I have been asked to participate in a project that explores the concept/psyschology of lying. My part is to examine the way in which photography, specifically portrait photography often demonstrates that lying is a part of everyday life..."a condition of life" as Nietzche suggests.
I am particularly interested in the different approaches photographers take when it comes to creating a portrait and the different sides of the issues regarding "truth" in photography
For example, as an artist, when I make a portrait, my efforts usually focus on uncovering the "true" nature/look/essence of the subject, warts and all. My main goal is to somehow create an intimate glimpse into the person behind the mask. I think Avedon was on to something in this shot:
On the other hand, when I am asked by a client to make a portrait for friends and family or by a magazine to shoot a fashion spread , I am aware of the kinds of things I am expected to do, the photographic equivalent of altruistic lies, intended to make the sitter look his/her "best". In those situations, decisions on everything from lighting, to lens to filters, film, angle etc. are all made with the goal of creating a convincing lie to the viewer. I work hard at getting the subject to look comfortable, to look relaxed, to look thinner/fatter/younger/older whathaveyou than they really are. And if you add photoshop to the mix I could easily make them look like a completely different species of being....but I digress.
http://jezebel.com/assets/resources/...ranime0707.gif
I guess what I would like to hear are your thoughts on the sort of participatory deceit that is the average photo shoot. What is the etiquette of deceit when it comes to portrait photography and what regulates it? And what would happen if that etiquette were discarded?
Heck with photo shoot. Any photograph is to some extent a photographer's point of view or the camera's POV for those who don't put in the time to learn and thus a distortion of reality. Due to the nature of film and printing papers that have a limited range of values available, only so much of a scene can be recorded to begin with. A much lower range than is afforded by the human eye. So when one views a photograph made of a place, an event, etc. when they were there at the moment of capture their memory will be different than what appears in the negative (densities) and in the final print (tones). This is inevitable. Not to mention that the human brain has an associative memory when it comes to the visual sense and memories may be tainted by other associations the brain makes when viewing the photograph. They may well not remember that something was there as it is in the photograph because their brain is trained through experiences to see what pertains to their experiences.
That being said and all photography is to at least the n-th extent a departure from reality, I don't know where I was going with this. Oh yeah. These commercial situations are not so much a lie as giving a paying customer what it is that they are paying for. Ansel Adams once did a shoot for a bread company for raisin bread with the texture of white bread. The company reps took out the raisins from the raisin bread and pulled holes from the white bread, inserting the raisins and then coating the white bread to look brownish as if it were raisin bread. Ansel quarrelled with such a blatant deceit but he decided he was getting paid and the customer was happy, a NECESSARY evil if you shoot commercially.
Let me suggest looking at some of the Disfarmer stuff. I think we can all disagree on whether or not the shots are effective, but IMHO they are as honest and truthful as humanly possible. Almost shockingly so, I would say... especially when you look at how romanticized portraiture has become.
N.b. I am not saying I like /dislike Disfarmer, nobody needs to flame me! This is just what came to mind on the topic of truthful portraiture.
Others will have a lot more to say than me but I'd suggest that "True Lies" would not include most "flattering" portraiture work.
Whether it's by using the analog method of air brushing or the digital PS equivalent - simply making the bride's forehead zit "disappear" from her wedding picture does not seem to me to be telling a falsehood.
Perhaps the difference is that the "actuality portrait" with warts and all is often a candid shot? Whereas, usually, when you're hired to shoot a composed subject the purpose of the portraiture is to enhance the person's image. I don't think the latter instance is one of "telling a lie" but rather an opportunity to use ones talents in an artistically flattering manner.
I would reserve most concerns about using photography to advance "lying" to those areas where it clearly distorts and misrepresents the truth so as to convince others that something occurred that was very different from actuality.
i think any sort of still photography is a "lie" ...
we see life in fluid motion, even when things are still.
by slicing life into a instant of time the image becomes
an abstraction ( and b/w even more ).
portraits &C with very slow emulsions - wet plate, dags, &C
are the closest thing to the truth as a photograph can offer.
I agree that photography is a departure from reality, a thin slice of time indeed.
I guess what interests me about portraiture especially is the unspoken agreement that exists between the photographer and sitter in most situations. Both understand that the goal is generally to portray the scene in a favorable way. Even in the work of Disfarmer (which I really like btw), there is nothing but fiction there...people are not joined at the hip, the clothes are for the most part, "Sunday's finest". Hair slicked down, collars buttoned, itchy church pants for the boys and pretty dresses for the girls, they attended the sitting with notions of how they should be portrayed, of how they wanted the world to see them, of how they should all stick to the party line as it were. The photographer played his part of course.. as we all do.
