Portraiture: Attempting to Represent What Cannot be Physically Represented by Davide Degano
Portraiture: Attempting to Represent What Cannot be Physically Represented by Davide Degano
DAVIDE DEGANO
p.5
p.24
Introduction
'Once I Feel Myself Observed By The Lens...Everything Changed'
p.9
Introduction to the Series of Portraits
p.29
Dialogue and Empathy
p.12
Historical Background of Portraiture
p.35
Conclusion
p.16 p.39
The Influence of Society in Portraiture
References
p.19
Rineke Dijkstra and the Risks of Seriality
INDEX
2/3
DAVIDE DEGANO
Introduction In considering what would have been the best topic to discuss for my thesis, I decided to start reflecting on my own work and on what I feel is the recurrent photographic practice in it: Portraiture. This is, perhaps, the genre of photography I use the most, both in my personal projects as well as commissioned work. After having lived in Australia for three years working essentially as a commercial and wedding photographer, it was only when I began my art school studies that the question ‘what is a portrait?’ started to surface. In fact, earlier in my career, I would never question myself, thinking that a portrait is the effort from the photographer (or anyone who takes the picture) to aesthetically represent the person portrayed to look their best. In her essay, Every Portrait Tells a Lie, Debra Brehmer, art historian and lecturer at the Milwaukee Institute of Art and Design and director of the Portrait Society Gallery, points out how a portrait is not a real collaboration but merely an effort of the maker to represent a certain situation of reality. She uses as an example one of her family photos taken many years before. In the photograph, she (as a child) is standing next to her brother on Christmas day. The picture depicts two children smiling, alluding to a feeling of happiness and love. Debra though, recalls that day not with the happiness which the photo seems to suggest. In fact, she says that the maker, in this case their mother, wanted them to smile, thus encouraging a dispute between the two siblings. The staging and shaping of reality, that Debra calls ‘ a lie’, is imposed by the maker that consciously or not projects their reality or vision of it onto the subjects. On the other hand, Richard Brilliant, professor of Art History at Columbia University and a theorist on portraiture, says that our need for portraits is rooted in facial rec-
INTRODUCTION
4/5
ognition, a skill needed equally for the attachment to the mother and the developing of a self-identity. Portraiture, in fact, enhances these early experiences and reinforces our constant efforts to understand our self in relation to the others. Brilliant defines the portrait artist’s task as an investigation of three simple questions: ‘What do I look like?’ ‘What am I like?’ And ‘Who am I?’ What becomes clear to me from these two points (that can be seen as the two main views on this practice) is that the act of portraying a person, whether intentional or ‘forced’, is a collaborative effort, where the maker needs to be on the same level as the person portrayed in order to create a ‘collaboration’. But, can we call this collaboration as a ‘real’ or a true representation of someone’s persona and identity? Can a portrait on its own achieve this? And more importantly, can it be achieved when the maker and the subject are unknown to each other? In this thesis, I will attempt to answer to these questions combining the theoretical knowledge accumulated over the years I have studied the texts and essays of scholars and professionals that have made an impact on this genre of photography, as well as my referencing my personal work and related experiences with the people I have photographed. Furthermore, the paper comes together with a series of portraits inviting the reader to put ‘theory into practice’. Many scholars and professionals have written about portraiture, and the vast majority of these texts cannot be deemed either right or wrong. They are all based upon the writer’s ideas, but more importantly, their own individual experiences with the medium of photography. In turn, these experiences are then remembered and interpreted and subsequently reported in the form of written docu-
DAVIDE DEGANO
mentation to try and find a general interpretation of these personal experiences as they relate to the act of looking at a portrait or being part of the actual act of making it. In my paper, I will use Barthes’ theory of the self as a ‘mask’, as well as my own‘reworking’, referring to the photographic portrait, his theory of ‘studium’ and ‘punctum’. I will also look at the practice of artists that have left an impact on this genre such as the American fashion photographer Richard Avedon and discuss the work of Dutch photographer Rineke Dijkstra. I will use all these examples from the past that are still relevant and actual today not to try to formulate new theories but instead, to analyse my practice and to introduce a new element in the making and reading of a portrait, empathy. I will explain how and why I find this element important in my work. It is really important to me to stress this point. More than any other source of information, it is my personal practice that allowed me to understand the reason why portraiture is still really much present and used in our society.
INTRODUCTION
6/7
DAVIDE DEGANO
Introduction to the Series of Portraits The series I have created depicts young adults as protagonists, all of them portrayed in their houses or in an environment where they felt comfortable and at ease. All the people portrayed represent a segment of society subjected to racial prejudice and discrimination, where often their personalities are not fully understood because they are deemed different than was is thought fall into societal norms. They are observed by many a being ‘different’, often given labels which exclude them from mainstream society. Therefore, in many instances, they have projected onto themselves an image that doesn’t truly represent their authentic selves. I wanted to focus on this particular group of people not only for the reasons I have mentioned above, but because their identity changes—almost in real time—by being influenced by social media and the myriad of (mis)information we are exposed to on a daily basis. And despite all that society throws their way, they remain steadfast in their determination to find their place in while affirming their own unique individuality. The portraits have been taken on a medium and large format analog camera, using only the available natural light. My aim was not to represent the subject or their identity by any other physical characteristics other than those the camera has revealed. The portraits herein, differ considerably from each other in composition, framing and the use of light, yet one can experience a sense of ‘continuity’in the images. The fact that what we are confronted with are human beings having to deal with their everyday troubles, makes us see those pictures more actively; they give life and a sense of being to the photographs. Furthermore, the notion given about their state is what people to relate to since we are all dealing with the same challenges in our lives. Therefore—
INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES OF PORTRAITS
8/9
fig.1 fig.2 fig.3
and most important—what we see and what we take away from these observations confirms our ability to connect empathetically to those portrayed in these photos and the very human condition they convey. My own personal feelings lead me to believe that the only possible way to try to truly understand a portrait without falling into the trap of thought associations, is by simply connecting whatever elements presented in the image leads to ‘self-creating’ stereotypical ideas and preconceived notions about what is being seen. Without empathy, you are merely observing a likeness or a reproduction of an object, landscape or person. Later in the paper, I will further discuss my position and I and attempt to clearly introduce the concept of empathy in a less metaphysical, but more concrete, way. I will also talk about my methodology during these photographic sessions, highlighting the importance of what I call ‘visual dialogue’. Furthermore, this visual dialogue opens up to empathy as both are key factors in the making and the experiencing of portrait photography.
