Portrait Works in Progress

Elinor Carucci- After Argument, Crisis

Cornelia Hediger- The Future is Canceled

Blog Post #7

#7 Pay close attention to the types and number of photographic portraits you see in one day. Where did you see them? How do you think that the content of the portrait changes based on the context in which you see the image (news, facebook, magazine, advertisement, television, youtube, etc)? In other words, what is the difference between the portraits you see on facebook vs. those on the news? What is the difference between the “viewpoint” of the photographer in each situation? What is the difference between their “intents”?


There are far more photographic portraits present everywhere than many people would imagine. The covers of books, magazines and newspapers blitz us with images of people doing things, selling things and displaying things. Photographs used in publications and on television are often created with a purpose. They are not just there by chance or because they thought it would be fun to show people using their products- they are there to capture our attention and make us want or support whatever it is they are advertising or campaigning. The photographs are taken in very specific ways that highlight the good traits of the people and products in them. For example, during political campaigns, candidates very deliberately try to place their image in the eyes of voters, and they want to be represented in a certain way. They are often shot from a low angle to make them appear powerful, and in the most flattering lighting to minimize unsightly shadows or personal flaws.

Additionally, imagine one of those commercials or adds you see everywhere for the Save the Children’s Fund. Those photographs are taken in a completely different way than the photos for a political campaign. The children are shot from above to further express how helpless and little they are, and the lighting is often dim or dramatic to highlight their plight instead of soft and bright to make them appear more attractive. When coupled with sorrowful music and testimonials, these images provide a powerfully emotional message.

Aside from professional photography and publications, amateur photography is also prevalent in daily life. I was at my grandma’s house over the weekend, and virtually every room of her house is filled with family photographs and portraits from over the years. These aren’t out to persuade someone to buy a product or vote one way or another- they are used for capturing memories of holidays, children growing up and those who have passed away. They are present for personal reasons.

Facebook is another example of somewhere a lot of personal photography can be seen. The ones that intrigue me the most are pictures that people post of themselves. I think it’s really interesting to think about the image selection process that takes place when deciding which pictures to put up and which ones will rot in the depths of the computer folders. These people are their own editors- they choose what will and what will not be seen- they decide how they want to be represented and remembered. I’ve noticed that people are much more likely to have unflattering pictures of their friends up than themselves. I’m sure it’s not always a conscious “OMG she looks so fat here I’ll post it hahaha!” as much as it is the people being their own hardest critics and overlooking the flaws in others while being hyper aware of their own.

The way the photographs are taken and presented influences the way people perceive the subjects.

Blog Post #6

#6 In your opinion, when is it beneficial, ethical, or appropriate to digitally alter photographic portraits? When do you think it is inappropriate or ethically wrong?

In the world of art photography, I believe it is completely ethical to alter photographs. When done with a creative purpose in mind, the sky is the limit in my mind. There have been so many amazing and creative photos that would not have been possible without digital alteration, and it would be a huge shame if this form of artistic expression were eliminated, leaving the imagination of these types of artists unexpressed. I think of it sort of like special effects in movies. It is certainly not unethical to use special effects in movies, in fact, many people really enjoy seeing the different effects used to create the illusion of reality in unreal events. They help make the movies interesting and dynamic and express the ideas and images the producers had in mind when creating the movies. No one walked out of the Matrix complaining “I feel so cheated and deceived, did you see the way those people were moving? That was such a lie, people can’t do that.” Instead, the special effects used in the movie added to the enjoyment of those who watched it. If you think of photographs as sort of still movies that tell their own story, photo editing is their form of special effects.

However, there are certain types of photography in which editing the images would absolutely be unethical. Photojournalism is an example of this. Photojournalism is meant to document the way the world is, to show the real truth and provide information. It can be done in creative and artistic ways, but it is and should be limited to what is actually there, how it is actually happening and what the camera actually captures. Changing images that will be presented as truth is wrong and completely inappropriate. A news organization will lose its legitimacy and its reputation in the eyes of the public and its peers if it is caught producing digitally altered images. There have been many cases of photographers who edit their photographs without telling anyone and getting caught, and it is never a positive thing for their image. Changing even small details, such as erasing  unwanted legs in the background of a picture can ruin the entire career of the photographer that commits this unethical lie. In photojournalism, the image is what it is, and that is how it should be.

