of the subject is especially problematic... do the best portraits reveal it, or only the appearance of such a revelation, which may be completely illusory? If a photo cannot truly tell a story, but rather just (!) a poem, how much can we take from it at (ahem) face value? I do believe that no image of merit can exist without a sense of verbs to match its directly-visibile nouns.
Someone told me that all photos are about a relationship. Between the viewer, the photographer, and subject, it seems to me like there are at least three relationships in play.
I ask these questions not expecting ready answers, but simpy because they are questions I ask regularly, and try to explore with each click. It would be good to hear others' thoughts.
Ralph Gibson once said that there are photos that show a specific person and photos that show Everyman, and that the most interesting photos are those where the two categories overlap. I love this statement in part because it seems like clear instruction and yet who the heck knows what it means when you're actually in the process of making pictures.
The inner state of the subject is especially problematic... do the best portraits reveal it, or only the appearance of such a revelation, which may be completely illusory? If a photo cannot truly tell a story, but rather just (!) a poem, how much can we take from it at (ahem) face value? I do believe that no image of merit can exist without a sense of verbs to match its directly-visibile nouns.
Someone told me that all photos are about a relationship. Between the viewer, the photographer, and subject, it seems to me like there are at least three relationships in play.
I ask these questions not expecting ready answers, but simpy because they are questions I ask regularly, and try to explore with each click. It would be good to hear others' thoughts.