It is a lie for all…

“3) The removal of the subject, well illustrated by Christian Patterson’s picture ‘Ernestine’s Portraits’… Christian does not make portraits, but this picture i consider a great portrait! Circumventing the conventions of portraiture, for me, often creates compelling possibilities.”

Its nice to hear I’m not the only one looking at portraiture with that train of thought.

I tried to make a post a couple of days ago about certain types of portraits that felt lifeless in some respects because of how the person in the frame was being captured. Some portraits fall into a category of having no person-to-person relationship. I was using a friends photograph where the subject was unaware, but the more I thought about it the more I started to realize that it wasn’t about the person being unaware of the camera, but maybe more about the photographer being unaware of person he/she is shooting, and because of this they cannot transcend a certain plain in their own mind.

“It is more about the space between you and the subject. It is your reaction to the person depicted” –Alec Soth

This is of course something completely subjective. So perhaps when a photograph has the ability to be interesting, or even to go so far as to say, moving, for a wide range of people, that could be considered a great portrait. As Roland has stated, the exploration and discourse of the photographic portrait is often described as “cheesy” and rightly so. It is the ability to convey or reveal a set of mysterious elements in a person that is thrust upon the viewer in a deeply meaningful way. It is inherently emotional and warrants an emotional response. Now that’s cheesy!

Then, the light, the framing is just the cherry on the cake, if that makes any sense in english…

Maybe I’m a bit cheesy, just my own 2 cents…