Blog Post #5

“I just think it's important to be direct and honest with people about why you're photographing them and what you're doing. After all, you are taking some of their soul.” ~Mary Ellen Mark


For the most part, I agree with this quote. I usually view it as sort of a favor when someone lets me use them for my photography. When you are working with someone and photographing them, you’re not only using your own time and resources, you’re borrowing from their life as well, and  I’m sure there are a million other things that people could be doing in this busy world than letting me take pictures of them and putting up with my antics. I would feel totally dishonest and guilty if I were taking someone’s picture and misleading them about what it was for and for what I was going to use it.

However, there are always exceptions to every rule. I keep thinking of a million random scenarios that could come up in which being direct and up front about what you were doing and why you were doing it wouldn’t be the best course of action. Maybe you’re working on a photography project that is set up similar to a psychology experiment, where you tell them you’re doing one thing but really you’re catching their candid response to another- telling them this would probably confuse them as well as ruin what you were doing (just be sure to let them know after). Okay maybe that’s a weird example, but you get the point. Or maybe you’re taking pictures of vehicles as they drive past- it would be almost impossible (as well as unsafe) to ask permission first. But if someone were to stop and ask me what I was doing, I sure would be honest about it.

I know in some cultures, they literally believe that when their photograph is taken, that their soul is captured and trapped, and because of this, photography is forbidden. However, I don’t think that’s what Mary Ellen Mark was getting at when she said this quote. I agree with her to an extent, capturing someone’s image and emotion in a moment is like capturing a small peek into their soul. Amazing and intimate moments can be captured with a camera, and they take on their own life and live on in their own way in the photograph that is taken.

The Future is Canceled- Recreated

The portrait I chose to recreate was is from Cornelia Hediger's collection "The Future is Canceled." It is an extremely low angle shot of a woman in a skirt against a battered white ceiling. The woman's body language and expression make her seem as though she is nervous and self-conscious, which is further emphasized by how exposed she is to the camera since the shot goes right up her skirt. She is not looking into the camera, which suggests that something or someone outside the frame is catching her attention and possibly causing her distress.

Hediger's work absolutely swept me off my feet when I first came across her, so I knew coming into this assignment that I wanted to use her work as my example. She captures whimsy, terror, confusion and intimacy in her subjects, and includes many creepy and quirky intricacies in her photos. I love everything about her style.

For my photo, I tried to maintain a very similar composition but substituted a male subject in place of her female. However, I opted to keep a similar dress style in order to capture the same exposed view from below. Furthermore, many of Hediger's photos seem to question traditional gender roles, so I thought keeping the skirt was a fitting addition to my twist on the photo. I also attempted to keep the body language similar in order to maintain the same mood.

I hope I will find a chance to work with her photography more in the future, because it contains so many things that I adore and hope to be able to accomplish on my own one day.

Where the Wild Things Are- Recreated

Here is the inspiration for my photograph, entitled "Textile Thing" by Miki Sato.

Constructed- Indoor Lighting

Scream- High Contrast Lighting

Blog Post #3 and #4

“Photography deals exquisitely with appearances, but nothing is what it appears to be.” ~Duane Michals.

