Light set up for Portraits (Page 2): Ed has specialized in portraiture for over 4 decades. He's a valued member here more than willing to share his knowledge with long dissertations...

Haydon

Timmers wrote:

Hi there E.L.. Shapiro, guess what, I have no idea... (show quote)

Ed has specialized in portraiture for over 4 decades. He's a valued member here more than willing to share his knowledge with long dissertations that are exceedingly detailed orientated. I've learned from him as you will too.

Doing a simple Google search would have made this easy instead of blaming Ed.

Advanced and Professional Portrait ugly headgehog = https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-127-1.html

Absolute respect to you Ed. Thank you always for your contributions.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Timmers wrote:

Hi there E.L.. Shapiro, guess what, I have no idea... (show quote)

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-127-1.html

This is the link to the Portraiture section.

All the other sections can be accessed from the home page under "ALL SECTIONS"

When you click on "SUBSCRIBE" to any of them that interest you, the will appear on your home page. If you "UNSUBSCRIBE" they will go back to "ALL SECTIONS".

Bipod

Timmers wrote:

Classical or traditional portraiture was done to mimic the sculptural structure
of the bust. This was to have the head shown attached to the neck and shoulders.

There was a HUGE shift after the war to render the persona as what could be a persona. That is,
like a fashion image..

This is very true. Richard Avedon was a key figure in this trend: most of the portraits in his
wonderful In the American West wouldn't be out of place in Vogue at that time
(though the clothes certainly would!). The cover image has a typically pouty model:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/50/AvedonInTheAmericanWest.jpg

The same goes for most of Annie Liebovitz's astounding portraits--they are indistinguishable
from fashion photography.

Every portrait is a "take" on the sitter, but there used to be a certain amount of objectivity:
capturing basic physical apperaance. That's totally gone. I have never met Chinese artist
Ai WeiWei, but am willing to bet that his typical expression isn't this:
https://www.metalocus.es/sites/default/files/lead-images/metalocus_ai-weiwei_01_515_0.jpg

I like these photographs, but they tell me as more about the photographer than they do
about the sitter, and leave me wondering "how does the sitter look in real life?"

It's always a shock to meet a model you have only seen in photographs---you pass them on the
street sometimes in NYC. Often they look like they have eyes on the sides of their head, like
a rabbit. Of course female high-fashion models are are famous for having prominent, high
cheekbones and being thinner and taller than average. US average women's height 5' 4";
model runway average 5' 10". US average dress size 16; runway model size 0 to 4. Some look
more like boys (even in the photos). What's stylish in glossy magazines can look very odd on
the street.

In nature, critters with eyes on the sides of their head are prey animals. Critters with eyes
close together are predators. Just sayin'.

I admire both portraiture and fashion photography, but want them to be different. Portraiture
can be dramatic without treating the sitter as a lump of wax to be modeled by the photographer
into a "look". And I prefer old-school fashion photography that attempts to make the rags and
bags look good, rather than just portraying a lifestyle (as advertising so often does).

Probably the most influential force in shaping the buying habits, aspirations, beliefs and values
of Americans is advertising. How many ads have you seen or heard in your lifetime, in newspapers,
magazines, billboards, radio and TV? Nearly all of it is pursuasive, not informative. And these
days the pursuasion is very indirect: one rarely sees an add as blunt as "Drink Coca-Cola!" anymore.
The "Pepsi Generation" campaign made that obsolete. Pepsi-Cola is youthful and hip (gee, I thought
it was carbonated sugar water with caffiene and flavorings--just like Coca-Cola).

If advertising had no effect, why would companies keep paying billions of dollars every year to fund it?

Photography, like any art form, can be part of the solution or part of the problem. The old USSR kept
many artist and photographers employed creating propaganda. China and North Korea still do.
Any art that doesn't conform to "Marxist realism" (e.g., Ai WeiWei's is banned).

I don't think photography is helping solve America's problems when it creates portraits that look like
advertising. Making advertising seem more "normal" and socially acceptable is making the problem
that much worse. Commercial propaganda is just as dangerous as government propaganda, perhaps
more so.

During his 45-year run in advertising, the "Marlboro Man" may have killed more people than Stalin.
And it wasn't Hitler who came up with (and heavily marketed) the idea of putting carcinogenic blue
asbestos filters in American cigarettes--it was the Loriland Tobacco Company (for its' "Kent" brand
cigarettes) "the only cigaratette with the Micronite Filter" (Kent's term for blue asbestos).
(In the 1970s American Tobacco bought the brand, and in 2015 it was acquired by R. J. Reynolds
Tobacco Company).

The goal of advertising is to create a fictional world where it would make sense to spend your last
dollar on the product and brand being advertised. The goal of photography should be to say
something about the real world (or a a real person, in the case of portraiture). But some portraiture
is simply propaganda (commercial or political, as the case may be).