Try this: the next time you are just hanging around with friends, watch their body language before and after you pull out a camera. Watch what they do as you raise the camera to your eye and point it towards them. Depending on the situation, the reactions can range from mild curiosity to a certain discomfort, from silly/funny faces to an anxiety bordering on panic.
Why? I submit that our reaction to having a photo taken reveals the promise and threat of photography: it can deceive and it can uncover deception. Those in the line of fire of the portrait camera are often understandably nervous. They are unsure of which way things will go. Will the camera be diplomatic, even flattering? The best photos of me are the ones that by happy accident or a bit of Photoshop slight-of-hand enhance my meager good looks. They agree with my ego. They tell me that I am younger, stronger, and much closer to Brad Pitt in the looks department than the not so good shots. The worst photos of me are the ones in which the lines, the gut, the receding hair line testify to the truth of the matter. They are the photographic equivalent of someone who actually answers the question of "do these pants make my ass look fat?" by saying "No, it is not the pants that make your ass look fat. It is the fat that makes your ass look fat".
QUOTE "the photographic equivalent of someone who actually answers the question of "do these pants make my ass look fat?" by saying "No, it is not the pants that make your ass look fat. It is the fat that makes your ass look fat"."
Holy crap, that was funny. And Jason didn't type it either.
Fascinating topic. I'm not sure that I agree that a flattering photo is really a "lie." It's more presenting the person in his or her best light (figuratively speaking). I think that's something we all wish the world would do more often. Take everyone at their best and pardon or minimize their worst.
I could give you the counter example of my lovely 80-year-old mother, who loves to take pictures of her children and grandchildren. She has the truly amazing talent of catching everyone at their worst -- eyes closed, mouths open, noses huge and hot, etc. Are those snapshots the "truth," because they are unflattering, indeed awful? Not to me. Those are merely pictures taken at the wrong moment or from the wrong angle. They produce awful likenesses, in fact.
I must also say, in her defense, that her travel photography is excellent.
I guess your topic has more to do with "white lies" that are part of ordinary human interaction. Are those lies, or just the way we try to be kind, in hopes that the world will return the favor? To put it another way, with people we know, we generally focus on much more than appearance -- we know the personality, we hear the voice, we witness how this person treats others. We generally evaluate someone with much more input than: blond hair, pale skin, pimple on forehead. A photograph can't do that, of course. But in the two examples you have given (paid professional portrait or snapshot of friend or family), the photographer has an obligation (professional or personal) to emphasize or select the best of the person's appearance before presenting the photo.
In other contexts, for example Martin Parr's photographs of tourists, the photographer chooses to present the grossest or most comic aspect of a person on purpose. But the intent is not to illuminate the subject as an individual but rather to use him or her as an example of a larger and very cynical "truth" about the world in general. The individuality, the humanity, of the person is immaterial. Do those pictures present the "truth" about those anonymous individuals, or do they intentionally exaggerate surface appearances to make a point about how the artist sees society?
-Laura (who is now very self-conscious about how her pants look, thank you very much)
If you want to look at some very interesting photos that have a lot to do with this question of lies, truth, and blurring the borders, take a look at some of the work of F. Holland Day. Specifically, his photos of black men in "Ethiopian" costume, and his series of self-portraits in his re-enactments of the Crucifixion of Christ. His black models were dressed up in ersatz African costume, but they were themselves no more Ethiopian than F. Holland Day was. The costumes were also fairly inauthentic. The images created, however, were intended to be symbolic, and to suggest the dignity and majesty of African peoples. Seen in that light, are they more untruthful, or do they speak to a "higher" truth because of their symbolic value?
In his photos of himself as Jesus on the Cross, or his "Seven Last Words" series, F. Holland Day literally transformed himself to portray the role - he grew out his beard, let his hair grow unkempt, and starved himself to become gaunt. Of course we know that F. Holland Day is NOT Jesus, but how much of the identity of the subject portrayed rubs off on the portrayer, and vice versa?
If creating an illusion is considered to be a lie, then you may be opening a deep kettle of worms here. A Buddhist will say that our physical world is an illusion, that would include us. Are we a lie? Theoretical Physicists are also talking more mystically these days. And to understand the mind of an artist? Forget it. They may not understand their own mind - don't many of them leave interpretation of their work to the viewer? I'm staying out of this one.
Paul
__________________ "Pictures are not incidental frills to a text; they are essences of our distinctive way of knowing." S. J. Gould
True Lies 
Linear Mode
