I want to talk about the aim of photography as an art form. I am interested mainly in two kinds of photographic styles that are on a continuous spectrum.
On one side of the spectrum, you have the great photographers such as HCB, Sally Mann, Vivian Maier, and Dorothea Lange. The aim of those documentary photographers is to capture life as it is. They are the realists. The ultimate aim of their photography is the imitation of nature. Of course, they do have a point of view. However, their point of view is implicit in their work. The subject matter takes a primary role in their works.
Dorothea Lange: Migrant Mother
On the other side of the spectrum, you have artists such as Francesca Woodman and Ren Hang. Their point of view is much more explicit in their work. In fact, they set out to capture something not in nature but in their mind. Their works are expressions of their inner world, and they are not hindered by the need to imitate nature or reality. The subject is their creation. They are the gods/goddesses in their photographic world.
Francesca Woodman: Self-deceit #1
The contrast between these two types of artists is very similar to that of impressionist artists and expressionists. The expressionists found their liberation by abandoning the idea that pictures should represent reality, or at least reality as perceived by us, as the impressionists tried to do. The expressionists think that the art tradition up to impressionism is futile since there is no such thing as reality as it is. Every attempt to represent reality implies a point of view, and there is no such thing as the "innocent eye". Therefore, the aim of representational art should not include the imitation of reality as there is no such thing as objective reality.
Pissaro: The Boulevard Montmartre on a Winter Morning
However, I think there are some fallacies in the expressionists' argument, and I do not intend to go into detail here. In simple terms, I think that the imitation of reality is not the end but one of the means by which artists should express themselves. If art is a language, you can only communicate with someone who speaks the same language as you do. People are often baffled by the incomprehensibility of modern art because, by abandoning the language of reality, modern artists choose to speak in a language that is exclusive to the artists and critics. They no longer seem to care about what ordinary people think. (sorry to the Pollock fans out there)
Jackson Pollock: Free Form
So what does this all mean to me as a portrait photograher?
I think, first of all, a representation of reality has to be an important aim of photography, if only for the sake of helping people to understand what the photographer is trying to say. Being a true realist involves what I call meta-realism, which involves a sincere acknowledgement that the representation of reality is not reality itself. The most famous meta-realist of our time has to be Annie Leibovitz. She is like a narrator in a movie who knows that she is a narrator.
Annie Leibovitz for Pirelli
Secondly, whatever is expressed in a portrait should not be that of the photographer alone. The subject should not become a mere vassal of the photographer's self-expression. I believe a good portrait photographer should create a space for the subject to express themselves. Eve Arnold and Mary Ellen Mark of old times, as well as Phil Sharp, Craig Fleming, and James Harvey-Kelly of present days, are some of the people whose works inspire me.
Eve Arnold: Marilyn Monroe on the set of Misfits
