Formal portraiture is a difficult genre to pull off well, perhaps no more or less than any other genre, but nevertheless the formal portraitist has something to contend with that a landscape photographer doesn't have - ego and emotion, and these aren't necessarily only confined to the sitter, because to make it work the sitter has to deliver at the time of shutter release. The sitter has to provide the artist something to work with, something indeterminate that a formal portraitist, that works in non - photographic media - paint, pencils etc, can work without for large periods of the creative process, as long it becomes apparent to the artist at some stage then it can be integrated into the study, whereas the photographer has to generate an emotional charge between artist and sitter - something has to happen between them.
The "Glamour of the Gods" show at the NPG has formal portraits of, generally (I can think of one exception) actors and actresses that "want" to project, who "want" to deliver and find a relationship with the lens, the photographer and the viewer as without it they are redundant as performers. Greta Garbo had a difficult relationship with the camera and is the only exception I know of with the "stars" of "pre-war" Hollywood that this exhibition is all about. I will, however widen the scope of this entry to include other formal portrait photographers that I have some awareness of - which may limit the breadth of the entry!
I suppose my entry into this genre stems from a strong regard for film noire, watching old black and white movies as a youth, my own predilection for monochrome work and I have loosely studied this genre for a few years and started some projects of my own which I may refer to later in this entry.
The exhibition in itself was interesting and varied (inasmuch as this sub genre can be varied) and enabled me to look closely at the print quality that so far I have only seen from reproductions in books. Overall I would say that my prejudices were confirmed and it was wonderful to see these iconic portraits in the flesh, as it were.
George Hurrell
George Hurrell's work stood out as I expected it would and showed an artist and craftsman at the peak of his ability and his iconic images of Shearer, Crawford, Bergman, Harlow were every bit as beautiful as I had come to know. Whilst this isn't a comment of how Hurrell came to be one of the leading studio stills photographers it is likely that I will return to his work to illustrate his technique and how others adopted similar working practices in the furtherance of this medium.
When I first started to look into this genre I didn't notice how expertly these portraits of the stars had been worked, how they had been retouched, maybe that's a naive position to start with, after all it's called "photoshopping" now. But when I researched it a little some years ago I found to my surprise how much retouching had gone on. And, as always, once you know its there it's difficult not to notice it anymore. In the first couple of decades of the last century the technical quality of retouching was relatively weak and the photographer relied on heavy diffusion to disguise he imperfections of their protege stars and starlets.
An exemplar of this retouching technique is shown below.
The twin shots above have become common currency in the discourse regarding touching, however it is still interesting to see how far the studios were prepared to go to create the illusion of what they considered perfection, for that is what Gods are. Joan Crawford's face becomes devoid of wrinkles, lines AND freckles. Hurrell would ask that his sitters wear little or no makeup when coming to him as this would enable him to work things more efficiently.
These techniques were applied to both sexes and as the technical capabilities and craft improved both genders received higher levels of sophisticated retouching and whereas the male stars generally fared better it did become completely over the top in some less than capable hands by the ends of the 1930's and early 1940's. The universal process or retouching largely died out after the second war as the studios went for a more "realistic" look but is now is as pervasive as ever with Photoshop and the star machine working as hard as ever.
I'm undecided about the moral and ethical issues at work here. Clearly there are victims here, but it isn't necessarily easy to work out who. The stars? The viewing public? Impressionable youth? The impressionable?
Humphrey Bogart
Hurrell's technique developed over several decades and used quite dramatic lighting and was said to have said "it doesn't matter where the light falls, it's where the shadows land". But the whole process of star making changed after the war and with it went the 8X10 cameras for a more convenient camera capable of more shots more conveniently, allowing for more mistakes with faster emulsions, that delivered finer and more controllable grain and wider tonal range. In came colour and whilst Hurrell adopted it, the effects that he had created, along with the others of the pre-war era were never quite re-created (in my view).
Norma Shearer Jean Harlow
Norma Shearer gave Hurrell his first big break and there are a lot of Hurrell/Shearer shots and he loved photographing Harlow also, almost as much as she liked having her photograph taken.
I've placed an alternate portrait of Bogart with one by Yousuf Karsh. I think there is a great similarity in the projection from the print,. The portrait of Pablo Casals is a far more enigmatic pose. Hurrell wasn't about delivering the soul of the sitter, more mystique, Karsh, who by the time he got to photograph Casals was able to pick and choose his subjects and, to some extent, dictate the delivery style.
‘I decided to photograph the master of the ’cello from the back, in a partially restored abbey in Prades … lost in his music. For me, the bare room conveys the loneliness of the artist, at the pinnacle of his art, and also the loneliness of exile.’ (Karsh)
Prades is in South West France and Casals appeared there as a regular during his exile from Franco's Spain. If the viewer is in the North then the light would be coming from South West - Spain, an interesting thought. I've seen a print of the Casals and others by Karsh in the hotel in Ottawa where he had a studio for many years. That are very impressive in size and ambition.
Some views and my own interpretations:
Rebecca, left simply shot on a diagonal flow, with a single tungsten lamp above and left, creating a strong shadow, the image on the right is my take of the Louise Brooks portrait by Eugene Robert Richee, itself inspired by Aubrey Beardsley's pen and ink work (something very familiar to me from student days). Again a single tungsten lamp this time high and right. I have to say that my piece is far too fussy.
The images of Lisa were drawn from the stills of Hurrell and my attempts to add a dramatic element, as if from a film set - these Hollywood stills photographers had just a few minutes between takes to create their publicity shots and sometimes seconds!
Unlike the shots of Rebecca these were digital captures as I wanted to start to develop my re-touching skills (I also took a large number at the same session with film). Single tungsten lamp. The shot left has a Hurrell Crawford shot in the back of my mind and the opposite image has a Shearer shot where Hurrell brought her legs into view to prove that her concern over "my legs are one of my worst features" could be shot to her advantage.
Madeleine was a ballerina with the Royal and has a very significant photographic background, her father, a professional photographer, pioneered Kodak into the UK. Together with her husband, also a professional photographer combined to have her posing from the age of 3 (she didn't tell me this until the first posing session! No pressure there then!).
However, whilst the shot left, taken with a 6X6 on Ilford Delta 100 - no orthographic film for me, that laid the basis for Hurrell's early work and reputation. The second shot is from a series where I attempted to recreate some of the glamour practices from todays photographers, so digital and a lot of re-touching. I worked very hard to eliminate any wrinkles, lines, imperfections that would be anathema to today's photo stars. The link of course is that Madeline has a direct connection both with the era from which I draw inspiration - I have seen her portrait with Danny Kaye and others from stage and screen with photography being the another connection
Really interesting and heightens my dawning interest in black and white photography. Your portraits are very good John.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your compliment - much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteHiya John, I've just stumbled across your blog and very interesting it is too. You express yourself very well. Love the last two portraits here, particularly the low-key one. Look forward to seeing how your work develops.
ReplyDeleteRegards
Penny
Hello Penny, thanks for that. I really enjoyed photographing Madeleine, she has so much grace. I told her what I was doing with the second shot and she was absolutely fine with it, but she did say that her grandchildren wouldn't understand why she wasn't smiling. One of her daughters is an actress (stage name Emma Samms) and played Fallon in Dynasty amongst a heap of other parts, which is another link through to Hollywood - perhaps I should have mentioned that in the piece.
ReplyDelete