Stealing Souls
November 12th, 2008
This post is a response to a post that Lin made on her blog: http://www.fluffytek.com/blog/2008/11/photography-agressive-sport.html so you’ll probably better understand what I’m talking about if you go there first and read what Lin had to say.
First I need to say that I hold Lin in the highest regard. She is a beautiful model, has a brilliant mind and is a very talented writer. I look forward to reading every one of her posts. But this time she has it completely wrong. It takes a brilliant mind to come up with ideas this far off the mark. Sorry Lin.
The basic thrust of her post is the idea that a photographer attempting to “capture” a deeper, more revealing photo of a model, a photo that reveals the “real” person, is somehow violating the model involved. Well, all I can say is bullshit…ok…I can say a lot more and I’m afraid I’m going to.
Here’s a clue for all you models out there. Pay attention. When a photographer tries to get a photo of you that reveals the “real” person you are, guess what…he’s doing HIS JOB. That’s what good photographers do. And, second clue, when you announced yourself as a model you announced that you were going to help him do that job. That’s right…if you are a model it is YOUR JOB to be there…really be there…in front of the camera and help, yes HELP, the photographer capture that photo of who you really are.
Saying you are a model but you don’t want to reveal yourself to the camera is like saying you are a brain surgeon, but you “don’t want to be involved in any of that messy cutting or drilling or sawing…that’s gross…don’t want any of that…it could traumatize me…how dare you expect me to take part in something so disgusting…just hire me to do your brain surgery and we’ll just not bother with any of that stuff.”
OK…yes, it’s more complicated than that. And most good models don’t really reveal their true selves to the camera. They are actually just excellent actors and they have a practiced, professional “model-self” that they turn on for the camera. The better they are, the more genuine that model-self seems. As Sam Goldwyn famously said, “The secret of success is sincerity. Once you learn how to fake that you’ve got it made.”
But this is the game that is played between the photographer and the model. If you don’t want to play, then don’t call yourself a model.
Those of you who are familiar with my more recent work may now be saying to yourselves, “But he doesn’t show any model’s soul in his photo…heck he even says the models are just objects in his compositions.” True enough for much of my recent work. But I’ve been doing this for a few more years than most models out there have been alive. I’ve done a lot of different kinds of work and expect to do different work in the future. I like to think that the soul revealed in my “figure in nature” work is primarily my own. But the models bring their own selves to even that work and make an important contribution, one that can’t be overestimated.
Having been doing this for more than 40 years I’ve seen things change a lot. The past 10 years or so have brought a major change with the internet bringing many new “models” and “photographers” onto the scene. I guess a lot of those “models” don’t feel the need to bring their soul to a photo shoot. I’m not so sure some of them have one to bring. But that’s ok because I see a lot of photographers whose primary message in their photos seems to be: “Look…look here…see…she’s NAKED…and, and, and…LOOK…she has HUGE TITS!” I guess that’s a message…maybe it will touch the soul of a lot of 13 year-old boys with jars of Vaseline. But that’s not exactly what I’m going for with my work.
If all I wanted to do was lighting exercises with a female figure I could get along just fine with some used store manikins. But, you know, I’m out there hunting for souls. And when I find them I want to shoot them and capture them so everyone else can see them. Because that’s the most important thing that photography can do. Show us each other. Show us who we are…who that other is…and maybe reduce that desperate gap between each and every one of us.
Of course, one of the basic problems of photography is that it cannot succeed in bridging that gap. It is limited to showing just the surface. No human is so simple as to be summed up in a photograph of their surface. But we can probe. We can look for the hints of what is in there. And when we show a hint of that we have succeeded…and maybe we have made that existential gap just a fraction smaller.
I started out as a photojournalist. I photographed floods and fires, fatal traffic accidents, riots and tornados. I intruded into other people’s suffering. After a time I couldn’t do it any more. Journalism is just the same things happening to different people every day. I also used to do street photography. That also got to feel too intrusive, as I realized that taking a photograph did indeed take a little piece of the subject’s soul. So I stopped doing that too. Eventually I ended up doing the work I do now with models precisely because it is an agreed-upon situation where the subject is a willing volunteer to the taking of that little piece of her soul.
There is much more to be said here, but this is already a very long post, so I’m going to stop…but first just a note about “aggressive male language.” That’s insulting. It’s very aggressive, in fact. Language arguments like that always remind me of my favorite candidate for a non-sexist pronoun: she-he-it. Best pronounced with a slow Texas drawl.
Now, a bit about the photos I’ve posted here. They are old…from the 1970s. I think there may be a bit of soul peeking out from behind those surfaces. Barb up at the top was an actress…so I really don’t know if that’s her soul or the soul of a character she made up. But I think there is something there. Below is Lisa and her soul was a dancer. For the photographers out there who care, both photos were taken with Leicas. Either an M2 or an M3…I carried both most of the time back then. Usually the M2 had a 35mm f/2 Canon (there’s that aggressive language again) lens and the M3 had a 90mm f/4 Elmar. Barb’s photo was made (is that better?) with the 90…Lisa’s with the 35. Tri-X developed in D-76 1:1. These are scans from prints made back in the 70s. Barb’s print was made on Agfa Portrega Rapid paper, selenium toned and hand bound into a book of prints for that project. Lisa’s print was most likely made on Kodak Polycontrast Rapid paper.
And, Lin, again, I’m sorry to have to so totally disagree with you. I hope you don’t find what I’ve said to be disagreeable…and I hope one day when I finally get over to England that you’ll give me a shot at capturing a little piece of your oh-so-deep soul.
Leave a Reply