fig.5
fig.4
Why is it important to reflect on portraiture as practitioner/professional? Portraiture, over the course of time, has passed from the idea of representing likeness, to revealing the identity of a person as the status of the medium and has gained consent within the art world. It feels, however, that especially in contemporary photography, this term is often abused in an attempt to reveal the identity of people in a context in which they are frequently divided into groups or somehow ‘categorized’. A recent article on I-D Netherlands made me ponder this question even more deeply when seeing photographer Jozef Wright claiming to show the feelings of people portrayed as members of the Queer movement, along with
DAVIDE DEGANO
all the discrimination they still to face as well as confronting their own internal doubts, struggles and yes, even joy. (fig.1, fig.2, fig.3, fig.4) The series shows the subjects all posing against a neutral background. The use of light is softly toned down and gentle—as is the framing—recalling an editorial feeling, one that is underscored by the poses. The subjects are portrayed wearing two different outfits and presented one next to the other. Below each photograph, we can read a short paragraph introducing the subject. The seriality of the portraits as well as the attractiveness ‘imposed’ upon the subjects diminished their individuality, failing, in it can be suggested, to represent them and their emotions as individuals. Later in this paper, the concept of ‘seriality’, studying the case of Rineke Dijkstra, will be introduced. When I first saw the aforementioned portraits on I-D Netherlands, I was reminded of the very feeling of when I looked at my old work. (fig.5) In fact, at a certain point, I was no longer sure of what I had been trying to do when portraying my subjects. Likewise, while looking at my portraits, I was not able to feel the same emotions I felt when I first took them. Though I was happy with the visual result, it seemed the images were simply not speaking to me at all. I was, in essence, seemingly unable to translate my conversations and the resulting feelings into images. What I saw were just flattering portraits. I then concluded that I was focused only on the technical part, convinced that the ability to use a camera and the knowledge of ‘light’ were sufficient enough to be able to obtain an expressive portrait of the personality of the subject. But I was wrong. Subsequently, I was also wrong to often accommodate the requests of my subjects in order to please them; it basically felt like it was the reason why I was portraying them in the first place. What I failed to realise, instead, was that I was merely ‘using’ people without even having a fundamental understanding of who they were. Therefore, what
INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES OF PORTRAITS
10/11
fig.6
I was doing was more focused on the act of portraying my subjects as opposed to getting to know them as people. So then, I started seriously questioning this approach asking myself why would a need to ‘use’ a subject simply to conform to the norms of editorial aesthetics and publish photos only for the sake of it? All of this begs the following question: Is this the reason why I take portraits? The answer is a resounding no. But then, how could I express my interest in knowing people by simply taking their picture?
Historical Background of Portraiture Before the discovery and the invention of photography, it was extremely expensive for working class people to have their portraits painted, or, to document any event of their lives.1 In fact, the skills needed to produce a painting were rare to find and required a hefty time commitment from the commissioner/sitter as well as a considerable amount of time for the artist to produce and deliver a satisfactory result. Also involved was the high cost of materials that the commissioner was required to provide. 2 Therefore, it is easy to understand that such a practice was a privilege for few, mostly nobility, clergy and those possessing extraordinary wealth. Over the course of time, however, artisans tried to make it more accessible to the rising middle class. In fact, around 1750 we start to see how a larger segment of the population began achieving political and economic power. By having one’s portrait painted, an individual of the ascending classes could visually affirm their new social status both to themselves and to the world at large. 3 It soon became quite common for the middle class to own painted miniatures to display in small enclosed frames. 4 The miniatures were also one of the first portrait forms to be coveted by the bourgeoisie for the expression
DAVIDE DEGANO
of its new cult of individualism.5 In the early 1800s, a wider audience was targeted and reached with the invention of the Silhouette, an abstract form of representation that did not required any special training for the maker. 6 Up to this historical point, the quality of the portraits whether they were miniatures or silhouettes, were still rather poor, almost to be considered sketches of the actual faces portrayed. Therefore, the meaning of ‘representation’ took on the value of ‘possession’ of an object that represented the person who owned it, more than the object itself being a like representation of the owner.7 When Daguerreotypes were first presented to the public in 1839, perspectives changed. (fig. 6) The low light sensitivity of the plate forced photographers to use long exposure times of around 15 minutes, limiting the use of it to landscapes and still-life. From that moment onwards, photography seemingly came to be an unwanted competitive relationship with painting. 8 In fact, practitioners and scholars of the new medium started to argue that the photographic image could provide a perfect representation of reality thanks to the mechanical quality of the medium, quality that even the best and most realistic painting would never be able to achieve. Many people who supported this thesis did not see it as a defence of the photographic medium against painting, but rather an emphasis on its superiority. On the other hand, people who acknowledged that statement, remark how the mechanic nature of the medium itself takes away the ability to express a subjective point of view and to transmit any emotion, hence a portrait would be just a sort of ‘record’. Charles Baudelaire, one of the most influential and prominent poets and critics of the nineteenth-century, wrote that, ‘Photography is the offspring of a ‘revengeful God’ who has allowed an industry to see the light of day, providing an imitative result so ‘identical to Nature’ that it
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PORTRAITURE
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Gisèle Freund (1974) Photography & Society (1980) 8 Hilde van Gelder and Helen Westgeest (2011) Photography Theory in Historical Perspectives (p.14)
12/13
appears to be ‘the absolute art’.9 Baudelaire rejected photography arguing that it could not possibly succeed in creating a work of art because of its lack of subjective point of view as well as lack of imagination, such a condition is indispensable if one is to pick a true work of art.10 On the contrary, Andrè Bazin, the influential French film critic (1918-1958), argues that the photographic image ‘shares’ by virtue of the very process of its becoming, the being of the model of which it is a reproduction; it is the model’.11 Bazin’s position toward photography is the exact opposite of Baudelaire, where in fact the quality of re-presentation of photography has within it artistic magic, since it ‘forces you to accept that its condition as real’.12 In fact, he is known to argue that the realism is the most important, if not fundamental function of the cinema, hence of the camera. His call for ‘interpretation of reality’ is yet not to be read passively (to put it in simple terms ‘what you see, is what it is’) but instead, the viewer needs to create a meaning according to their inner feelings. Even though the first debates started to arise, the idea of a photograph, but in this specific case we can reduce it to portraits, was still very much dependent on the mechanical nature of the camera and the notion of ‘veracity’. It is only with Max Kozloff, an American art historian, art critique and photographer, that we begin to see a change in how we relate to the photographic practice. Kozloff refers to the photography of the 1860s stating ‘a portrait was defined by a picture of an individual or group whose character was either described by social, ethic, and class affiliations, or may, in some measures, be invoked in contrast to them’.13 Here, he starts to explore the concept of character and identity, not only focusing on the aesthetic aspect of the image itself. Kozloff leaves behind the idea of looking at someone else’s likeness (as it appears to him obvious), but instead he tries to analyse the emotions that a portrait can leave upon him. Yet, as mentioned earlier, portraiture
DAVIDE DEGANO
