I want to enter the 2011 Olive Cotton Photography Prize so have been thinking about what elements are needed to make a portrait great. I have sought to understand why I resent images of Cate Blanchett being entered into photography competitions.
Element one - dialogue
Oscar Wilde wrote "Every portrait that is painted with feeling is a portrait of the artist, not of the sitter" and this is equally applied to photography. Simply put, what you choose to express about your subject is what can be compelling in photographic portraiture and this leads to the interesting puzzle of finding out what there is that is worthy of expression and in what circumstances that expression can be revealed. A way of solving part of the puzzle is to consider the face as an inert and dull object, accepting that it is the complexity of expression and not the face itself that creates the dialogue between the photographer and the portrait sitter and the more the expression says about the human condition, the more it is a compelling portrait (Rembrandt's self-portraits come to mind).
In the photo below, there is a strong dialogue; it feels like there is a connection between the photographer and the sitter and the emotion expressed is deep.
Element two - Context
A portrait without environmental cues, whether they stem from the background (e.g. buildings) or the sitter (e.g. clothes, hands, jewellery) is unlikely to be as compelling as the same portrait with them. Ricahrd Avedon's portraits of vagrants in Nevada are strong images but in my view had they not being photographed in a white light tent they would have had that much more power because they would have allowed the viewer to reconcile the context of the images with the sittter. The above portrait, in my view, fails to provide any context and this lack of knowing where this portrait was taken makes it less effective.
In the image, below, the building behind the subject adds value, if only because it then makes the viewer puzzle about the context. Another way of thinking about context is to consider how different the image would have been had the background been a beach.
This portrait also provides additional context by showing the girl's hands and paradoxically, the lack of jewellery, makeup and costume provides additional information about the subject. However, in my view, the portrait fails as there is little dialogue; the subject's face is almost inert and in its inertness it reveals little about the human condition.
In the photo below, think of how the observers in the photo enhance the mood. They provide context and in doing so, emphasise the sitter's plight.
Element three - light
Light is too beautiful a medium to ignore especially given its ability to emphasise elements within an image such as mood and ambiguity. Bill Henson comes to mind when using light; its presence or absence can make a portrait more interesting.
In the image below, the theatrical gestures of the man are enhanced by the 'stage' lighting (which happened to be late afternoon sunlight).
Using a third image of the same man, the lighting in this instance is bland and safe. This is consistent with this type of photo.
Conclusion
Without dialogue, context and lighting, a photo of a person's face can never be a portrait.
Context can be arranged in advance just as lighting can be controlled.
Dialogue is the mystery factor and Cate Blanchett clearly has the ability to create dialogue at will. This skill has made her one of the world's greatest actors but, once you have access to Cate Blanchett, her skill must make her one of the easiest persons to use for your portraits.
In my view, photography portrait competitions should bar the entry of portraits of such actors since their use is akin to cheating, a bit like catching fish in a barrel. My logic is flawed since I don't apply the same logic to lighting (if I were, I would ban the use of artificial lighting insisting on natural light only).