The photographer (whoever he was) who made this fine portrait should be ashamed of himself:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/books/2016/11/04/hitler-lead-xlarge_trans++U7XSZWUScsha0PBU9PW8g3CIA-H95ZzdMNYhn0JYf6g.jpg
The real man:
https://pearlsofprofundity.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/adolf-hitler-graphic-1.jpg
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2017/11/hitler.jpeg?quality=85

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Bipod wrote:

This is very true. Richard Avedon was a key figu... (show quote)

Thanks Bipod! You have a good deal to say and it is on the mark. An alternative to the standard photographic approach can be found in the work of Arnold Newman. His working system went down as well as much of what I post. Arnold is regarded as the master of the environmental portrait, which is true yet it is a shallow regard for his method of portraiture. Arnold's approach was low technology but heavy with exploring the sitters persona. He would study the person and engage that persons personal and private intimacies to then present and reveal the person that he was making a portrait of.

When I hosted a three day class on portraiture, I had half the participants walk out and demand their money returned which was exactly what my school did (The Southwest Craft Center under the leadership of the brilliant direction Rick Collier). Arnold was tickled by the whole affair, he really was. Newman was himself a great humanist in his own right.

I enjoyed becoming friends with him and was honored when he told me that he want to have me sit for my portrait as a demonstration. I of course agreed, but interjected humor telling him that finally he was getting the idea, after all you can't play teacher if you run all the students off! He howled with laughter! I also remarked that if he blew the shot I would call is wife and reveal that he turned down a hooker (not really) but was getting up to three large deserts each dinner! He assured me that I would have a splendid portrait and told me to dress nicely because I would be his subject the next day, Sunday and last day of the class. Arnold smiled and said I better be good or he would make me look like Krupp! I was a good boy!

Arnold Newman on his portrait of Krupp:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WoJOAj9r6w

Krupp's portrait, and my portrait by Arnold.

C Arnold Newman, Alfred Krupp.

(Download)

C Arnold Newman, Timothy Summa.

Bipod

Timmers wrote:

Thanks Bipod! You have a good deal to say and it i... (show quote)

I just viewed 25 of Arnold Newman's portraits of visual
artists, novelists, playwrights and an orchestra conductor
here:
https://mymodernmet.com/arnold-newmans-incredible/

For the most part, these photos show the artist in his studio or in the
context of his work--which seems entirely appropriate to me.
There is nothing merely shocking or attention-grabbing about them.
And they are quite diverse in terms of technique. Very impressive.

The composition of the portrait of Josef Albers is exceptionally
clear and simple -- just like the painter/designer's work. His
best known work is the long series Homage to the Square
and he is shown in front of one painting from that series.

Leonard Bernstein is shown sitting behind a full score, in the
exact cetner of a rehersal room full of empty chairs---which
might be take as a statement about his personality. A good
caption might be "Lenny's World".

Roy Lichtenstein even seems to have a "false attachment" to an
example of his work, in the background: as if the work was
more important than the artist--a view that Lichtenstein would
approve, I think.

Arthur Miller, shown with a read-through or writer's conference
in the background, looks very confident --like a pulic figure--
which fits.

Clearly, Newman knew something about his subjects and put a
lot of thought into these potraits. They are not all equally
successful, but they all tell us something about the subject.
Clearly, they are the work of a formidable photographer who
cares deeply about portraiture.

Bipod

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

PORTRAITURE, ANYONE?
I'm impressed- lot's of learnid responses and good links. I didn't know there were so many aficionados of fine portraiture around here. Why don't Y'all join me and Captain C in the Advanced and Professional Portrait section- we stated it up a few months ago bet there is very little traffic. Everyone who is interested is welcome.

While we are having a conversation, I thought I would put out a few comments.

In this post, the OP requested a basic portrait setup for his existing 2 speedlight system. Of course, I can provide him with a diagram and a few tips for a very rudimentary method but as I alluded to, I have no idea what he is up to and to what leve he is informed. There are many suggestions as to equipment choice, some good advice about facial analysis and aesthetics (love it) and even some deeper philosophical, historical, and psychological and even sexual aspects of portraiture- ALL GOOD! The problem is, all we have to start with is a person with a camera and a couple of speedlights wh has not yet returned with any feedback.

So...here's the point I'm trying to make- it is probably my pet-peeve when it comes to portraiture. Everybody gets hung up on all kinds of equipment issues and complex theories and approaches but neglect, negate or ignore the basics. There's so much devaluation of the "Old School" and traditional portraiture in one camp, a reactionary attitude toward modern approaches on the other side and a "cult" of break all of the rules and go crazy! It's hard for anyone to learn or progress with all this confusion.