is a collaboration, a combined effort between the subject and the maker. So, how can a person’s portrayed identity be visible in a photograph? And if it does, how can we (as makers) represent someone else’s state of mind without creating fiction, or better said, a fictitious person? The 1890s gave prominence to the birth of what could be seen as the modern-day Photoshop, that is to say the subscription to the ‘person-aided portrait’. In addition to the portrait, the sitter would receive a fully retouched and polished version of the portrait, concealing any imperfections that society and commoners thought to identify us as individuals. It is interesting to observe how society shaped the practice too, as I will briefly discuss in the next paragraph. For this reason, the photographic portrait has always been considered as a soulless representation of a persona. While scholars are still trying to find the metaphysical magic of the medium, trying to elevate it to fine art through words, the examples presented are always stripped of any kind of humanity. According to Sontag ‘nobody discovered ugliness through photographs. But many, through photographs have discovered beauty...what moves people to take photographs is finding something beautiful. Nobody exclaims, ‘Isn’t that ugly! I must take a photograph of it’. Even if someone did say that, all it would mean is: ‘I find that ugly thing...beautiful’14 Joel Snyder and Neil Walsh Allen in their Photography, Vision and Representation, acknowledge the mechanical connection of what we see in a portrait and what there was in front of the camera at the time when the picture was taken, but they question the actual importance of this knowledge for understanding photographs.15 In fact, the authors are highly sceptical of an ontologically determined definition of photography’s essence as a basis for arguing in favour of any photographic stand.16 In their opinion, it was really strange and absurd that modern critics of the medium would support their critical point of view toward it
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF PORTRAITURE
9 Charles Baudelaire. “On Photography”. The Salon of 1859. 10 Hilde van Gelder and Helen Westgeest (2011) Photography Theory in Historical Perspectives (p.15) 11 Hilde van Gelder and Helen Westgeest (2011) Photography Theory in Historical Perspectives (p.16) 12 Hilde van Gelder and Helen Westgeest (2011) Photography Theory in Historical Perspectives (p.17) 13 Max Kozloff. The Theater of the Face: Portrait Photography since 1900. Phaidon. (p.77) 14 Susan Sontag. On Photography, (p.85) 15 Hilde van Gelder and Helen Westgeest (2011) Photography Theory in Historical Perspectives (p.16)
14/15
fig.7 fig.8 fig.9 fig.10
by talking about the photographic process without exploring this concept further by analysing what the process is, how it works, and what it does and does not guarantee.17 My feelings lean toward this position and how the medium of photography and consequently portraiture are intrinsically interesting and innovative, yet fairly un-explored in today’s discussions, as it subverts the unwritten rules of the photographic medium itself, asking for a change in the education system with which we are exposed to images and information. Hence, it would force us to re-think the idea of the camera as mechanical eye and the parallelism between the two where photographs show us ‘what we should have seen if we had been there ourselves.’18 In this paper, I want to explore how the use of empathy is fundamental to understand that we are not looking at these portraits as merely someone’s likeness, but as humans you might or might not relate to. (fig.7, fig.8, fig.9, fig.10) The deliberate decision to present different portraits was due to the fact that I did not want the viewer to make connections between one photo or the other, but rather treat them as single entities that form part of a larger group. It would also force us to re-consider what has been taught to us so far to be the starting point of every debate about photographic practice: that a photograph shows us a reliable representation of what a scene is.
The Influence of Society in Portraiture As briefly mentioned in the previous paragraph, by 1890— only a few years after the invention of photography—a kind of Photoshop was invented, which allowed the correction of some imperfections. Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) was an American philosopher and a theorist, known for her writings about about political issues of the day. She wrote many essays and
DAVIDE DEGANO
books but she is more readily known for her work concerning totalitarianism and (in those days) the upcoming phenomena of globalization. The Human Condition (1958) is considered to be her most influential and most popular work. In her book, she analyses how human activities have been seen throughout history in the Western World versus how they should have been seen. Arendt is interested in studying the vita activa (active life) and the vita contemplativa (contemplative life). She takes these two terms from Western intellectual history, where the ‘contemplative’ life has always been seen (by Western philosophers and indeed intellectuals) as superior than the ‘active’ life. In her writings, she argues that both, contemplative and active life, should be placed on the same level and that the previous point of view was one of the main reasons of the downfall of political and social life. As throughout my brief career as a photographer, I have been asking the question: ‘what defines a portrait’? George Simmel, one of the first generation of German sociologists, throughout his career, asked: ‘What is society?‘ which has always been a recurrent question. For him, culture was ‘the cultivation of individuals through the agency of external forms which have been objectified in the course of history’.19 In fact, Simmel describes individualism as a consequence of the capitalistic system and the introduction of the economic and monetary system in our private life, leading also to objectifies personal relations. 20 The need to express personal individuality is a crucial aspect of the modern world even though humans, as Simmel has shown, have the need of union as well as isolation. But in order to be part of our modern society, the person needs to meet the ‘overall’ demand yet at the same time try to stand out, showcasing the self as a unique quality. These obviously leads to contradictions of self-representation as well as self-understanding.
THE INFLUENCE OF SOCIETY IN PORTRAITURE
16 Hilde van Gelder and Helen Westgeest (2011) Photography Theory in Historical Perspectives (p.20) 17 Joel Snyder and Neil Walsh Allen, Photography,Vision, and Representation. Critical Inquiry (p.149) 18 Joel Snyder and Neil Walsh Allen, Photography,Vision, and Representation. Critical Inquiry (p.149)
16/17
fig.11 fig.12 fig.13 fig.14 fig.15
It is not the purpose of this essay to discuss this topic at length, yet it is interesting to notice how relevant it is to observe the society you live in and how much importance social and cultural elements have in forming someone’s identity and attitude toward life. In fact, when observing our social conditions, we see identity as an ongoing process, a personal development. This personal development is characterized by a pervasive ambivalence toward self and society. 21 In this regard, I found it really interesting to consider the position that Richard Avedon takes concerning the role of photographer and sitter. Richard Avedon (1923-2004) was an American fashion and portrait photographer. He is defined by many as the most influential portraitist of our time as ‘his fashion and portrait photographs helped define Americans image of style, beauty and culture for the last half century’.22 What I find really interesting about Avedon’s work is his approach. In fact, he ‘finds it a situation of pure confrontation where ‘there is nothing between us except what happens as we observe one another during the making of a portrait. 23 The photographer’s intent is corrupted by the sitter’s intent and the lens bears silent witness to this concentrated face-off between photographer and subject. This exchange involves manipulations, submissions, and assumptions that are acted upon’. 24 According to Avedon, to portray a person it is like a performance where you do not try to obsessively understand or have the ambition to know everything about a person to then translate it into an image, but instead is an act of acknowledgement of the limited access you have to that person (whatever are the reasons) hence, according to Avedon, the surface it is everything you are left with. ‘You can only go beyond the surface by working with the surface. All you can do is to manipulate the surface with gesture, costume, expression-radically and correctly.’25 Here, Avedon understands the importance of the sitter
DAVIDE DEGANO
and somehow he reverses the two positions. In fact, the photographer is not the person in power, at least according the Avedon; therefore, to be able to go beyond the surface of things, the photographer needs to show their vulnerability from the outset. Furthermore, the saying ‘you have to give before receiving’, seems to explain perfectly what Avedon meant. Therefore, the photographer is the first to get involved, risking not to create any kind of connection with the sitter, which will ultimately be decided only afterwards whether to reveal or wear their best mask.(fig.11, fig.12, fig.13, fig.14, fig.15) What interests me is how a practice like portraiture can actually represent the self of the person-portrait. In fact, identity is now a top topic in the art world, yet most of the time the topic is strictly connected with a self-introspection of the artists, using themselves as a subject and object of their personal research. I think immediately to Cindy Sherman, an American photographer highly considered in contemporary art. Throughout her career, she explored the nature of representation as well as the construction of identity in a more and more globalized world. To create her work, she posed as her own model for more than thirty years capturing different layers of her persona and personality.
