Debi Beauregard has a photo project that she has kindly let
me join into in a way—meaning I get to be the model. She is taking well
respected photographers and doing portraits in somewhat their style. The most
recent was Gregory Heisler.
I am not necessarily a big fan of Heisler’s work. True, he
has some really outstanding portraits but most strike me as ordinarily good,
what would be expected from a top tier commercial people photographer—not spectacular.
Many reek ‘commercial’ and some seem gimmicked. That is understandable as the
thrust of his work is commercially oriented, mostly for editorial and
magazines. It is one plateau of people photography, admittedly a high plateau,
and at that he does extremely well and at times transcends that level. Where I
must give Heisler considerable respect is in his creative processes which at
times (imo) often exceeds the finished photograph. His thought processes and
the way he approaches a sitting are remarkable and worth study.
So, the majority of his work does not blow me away like for
instance the work of Arnold Newman or Karsh. He did apprentice with Newman and
when he lets the background intrude can seem quite similar. For the most part
he handles portraits much like I do by focusing tight on the subject—not quite
as tightly as I do because he has the luxury of a studio or space where he has
total or at least some control over the background. I am usually shooting in
public and often must control the background by excluding it as much as
possible.
What I do admire about Heisler is that what he says about
photography greatly agrees with my personal photographic philosophies. I always
tend to like photographers that agree with me. Who doesn’t like affirmation? I
will contend that what I believe about photography applies only to me. I have
given up on convincing anyone else that there is some value in beliefs that
have been refined over years of following photographers that I admire. And yes,
my beliefs are admittedly dated. I am not a fan of the softbox generation of
portrait photographers. It’s like showing me things that I don’t want or need
to see at the expense of giving me a photograph that makes my heart beat faster.
I do have Heisler’s book, 50 Portraits. The intro is by Michael Bloomberg (not impressed—who made
Bloomberg an expert photographic commentator?). I sure don’t agree with Bloomberg’s
comment that Heisler’s photograph of Ed Koch that hangs in city hall in New
York City is one of the all-time great portraits—if nothing else the lighting is
distracting and it is gimmicky (in my opinion—obviously other people disagree).
What is great and greatly worthwhile about 50
Portraits is Heisler’s commentary on the photographs. Interestingly Heisler
illustrates my theory that photographs are as much about the photographer as
they are about the subject. In his political portraits he comes off as naked as
a new born baby—but that’s another story.
There’s no kumbaya in
Heisler’s writing. He doesn’t gloss over the difficulties of sticking a camera
in a sitter’s face. He addresses the fear on both sides of the camera. The true
value of Heisler’s work (again.. in my opinion) is his writing about the
portraits. He has a phenomenal recall of each and every situation and that has
great teaching value for the reader.
In addressing his own thoughts on photographing people
Heisler goes back to the Robert Capa quote that if your photograph isn’t
interesting is it because you are not close enough. Heisler, at times, manages
to get exceedingly close but he carried Capa’s quote a step farther—he contends
that if your photograph isn’t interesting it is because your light isn’t close enough.
It is an interesting concept which you can see from many of his photographs he
believes and practices. It is a concept that I think is worth emulating.
In studying Heisler’s lighting style, Debi and I had difficulty pinning
down ‘a’ style. I think the reason for that is that there isn’t ‘a’ style.
Heisler does what the ‘by the diagram crowd’ will never achieve. His lighting serves
the purpose of the photograph. It is no more complicated than that. Next Sunday we will work on the next assignment, Mary Ellen Marks. Now, if she suggests that I get naked in a bathtub full of milk, I may just have to draw the line. It would require prune juice for proper dramatic contrast. Darn it! I just wrote the best line of the piece and then realized that was Annie Leibovitz. Well, I'll be dadgummed if I am going to toss it!
No comments:
Post a Comment