 |
|
|
|
Me, My Self and the Photographic EyeSome facts"What
is this 'I' that I know?" René
Descartes
These are some facts about Me. Some I inherited, some I was given. Several
are beyond my control, one is of my choice. Some are quantifiable, others are
merely informative. None of them is fictitious. Together they offer the
beginnings of a description of Me, the individual. Here are some more ‘facts’:
These facts are all lies, but equally valid, because they give clues about the Me I
am attempting to portray. If you were to draw a sketch of Me based on the information I have disclosed
thus far, one would hope to find your portrayal favourable, as it includes
nothing negative or objectionable; but would it be accurate? Of course not,
because it includes false ‘facts’ and well as true ones. But you don’t know that. Or at least, you would not have known that, had I chosen not to tell you. So a written or verbal description of somebody is fraught with potential
inaccuracies - arguably also with a painting or drawing - but not so with a
photographic one. Cameras have no choice but to record what is in front of them.
Were you to take a straight photograph of Me, you would see instantly that I
weigh considerably more than seven and a half stone and that the hourglass
figure is drawn directly from fantasy land, but your image would be an accurate
and truthful representation of Me. If I was to ask you to take my portrait (as oppose to a straight
record shot) then you and I between us would form a dialogue which resulted in
an image with which we were both satisfied, but I still might feel that you
hadn’t captured the real Me in your photograph. In order to do that, I need to
do the job myself. Enter the Self Portrait. When the subject is behind the lens as well as in
front of it, then control is complete and the outcome assuredly ‘accurate’
– at least in displaying the intentions of the photographer. As a vehicle of
self-expression, there is none more satisfying (nor self-indulgent) than
conjuring up a ‘face’ to present to the world; but the opportunities for
embellishment, distortion and deceit are endless and impossible to resist. The Self is so inextricably bound up with subjectivity that it is impossible to take a self portrait without including external cultural values, personal mores and, inevitably, a huge hint at the author's personality. (Even self portraits 'in role' such as Cindy Sherman's or Robert Mapplethorpe's speak volumes about the sort of person who takes such photographs.) In a way, all photographs are of the Self, at least in part, as it is the Self who chooses, frames, leaves out and includes according to personal taste.
(c) The Estate of Robert Mapplethorpe In his book 'Approaching Photography' Paul Hill reminds us that as a photographer you "record what is 'out there' in the world, and so you have to select from all that wealth of material the specific motifs that can act as vehicles for your inner feelings. The selection you make reveals how you feel - or want to appear to feel - about the subject, its content and form." p119 If the camera records what is 'out there' and what we are actually trying to reproduce what is 'in here' in a self portrait, then we need to select objects, locations, poses and composition as vehicles for what is 'in there'. If the photographer is a hunter seeking out victims, what does that make the subject of a self portrait? Hill goes on to point out that, when considering self-portraiture, "the most important attribute may not be your technique or vision, but your integrity. It can be a road strewn with spurious intentions and flawed egos, so it is important to remain honest". p122 Unless, of course, your intention is to deceive.
References Hill, P. Approaching Photography. pub. Photographer's Institute Press 2004 |
|
(C) Helen Williams 2006 |