19 Levine, Donald (ed) (1971) Simmel: On individuality and social forms. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, (p. 6.) 20 Simmel, Georg, 1992 (1908): On Individuality and Social Forms. 21 Keniston, K. (1971). Youth and dissent: The rise of a new opposition. 22 'Richard Avedon, the Eye of Fashion, Dies at 81', Andy Grundberg, The New York Times, October 1, 2004. 23 Richard Avedon, Darkness and Light. 1996. 24 Richard Avedon, Darkness and Light. 1996. 25 Richard Avedon, Darkness and Light, 1996.
But what happens when a person tries to portray someone else’s identity or, in one of many different ways, part of it?
Rineke Dijkstra and the Risks of Seriality Most portraitists strive to achieve in their work a purity of expression, which disconnects from the idea of pure representation and self-awareness of the sitter during the photographic process. In fact, these expressions that I define as ‘real truth’ do ex-
RINEKE DIJKSTRA AND THE RISKS OF SERIALITY
18/19
ist only in moments where the human condition is somehow challenged and forced to react to an external input. However, it does not mean that we need something extraordinary or such a specific and great event, but just any input that leads from ‘action’ to ‘reaction’. We find a partial truth of the personality and the layers of which the sitter’s identity is made within this dualism. In fact, it is within this context that we receive, (before, after or during that stimulation) a glimpse of the ‘real’ person and the parts of their personality. Most of the time, the response to these stimuli is simply (and wonderfully) expressed in our facial expressions. This brings up the concept of individuality; from the hair texture and length, to the shape of the chin to the colour of one’s skin, we cannot find two faces that are alike (not even in identical twins). We are all truly individuals and what fascinates me most as a photographer is how we respond to the stimuli we are exposed to in our daily lives. The variables are too many, but just imagine five people playing basketball. They all start and end the game playing together. But if you photograph their expressions you would find five different ways to react to the external stimuli. Similarly, after a dangerous bicycle accident, the Dutch photographer Rineke Dijkstra began to address this notion of the after and the response of our faces reacting to certain stimuli. Dijkstra began her visual research with a series of self-portraits in which she would photograph herself after having been swimming for long periods of time. By doing so, she aimed to reach the moment of exhaustion in which her body as well as mind were not reactive anymore because they were simply too tired to think. She then started to work on several series exploring this concept of exhaustion. In another renowned series depicting bullfighters photographed immediately after they left the bullring, Dijkstra
DAVIDE DEGANO
isolates her subjects by placing them against a wall used as a neutral background. In framing its tight focus on the face of the matadors, Dijkstra allows the viewer an up-close perspective of the ‘moment after ‘. The power of these portraits resides in the ability of the maker to choose the right moment, as Angier, an American writer and journalist for the New York Times, writes in her essay: ‘I think the key perception here is that the portrait photographer is not obliged to get her subjects to do anything. The pose should be an empty structure. The subject can simply stand there, like a target, and the photographer will find the structure, give it definition, by choosing a certain kind of unbidden moment to make an exposure...you have to deal with the self-image of people. You want to show what they think they are but also reveal what is beyond their control’. It is within the moment of the ‘after’ where Rineke Dijkstra found the existence of a human emotion, a human response not subjected to a thought process. This curious mix of adrenaline and exhaustion shows an authentic connection between the maker and the sitter, and it is where the portrait starts to reveal something metaphysical that is not a bare representation of the human figure, but the introduction to something unique, that the viewer needs to experience leaving behind all theoretical knowledge in favour of empathy. As I will further explain herein, empathy is the ability to understand and share emotions and feelings of another. This is an innate ability that is present in every human being. In fact, the act of feeling empathy occurs unconsciously even before knowing the reason for which we experience it. Using it to read portraits, means to go beyond the fact that you are looking at an image of a person, but that you
RINEKE DIJKSTRA AND THE RISKS OF SERIALITY
20/21
fig.16 fig.17 fig.18 fig.19
are looking at a person. At the same time though, Dijkstra takes an ethnographical approach to her series that can be seen as a recurrent theme in her work. In fact, she presents all her subjects photographed in the same manner with the same lighting, same composition and same artificial pose. This choice, points out the contradictory nature of the medium itself as well as the artist intent at first instance. Subsequently, Dijkstra, despite wanting to capture a spontaneous moment of truth in the people portrayed, treats her subjects all in the same way by using the same approach toward all the subjects she photographs. This decision from the photographer brings in the notion of seriality, suggesting a repetitive approach in the composition and framing of multiple portraits by displaying them as a series. It also evokes the idea of universality and uniformity. As a consequence, this approach clashes with the first intent of the author to represent a unique and individual quality of the subject. Ethnography was (from its inception) and still is, a method of research employed to explore specific cultural groups with the use of visual or written material. This practice deals with the objectification of the people’s external appearance by recording and placing them into groups to then analyse them collectively. In fact, it was first used by the ‘conquistadores’ during colonization. Ethnography is well represented in today’s photography, especially in storytelling or documentary photography where makers tend to focus on a particular group of people as a collective, having the ambition to present them as individual, as indeed Dijkstra does with her series, especially the Bull Fighters and Pregnant Women. Julian Stallabrass is a British art historian, photographer and curator whose essays are critical of contemporary photographers who adopt this method in early photography as it was used to classify and objectify people from different
DAVIDE DEGANO
races, labelling them and putting them into groups. While I agree with Stallabrass’ position—especially as my own series began taking form—I found it interesting that many of my teachers would often justify the need for seriality as an important element to first give ‘an artistic signature’ to the work, but also to render the reading of the series itself easier and more accessible. During my studies, this has been a major point of interest for me since my series heavily relies on portraits, or more generally speaking, on the presence of the human being in the work. During my first years in art school, I indeed tried approaching my subjects in a more serial way and had a well-designed plan which I thought could be applied to all the people I was photographing. However, I ended up failing to create a bond with my subjects, whether my intention was to try to reveal part of their personality or use their figure as a mainly a character study. (fig.16, fig.17, fig.18, fig.19) ‘Seriality’ somehow introduced me to a new way of working that was perhaps more effective in terms of production and results, but when I was reflecting and observing the result (my pictures), I observed in them nothing more than ‘a way of recording a person’s likeness’. 26 However, from a certain point of view, I now understand the need to give the viewer ‘certainties’ to make it easier to read the story being told; on the other hand, it is a contradictory choice (this intrinsic characteristic of the medium reappears) to use seriality to represent individuals. In the end, if ethnography is concerned with a group of people, then portraiture is about the uniqueness of an individual. Unlike Dijkstra, who seems to believe that seriality and individuality can work together, I feel that each subject should be treated differently, especially when it comes to telling a story; and I have been reflecting a lot about this recently while taking photographs for my commissioned works and graduation project. Both projects are basical-