To a certain extent, I do agree with this quote. Photography can be done in such a way to capture images very close to the truth, but it can also be handled so that it creates illusions, obscures the truth and tricks the eye. In a sense, even these images do hold truth- for there are many ways to view and experience any single image, object, place or person- but in the end, the camera can only capture but a portion, a single frame in time of the way something is, a single facet that is part of a much larger whole. Everything has more to it than can be seen by the eye alone or expressed in a single method at any given moment in time. This is not he fault of the photographer, but rather, the inherent nature of the world.

~~~~~~~~~

“If I could tell the story in words, I wouldn't need to lug around a camera.” ~Lewis Hine

I disagree with this quote. As a journalist- a photojournalist at that- both words and photography are very important to me. I do not believe that a photograph alone can tell an accurate story from the viewpoint of journalism. The picture needs context in order to give it more meaning and impact- and that context can come from written words.

I believe that writing is a delicate art form that must be approached with passion and dignity. With vivid imagery and contextual information, the story of an event can seem almost real to those reading it. Words also encourage more active imagination on the part of the reader in the case of books and fiction. Look at the Great Gatsby, it did not contain images, yet anyone who reads it can feel the pain of the characters and have their own clear images of what everyone must look like.

I also believe that photography is a highly expressive as well, and it can be used to show details and emotions that may fall short when crafted through words alone. The horror seen in the old pictures and coverage of the discovery of the death camps during the Holocaust would have been almost unimaginable without the use of pictures- many people have no frame of reference for this sort of atrocity.

In truth, many stories can be told by painting images with words alone or capturing compelling images, but both elements combined make storytelling most effective.

Blog Post #1 and #2

To me, photography is a way of sharing my view of the world with others. It is a way to express creativity while still respecting and capturing the original beauty of the images seen. It's a way to catch moments and viewpoints that might otherwise be lost or unseen. It beings me feelings of sheer joy and love of life- a great appreciation of the beauty, wonder, horror and realness of the world around us.

To me, photography is also a way to escape from my own life and view what the world is like from other perspectives. It is a chance to go places, see things and meet people outside of my comfort zone, or rediscover simple things that may be seen every day and overlooked.

~~~~~

A world without photographs seems foreign to me, despite the fact that it wasn't too long ago that humanity was living in these conditions in the not-so distant past. I wonder what ways our memories would function differently without visual cues to remember events, family, friends, vacations, celebrities, landscapes and everything in between. I'm sure that illustrations and paintings would take the places of photos in some situations, but the spontaneity and and shareable nature of photos would be lost, and thus a vast part of everyday life would also remain uncaptured.

Assignment 0: Recreate

The photo I chose to recreate was "Ginger Seippel, Miami, Florida, November 12, 1977" by Stephen Shore. It was featured in his collection entitled "Uncommon places," which consists of a series of photographs of everyday objects, places and people throughout the United States that provide a unique sort of "inside" or "slice of life" feeling, capturing common moments that create icons of their era.

The original photo shows a woman with long red hair standing against a brick wall, gazing casually off into the distance, as though she is watching something with mild interest or intrigue, or waiting for something to happen or someone to arrive. It uses bright, warm colors, primarily orange and red, and what appears to be outdoor lighting. The clothing and natural look of the woman are very typical of its time period.

For my version of the photo, I replaced the female subject with a male and leaned towards a darker color palate. I selected a subject who has a similar hairstyle to the original photograph and kept the pose and expression as similar as I could, but went for a different overall feeling. The original brick wall background is very neat, bright and clean, but for my photo I selected an old, weathered and rundown brick wall with ivy growing on it. This shows a sort of "passage of time" between the old photograph and the one I took- perhaps they were at the same location, but the wall has changed since 1977? (Okay the bricks are a different pattern, but you get the idea!) It is meant to contrast the original while still maintaining the same composition and a visually similar-although opposite-subject.

Additionally, the hair color of the woman in the original photo almost matches that of the brick wall she is standing against, and her red shirt contains a checker pattern that also reminds me of the pattern and color of the wall she is near. I also tried to pick a location where the color of the bricks matched the color of my subject's hair somewhat. His dark sweatshirt with the bright yellow inside mimics the dark wall behind him and the brighter, yellowish exposed portions of broken bricks. This creates an integrated feeling between the subject and his surroundings, as is the case with the original photo.

I tried this photo against a wide variety of different types and ages of walls- ones with ivy, ones without, ones with spray-painted graffiti and ones without- but to me, this one felt like the most natural progression from the original. It has enough differences to still maintain its own mood and style, but has enough similarities to remain reminiscent of the original. I also felt that the fact that it is outdoors and a brick wall were important elements for me to maintain- the ones taken against concrete or other types of wall or indoors felt too different and untrue to the original.