In his later years, Gould himself prefered the 82 version. He thought the earlier version was far to emotive and dramatic. Like me, Glenn Gould was somewhat uncomfortable with emotions. Unlike me, he was a real artist.
Originally Posted by loman
Thanks for showing it. I'd never seen this picture before, and agree with you that it is the outstanding portrait of the 25 in that series. It was also interesting to see for the first time the "other" image of Churchill.
You always hear about Portrait Photographers getting to the essence of a character. Like the combative photo of Churchill as the bull dog of England. Then you see the smiling Churchill and I start to think that a portrait only shows what the viewer thinks it shows.
Originally Posted by Bill Mitchell
I also recently saw two of Eisenstadt's photos of Goebbels, the usual scowling threatening Goebbels sitting in the chair and the second photo of Goebbels smiling and looking up at a friend, looking ever so much like a Hollywood movie star.
You never see the smiling Goebbels and so you never think he could be anything but malevolent.
But if the other photo was the only one seen all the time, you would not think he was such a bad guy.
Maybe if they had published the smiling photo of Churchill, England would have lost the war.
OK that's a stretch but I am coming to the conclusion that showing the character of a subject is more what the viewer sees than what the character really is.
In Gould's photo we see deep concentration and that fits with what we think we know of Gould's character. Karsh was skilled at reading the subjext but I think he was more skilled at reading the viewer.
Originally Posted by wilsonneal
Anyway, it's a great picture, he has a certain playful, childlike quality- perhaps it's the lithe fingers and the totally uninhibited mannerisms. This photograph captures that. And his flexibility may have been designed specifically for JS Bach, who was known to strike a note with his nose or an elbow. In other words, the man was childlike and playful.
Incidentally I have heard that the new Perahia versions of the Goldbergs is genius, but I haven't heard the recording yet myself. Perahia had a hand injury that turned out to give him a lot of time to reconsider certain works, and apparently it made a profound difference in his interpretation.... which was already held in high esteem by most critics.
Thanks for mentioning that. I'll try to get a hold of a copy. I'll bet the Aria is amazing.
Originally Posted by keithwms
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
And then there is Rosalyn Tureck.