RINEKE DIJKSTRA AND THE RISKS OF SERIALITY
26 Greenberg and Jordan. Chuck Close: Up Close. (p.43)
22/23
fig.20 fig.21 fig.22 fig.23 fig.24
ly one and the same, but if my commissioned work was a sort of introduction to it, my graduation show aims to present a ‘finished’ product, and by that I mean to present a story to the viewers, one where they are free to interpret the story told but where it is clear what the story is about. The project is called Beyond the Land of Castles and tells the stories of the inhabitants of several mountain villages bordering Slovenia, under the council of Faedis, a small town in the north-east part of Italy. It is my father’s birthplace and the place where I grew up. In exploring themes close to me, and in some ways to the locals such as emigration, cultural heritage and traditions, I had been engaging many people that I eventually ending up portraying. (fig.20, fig.21, fig.22, fig.23, fig.24) By spending time with them, and by being welcomed into their houses and accepted by their communities, I surmised that I could not treat each of them in the same way within the bigger story I wanted to tell. Each of them has a unique personality, a unique story that deserves to be told in their own right. Hence, all of them, deserve to be presented and represented (to adapt a more photojournalistic approach) in a unique way. Moreover, it is dialogue that is a most important element required to stimulate your subject. Obviously, the result would be a very different conversation with each person being photographed. Or, even if the conversations are based upon the same topic, the reactions and thoughts of individuals can differ greatly (or not). In the same way, approaching someone with a fixed set of ideas and preconceived notions of what you are going to do, takes away the experience of the encounter and, ultimately, the individuality of the person being portrayed.
DAVIDE DEGANO
'Once I Feel Myself Observed By The Lens... Everything Changed'
27 Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida, (p.12)
In Camera Lucida, Roland Barthes, a French theorist, philosopher and critic, reflects upon this and the fact to be photographed: ‘...once I feel myself observed by the lens, everything changes: I constitute myself in the process of ‘posing’, I instantaneously make another body for myself, I transform myself in advance into an image. This transformation is an active one: I feel that the photograph creates my body or mortifies it, according to its caprice...what I want in short, is that my (mobile) image, buffeted among thousands of shifting photographs, altering with situation and age, should always coincide with my (profound) ‘self’; but it is the contrary that must be said: ‘myself’ never coincide with my image; for it is the image which is heavy, motionless stubborn, and myself which is light, divided, dispersed...’27 Barthes, in this passage of his book, uses the word ‘self’ several times, pointing out its importance and the act of representation. When Barthes uses ‘self’ he refers to his persona. The word persona originates from Etruscan origin dating back to ancient Rome meaning ‘mask’. His idea was to introduce the ‘self’ as something that you can wear, like a mask, in order to perform in front of what was considered a medium of truthful representation and for these reasons, anything behind the mask has little importance. It pays to point out how these thoughts are based upon the concept of the camera as a medium of ‘truthful representation’ as it corrupts and stops further thoughts on the medium. Barthes described the act of portraiture as one that becomes a mechanical act, an instrument of reproduction that paradoxically contradicts its very nature. Furthermore, Barthes illustrates how both parts involved in the photographic process have, in this way, a falsified
'ONCE I FEEL MYSELF OBSERVED BY THE LENS...EVERYTHING CHANGED'
24/25
fig.25 fig.26 fig.27 fig.28 fig.29
experience of their relationship, suspended between ‘what I expect to see’ and ‘how I want to be seen’. Barthes theory on how to read an image is strongly based on the notion of ‘studium’ and ‘punctum’. ‘Punctum’, according to Barthes, is the element that makes a picture stand out from the rest, touching the viewer on a personal level. On the other hand, ‘studium’ is an element that merely adds interest to a photograph. 28 Extending Barthes’ thought within portraiture, we come to understand that for him the act of taking a person’s portrait involves the creation of four different images interacting with each other, ultimately resulting in ‘inauthenticity’. Barthes then goes on to say, ‘the subject has in their mind an image of what they think they look like. They also have an image of what they want to look like in front of someone else. The photographer has an impression of the subject and, lastly, the viewer has his or her interpretation of the person within the photograph’. 29 Therefore, in the making of a portrait, there are three parts involved: the maker, the sitter and the viewer. The first two are involved in the construction of the image, the third part instead interprets what has been presented in front of them. We can then say, translating Barthes’ theory to portraiture only, that the making of it is within the notion of ‘studium’, where several elements play and important role in constructing the image. Whereas the ‘punctum’ is the added value given to the image by the viewer. In this way, I interpret the ‘punctum’ as a change of attitude by the viewer toward what they are looking at, provoked by empathy. Furthermore, in order for something to strike you or to differentiate itself from the rest, something must happen at a metaphysical level, one where we are no long looking at a photographic portrait as a likeness reproduction of an existing person, but rather trying to connect empathically with the expression of humanity present in the portrait to
DAVIDE DEGANO
then try to bring it back to something close to our recollection. To make it our own. Because we can relate to it. (fig.25, fig.26, fig.27, fig.28, fig.29) Finally, we must be aware that all photographic images are made up of signs, presented to the viewer under different layers and most of the time they form a chain, enabling the viewer to choose some and ignore others, according to their individual experience. This point seems to be of a crucial importance for Barthes, since it involves a sort of ‘public judgment’, which lead the writer to state: ‘...photography is anything but subtle except in the hands of the very greatest portraitist, I don’t know how to work upon my skin from within. I decided to ‘let drift’ over my hips and in my eyes a faint smile which I mean to be ‘indefinable’, in which I might suggest along with the qualities of my nature, my amused consciousness of the whole photographic ritual: I lend myself to the social game, I pose, I know I am posing, I want you to know I am posing’. 30 Barthes carries on with his writing concluding by acknowledging the fact that he can scarcely recognise himself within the images taken of him, despite the poses and his internal unease in front of a camera. Susan Sontag would describe Barthes experiences in front of a camera as a ‘predatory act’ from the photographer. In fact, this Sontag’s feeling when it comes to take someone else’s photograph: ‘...is to violate them, by seeing them as they never have seen themselves, by having knowledge of them they can never have; it turns people into objects that can be symbolically possessed’. 31 I find this position toward the medium to be quite negative and distant, though still relying on the original scientific notion of the medium of photography, of truthfulness and representation. This distrust toward photographic reproduction derives from the progressive growth of the globalised world, where a blemish or an awkward expression might turn into humiliation which, as prophecy, Han-
'ONCE I FEEL MYSELF OBSERVED BY THE LENS...EVERYTHING CHANGED'
28 Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida, (p. 26-27) 29 Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida, (p. 3) 30 Roland Barthes, Camera Lucida, (p.11) 31 Susan Sontag. On Photography, (p.14)
26/27
nah Arendt in 1958 prophesied already that young adults of her day ‘self-needed’ to work toward a proper definition of the self in a world of confusion and contradictions. In fact, modern selves feel the urge to find a place as individual in an increasingly complex society where globalization brought a neutralization of the individual itself. At the same time, I felt, while photographing young adults in The Netherlands, their need to be ‘uniquely globalised’ on how they introduce themselves to the world. By that I mean the need to be accepted by the larger group but at the same time, to stand out from the rest within it while being accepted still to be part of it. As a consequence, every time began a photo session, the sitter, as Barthes would say, was wearing a mask. They had, indeed, already in mind the image of their self and at the same time the image they wanted to expose to me, hence, to the external world. Our dialogue would have been formed by just rhetorical questions, as for example ‘How do I look like’, ‘Am I good enough like this’, ‘Please tell me what to do to look good, I have never posed’, followed by my banal answers. Even though I was trying to help the situation by simply trying to switch topics, and asking more intimate questions, I would be momentarily ignored. In fact, this is what struck me the most. Anything I would ask during the photo shooting was somehow stored within the memory of the sitter to be then brought up once the camera was again in my backpack. I realised that people, if you open up to them, most of the time they would do the same to you, revealing a more human side that before was somehow hidden. But why, in my case, only before or after the actual act of taking pictures? Why, then, was there this need to wear a mask, even though they were keen to open up to me? And overall, why was this mask present only when the
DAVIDE DEGANO
camera was too? In the beginning of this process, I struggled to understand why, as I was shooting more and more people, this situation kept on happening. But one day I showed up only with my analog camera, because I wanted to ‘test’ my skills in measuring light without the assistance of a digital camera. And the entire shoot was a sort of revelation. And not necessarily for the result. Actually, the pictures turned out blurry, with several colour mistakes. But along the way, our meeting gradually developed by simply talking about our personal issues and future dreams rather than focusing on what was actually happening: the making of portraits! The transition from one activity to another was, for the first time, flawless and very natural. I was finally portraying a person, not just taking a nice photograph. And overall, I was never interrupted while shooting and never asked ‘how do I look’? I realised how important it was to actually shoot using an analogue camera. In fact, while taking pictures in the past, the sitter’s attention was focussed on the camera screen, while asking at constant and repeated intervals if they see the photos I had just taken. By doing so unconsciously, the person portrayed was substituting my persona with the screen of my camera and, in turn, was becoming a mirror. The subject I was photographing was merely dealing only with the surface of their persona, trying to find the best mask to wear. By eliminating the screen that functioned as a mirror for the sitter, I began to truly understand some of the most crucial aspects of the people I was photographing, re-introducing the dialogue as a fundamental element allowing ‘us’ to connect emphatically and ‘them’ to feel free to express their persona without the need to wear a mask.
DIALOGUE AND EMPATHY
28/29
One important element that comes up in my work as a photographer, is the interaction between myself and my subject. Even if that interaction is for only a split second, as long as the subject is aware of the camera and the fact they are going to be photographed, there becomes an interaction. In my personal experience, this interaction can be verbal (i.e. giving instructions, but more often a casual conversation where I try to scratch the surface and get to know my subject better) or through a simple gaze or gestures that provoke the interaction. Furthermore, from a neurological point of view, the brain is set to quickly respond to visual signals that can cause an emotional response or provoke a mental state; this ability to communicate and interpret mental states is of a great importance in portraiture and is the element that can stimulate the ‘punctum’ in the viewer. This ability, as I see it, is ‘empathy’. Remember that I am not thoroughly employing Barthes’ theory as he meant it, but merely adapting it to the act of taking and observing a portrait. We can, therefore, observe two parties (photographer and sitter) attempting to ‘read’ each other’s visual communication. This process, even though toward a single direction, happens in the same way when the viewer tries to read an image. It is a process of taking and absorbing visual clues that are going to be connected and associated to memories, ‘weed[ing] out those things that do not mesh with an individual neuronal landscape’. 32 In essence, the exchange of stimuli influences both the photographer and the sitter, where the ‘photographer and subject will enter a ritualized region, where each will create a persona, or mask, in order to produce a different effect. The process may be uncomfortable or it may not be. It may
fig.34
fig.33
fig.32
fig.31
fig.30
Dialogue and Empathy
DAVIDE DEGANO
seem like a quiet struggle or it may feel like a seduction. The end result will bear witness to the process.’33 The photographic event created by the encounter between the photographer and the sitter define the event in itself, capturing whatever state of mind is present at that specific moment. However, when the viewer is presented with that encounter through an image, they do not have the ‘background’ knowledge in which that specific image was produced. By saying that, I do not want to state that there is nothing to read or interpret, but at the same time the information given are really limited to a specific moment, which for sure cannot be taken as representative of the person’s more complex self. On the other hand, as we mentioned earlier, our brain is able to create associations from these little information, and through empathy to connect to it, beyond the fact that is the likeness of something ‘similar to us’. So, to come back to the main question I asked myself during the months I spent researching and writing this paper: what is a portrait? In my final summation, I have concluded that a portrait is nothing more—and certainly nothing less—than the photographer’s physical attempt to represent something that cannot be physically represented. (fig.30, fig.31, fig.32, fig.33, fig.34) In order to achieve that representation, there is a fundamental element that needs to be added and present in the collaborative of act portraying a person: empathy, the human ability to share and understand the feelings of the others by relating to and effectively sharing another person’s emotional state. Vittorio Gallese, an Italian professor of Psychobiology at the University of Parma, stated: ‘It is commonly held that all normal humans develop the capacity to represent mental states in others by means of a conceptual system, commonly designated as ‘Theory of Mind’... We can conceive TOM as the result of a simulation routine by means
DIALOGUE AND EMPATHY
32 Stafford, B. M. (2001). Visual analogy: consciousness as the art of connecting. (p.140) 33 Angier, R. (2007). Train your gaze (a practical and theoretical introduction to portrait photography). (p.6) 34 Gallese, V. (2001). The ’shared manifold’ hypothesis. From mirror neurons to empathy. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 8 (5-7), 5–7. 35 De Vignemont, F., & Singer, T. (2006). The empathic brain: how, when and why? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 10 (10), 435–441.
30/31
fig.35 fig.36 fig.37 fig.38 fig.39
of which we can pretend to be in the other’s ‘mental shoes’ and use our own mind as a model for the mind of others’. 34 There have been arguments whether empathy requires a conscious effort or it can happen automatically and scientific research showed that the latter is inbuilt into our brains. 35 In fact, part of the processing of emotions is located in our midbrain, an area of the brain were only the 10% of visual information is shared, and which is use to quickly identify movement an elaborate whether an object which has entered the visual range is a threat, before it consciously processed (in a much slower fashion) by the visual cortex. 36 This discovery makes us aware of the fact that human beings’ empathic reactions are first instinctive and then conscious. However, another study of a group of convicted criminals, showed us their ability to not feel empathy at all. For them, it required a conscious effort to feel it. Even though I do not want to delve further into this topic since it is not the purpose of my thesis, it is interesting to point out as it indirectly supports my idea that empathy is a fundamental element encompassing every stage of the making of a portrait, even if the maker decides not to feel emphatic toward their subject. Furthermore, there are several texts about art and empathy as photography appears to be more associated to this term than other artistic genres such painting. I believe that the reason for that resides in what is deemed to be the true nature of the photographic medium: veracity. In fact, as paintings are associated with imagination, photographs are often associated with reality. Hence, photography is more incline to stimulate and generate an empathic reaction from the viewer. A perfect example of this is War Photography. The viewer engaged with a painting of a battlefield will respond differently if confronted with the same image represented by a photograph. As Walter Benjamin suggested, there is no surprise that photography is connected to portraiture.
DAVIDE DEGANO
In his work, Benjamin is convinced that the photographic portrait has in it an empathic layer by default, since the subject has to ‘live, not out of the instant, but into it; during the long exposure they grew, as it were, into the image’. 37 He argued later that this ‘magic’ was lost due to technological progress. To paraphrase his words and contextualise them in modern society, Benjamin might argue that we are more concerned in ‘how we look like’ than ‘how we feel like’. This thought recalls what Hannah Arendt had predicted in her writings and the importance of society in shaping ‘us’ and the way we look at ourselves. In this regard, as mentioned before, I found it thoroughly compelling to use an analogue camera in taking my portraits for the series presented in this paper. The fact that the sitter could not see what I was doing, hence they could not see their portraits while I was taking them, helped considerably in my efforts to portraying feelings more than looks. This technical component might not seem relevant, but eventually it was revealed to be essential to the process, since my subject was focused on our conversation, almost forgetting they were being photographed. (fig.35, fig.36, fig.37, fig.38, fig.39)
DIALOGUE AND EMPATHY
36 Abbott, A. (2009, September 28). Not blind to emotion: Nature News. Retrieved December 27, 2012, from http://www. nature.com/news/2009/090928/ full/news.2009.956.html. 37 Benjamin, W. (1972). A Short History of Photography.
32/33
DAVIDE DEGANO
fig.42
fig.41
fig.40
Conclusion In preparing this text, and therefore in analysing the process of building a portrait, I relied on studying the master’s work as well as the writings of scholars and my own personal experiences as a young practitioner. I strongly feel that a practice such as portraiture needs to be reflected upon intensely by the maker. It is never banal or easy to work with other people, especially strangers. The risk of creating ‘just a pretty image’ is quite high, and the difference between an expressive portrait and a nice portrait it paper thin. Furthermore, the need to create an emphatic relationship, as I have stressed throughout this paper, is of fundamental importance with the person you are portraying, though not always obvious. (fig.40, fig.41, fig.42) My personal experience has taught me that when it does not happen, the portrait turns out flat, soulless, and it used to happen quite frequently, especially at the beginning of my photographic journey. At the same time, however, I had to recognize and, in certain ways, discover through the pioneers of this genre the difficulties inherent behind a portrait. Therefore, speaking of different approaches and methodologies in the preceding paragraphs, I realized that in the process of constructing a portrait, many elements must be taken into consideration, ranging from the artistic, scientific, anthropological and psychological level. Instead, we tend too often to concentrate on just one of these aspects, without thinking that they are undoubtedly connected with each other and that they support each other. But what cannot be ignored is the initial intent, the reason why, the purpose. To that end, this thesis is a dialogue about a photographic genre whose main purpose is to partially represent the personality/identity of the person being photographed, rather than using that person as a prop in order to sell merchandise in the commercial world.
CONCLUSION
34/35
fig.43 fig.44 fig.45 fig.46 fig.47
As I have learned and discovered through this process, my motivations behind what I was doing—and all the preconceived notions I might have had about portraiture— have dramatically changed. It also became clear that by flowing through with my desire of getting to know different people, photo sessions culminated in the expenditure of so much ‘intellectual energy’, that I felt physically exhausted and in need of some solitude every time I finished a shoot. Furthermore, as I discussed above, the roles between the photographer and the sitter are not overturned in my practice, rather they are placed on the same level. In fact, to be able to ‘scratch under the surface’ as Avedon said, it is the photographer himself who has to get involved first. This, as I experienced it, is very, very tiring, as the photographer virtually exposes themslef in front of a person they have never met but must confront them as if they had known them for a lifetime. (fig.43, fig.44, fig.45, fig.46, fig.47) For me, that has been the only way to connect with my subjects empathically. Furthermore, it must always be kept in mind that there is a third party involved, the spectator who, not knowing what happened during the meeting between maker and sitter, can only count on the little information given, as well as on the portrayal itself. If we want to provoke an empathic reaction on the part of the spectator, this must have occurred between the maker and sitter. Moreover, the act of creating portrait photography is, in my estimation, an introspection of the maker who is missing something, or who is looking for something they are convinced they can find in the people they portray. Many times, however, I have been prodded into to creating photography only to be left with the doleful feeling of being alone in a realm (country) that is not my own. To conclude with this final observation, I have come to feel the desire of integrating myself into a culture seemingly so very different from mine—in distance, culture and character—like the one I have found here in the Nether-
DAVIDE DEGANO
lands, which has led me to portray the people in my work through very different eyes. And what has been revealed in my re-examination of the art of portraiture as a practice is that it has so much more to say about the maker than the subjects that are being portrayed. Therefore, by merely attempting to represent what cannot be physically represented, the sensibility, integrity and authenticity of the portrait photographer is constantly and thoroughly being challenged—if not demanded—with every click of the shutter.
CONCLUSION
36/37
DAVIDE DEGANO
BOOKS Angier, Roswell. Train Your Gaze: a Practical and Theoretical Introduction to Portrait Photography. Fairchild Books, 2015. Barthes, Roland. Camera Lucida: Reflections on Photography. The Noonday Press, 1988.
Greenberg, Jan, and Sandra Jordan. Chuck Close, up Close. DK Ink, 2000.
Lidl, Sabine, director. Nan Goldin, I Remember Your Face. 2013.
Keniston, Kenneth. Youth and Dissent: the Rise of a New Opposition. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1971.
Whitney, Helen, director. Richard Avedon: Darkness and Light.
Kozloff, Max. The Theater of the Face Portrait Photography since 1900. Phaidon, 2007.
Richmond, Joshua, director. The Woodsman. 2010. INTERVIEWS
[https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=KIkG9OcHcCk] Sean Kelly Gallery. (2019, April 10). Alec Soth and Vince Aletti in conversation at Sean Kelly Gallery, April 4, 2019 [Video]. YouTube. [https:// www.youtube.com/ watch?v=FbMVZyW1yj4] The Art Assignment. (2015, December 3). Be a news photographer. | Alec Soth | The Art Assignment [Video]. YouTube. [https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=APRRQ7z75x0]
Baudelaire, Charles. ‘The Salon of 1859: The Modern Public and Photography.’ Modern Art and Modernism: A Critical Anthology, Apr. 2018, pp. 19–22.
Simmel, Georg, and Donald N. Levine. Georg Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms: Selected Writings. The University of Chicago Press, 2015.
Manufacturing Intellect. (2016, July 31). Richard Avedon interview (1993) [Video]. YouTube. [https:// www.youtube.com/ watch?v=qvldmimdEJE]
Benjamin, Walter, et al. Walter Benjamin: Selected Writings. Vol 2 Part 2. Belknap, 2005.
Snyder, Joel, and Neil Walsh. Allen. Photography, Vision, and Representation. University of Chicago Press, 1975.
Manufacturing Intellect. (2016, July 31). Richard Avedon interview (1999) [Video]. YouTube. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ykRbD5klTc&t=216s]
MN Original. (2010, April 22). Interview: Alec Soth [Video]. YouTube. [https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=6olNdDQpSnY]
Manufacturing Intellect. (2016, July 31). Richard Avedon interview (1995) [Video]. YouTube. [https:// www.youtube.com/ watch?v=2bNhBu0zcgc]
Guggenheim Museum. (2016, December 5). Rineke Dijkstra: A Retrospective [Video]. YouTube.[https:// www.youtube.com/ watch?v=uSAmkX26cdw]
Buyer687. (2014, February 24). Charlie Rose - Richard Avedon [Video]. YouTube. [https:// www.youtube.com/ watch?v=6W1p600aNbU]
Guggenheim Museum. (2013, February 27). Guggenheim Symposium - Empathy, Affect, and the Photographic Image [Video]. YouTube. [https://www.youtube.com/ watch?v=tFeBRCk3xns]
Berger, John. Ways of Seeing. British Broadcasting Corporation and Penguin Books, 2008. Berger, John Peter, and Geoff Dyer. Understanding a Photograph. Penguin Books, 2013. Freund Gisèle. Photography & Society. D.R. Godine, 1982. Gallese, Vittorio. ‘The Roots of Empathy: The Shared Manifold Hypothesis and the Neural Basis of Intersubjectivity.’ Psychopathology, vol. 36, no. 4, 2003, pp. 171–180. Gelder, Hilde van., and Helen Westgeest. Photography Theory in Historical Perspective: Case Studies from Contemporary Art. Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.
Sontag, Susan. Susan Sontag on Photography. Allen Lane, 1978. Sontag, Susan. Regarding the Pain of Others. Penguin Books, 2019. Soth, Alec. Ping Pong Conversations: Alec Soth with Francesco Zanot. Contrasto, 2013. Stafford, Barbara Maria. Visual Analogy: Consciousness as the Art of Connecting. MIT Press, 1999. Vignemont, Frederique de, and Tania Singer. ‘ The Empathic Brain: How, When and Why?’ Nov. 2006. FILMS Lopez, Luis and Trisha Ziff, directors. Chevolution. 2008.
REFERENCES
MARIO TESTINO. (2016, September 25). BBC OMNIBUS - DOCUMENTARY - MARIO TESTINO [Video]. YouTube. [https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=T9kUljPTpss&t=541s] NegativeFeedback. (2017, October 10). In Conversation With | Alec Soth [Video]. YouTube.
EXTERNAL LINKS ‘Alec Soth: Sleeping by the Mississippi.’ Minnesota Marine Art Museum, www. mmam.org/alec-soth-sleeping-by-the-mississippi. ‘Cindy Sherman: MoMA.’ The Museum of Modern Art, www.moma.org/calendar/
38/39
exhibitions/1154.
day-rineke-dijkstra.
Davies, Lucy. ‘Fresh from the Fight: the Men Who Take on Raging Bulls.’ The Telegraph, Telegraph Media Group, 14 May 2012, www.telegraph. co.uk/culture/photography/9257629/Fresh-fromthe-fight-the-men-who-takeon-raging-bulls.html.
Ziv, Kay. ‘About Portrait Photography.’ Photography Magazine - Lens Magazine, 4 Nov. 2015, lensmagazine.net/ about-portrait-photography/.
Grundberg, Andy. ‘Richard Avedon, the Eye of Fashion, Dies at 81.’ The New York Times, The New York Times, www. nytimes.com/2004/10/01/ arts/01CND-AVED.html. ‘Jozef Wright.’, i-d.vice.com/ nl/contributor/jozef-wright. Letson, Greg. ‘RINEKE DIJKSTRA, BULLFIGHTERS 1996.’ The Incubator, 28 Nov. 2016, theincubator.live/2016/11/27/ rineke-dijkstra-bullfighters-1996/. O’Hagan, Sean. ‘Alec Soth, a Photographer Reborn: 'I Realised Everything Is Connected'.’ The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 9 Mar. 2019, www.theguardian. com/artanddesign/2019/ mar/09/alec-soth-photographer-i-know-your-heart-isbeating-furious-interview. ‘Rineke Dijkstra: A Retrospective.’ Guggenheim, 11 Dec. 2018, www.guggenheim.org/exhibition/ rineke-dijkstra-a-retrospective. Tarnopolsky, Michelle. ‘Mother Art Monday: Rineke Dijkstra.’ Malafemmin(Ist) a, Malafemmin(Ist)a, 6 Feb. 2017, malafemminista.com/ blog/mother-art-mon-
DAVIDE DEGANO
INTRODUCTION TO THE SERIES OF PORTRAITS
40/41
I would like to thank my teacher Lonneke de Groot, all the people portrayed especially to Sebastian Koudijzer, Veronique Poschi Pavon, Vaibi van Vani, Elisa Cappellari, Ayla, Naomi, TĂŠa Boyarchuk, Jacopo and Lorenzo Garzia that dedicated their time specifically for this project. A big thank you to Richard Morris and Yessica Deira for the Design.
Portraiture: Attempting to Represent What Cannot be Physically Represented Davide Degano 3077403 Thesis, KABK, Photography Department May 2020 Illustration/Images by Davide Degano Design by Yessica Deira