I look at many of the portraits on thie site and elsewhere and find so many of them to be DISTORTED. I don't necessarily mean optical distortion that is caused by close working distances and short focal lengths. I see camera angle s, poses, and lightings that do not render a true likeness or a good representation of the face and body. I good likeness is one of the basic elements of a good portrait image. This may sound grotesque but folks in the images seem to have missing limbs, half an ear, dead eyes, unbalanced postures and facial asymmetries that they actually don't have. What's worse, is when folks who do have various aesthetic issues that they would find unfavorable- theses problems are exacerbated by inept photography.

When I say BASICS, I don't mean that everyone has to conform to rules, diagrams, specific instructions or laws. My complaint is that folks want to do "rocket science and nuclear physics" before the learn general science and basic mathematics. The wanna sit down at a Steinway Concert Grand Piano and play Bach, Gershwin and Rock 'n' Roll before the learn their scales.

Alright, enough metaphors s and analogies- they want to buy multi-thousands of dollars worth of gear and delve into psychological and aesthetic portraiture and the don't know how to make a clean flattering headshot, or a decent passport photo YET! They want a few tips and become Yosef Karsh, Annie Leibovitz, Philippe Halsman, William Mortensen, and Arnold Newman- all rolled up in one. Yeah, I know a left out ManRay and a few more!

The basics include facial analysis, lighting forms, camera positions, posing, body mechanics, postures, color management, harmony and coordination, creating dimensionality, control over the range, contrast, ratios, key and skin tone, background management, lens selection, and usage, group arrangements, composition and much- SO MUCH more and all of these headings have many sub-sections.

Once thes basics have been mastered the creativity, alternatives and psychology can be applied. You can jump out of the box if you have no box to start with.

Re: Zeltzman! If you are seriously interested in portraiture, those lessons are essential. Yes, they are "old" and classical but there is nothing on this Earth, other than formal education in a professional school or an apprentice with a master portraitist, that is as comprehensive. It's online and it's free.
Of course, styles have changed, clothing and hairstyle are different but so much is as applicable today as it was many years ago.

Joe Zeltzaman was one of my most influential teachers. So many successful photographers from many different fields and styles made certain to take his courses. They provided a foundation for many styles and approaches. Joe worked and did his teaching into his 90s. Many top shooters would come to him for critiques and guidance long into his retirement. The comment about "everyone looking like a white accountant from New Jersey..." is disrespectful and inane! If you want to seriously learn any art, craft or skill, you shod have enough patience and sticktoitiveness to read 16 lessons and get down to practice. There is no "quick" way to do anything in photography that is really worthwhile.

There no ONE lighting rule or lighting form or pattern that that will suit everyone. Books and tutorials are always helpful but learn from and being inspired by a true master is the gold standard.

PORTRAITURE, ANYONE? br I'm impressed- lot's of ... (show quote)

E. L. Shapiro is quite right that we haven't given specific answer to the O.P.
But he is equally correct that without knowing the type of portraiture or the
intended use, we can't. (For example, it would help very much to know the
sex, age and profession of the sitter..)

It wasn't my intention to deter anyone from reading Zeltsman's good advice.
But we have to admit that his "natural outdoor concept of lighting" does look
a bit dated. He himself calls these lessons an approach to "traditional classic
portraiture".

Art forms develop and change over time. As popular composer Henry Mancini
wrote about musical styles, "The milk of the sacred cows has a way of turning sour."
Very few singers today want to sound like Rudy Vallee or Perry Como--
both enormously successful in their day. Como won five Emmys, a Christopher
Award, and shared a Peabody Award (with Jackie Gleason). But I very much
doubt that "Hot Diggity (Dog Ziggity Boom)" or the polka "Hoop-de-Do"
would chart today.

Photographic "philosophy" matters because it's how photographers decide
which of the many approaches to portraiture to use. But there is also something
to be said for simplicity, and for "not multiplying entities [or lights!] beyond
necessity".

The commonest advice for lighting is to start with the key light. Other lights are
then added either to repair defects in the lighting (e.g, a fill light to lighten dark
shadows on the face) or to add a highlight (e.g., a hair light) that is regarded as
desirable.

I really can't quarrel with this, very basic, approach--provided it is adjusted to
fit the sitter and intended use for the final image. Am I missing something?

As other posters have metioned, thre are some practical challenges to
using two speedlites:
* no modeling lights
* very contrasty unless modified
* limited power
* longer re-charge time
* may overheat if used repeatedly (not designed for continuous duty)

But there are also advantages:
* No power cables
* Light weight (can use a less heavy light stand)
* Dedicated to one camera brand or line

Am I missing any advantages or disadvantages?

It seems to me that, with the proper light modifiers, the OP should be able to get good
results with these two speedlites for producing an acceptable portrait of one person.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

"Clearly, they are the work of a formidable photographer who
cares deeply about portraiture."

I'm not posting to beat on or bring malice upon anyone, yet I feel compelled to set the record straight on Arnold Newman, a dear and close friend of mine.

Just to get everyone up to speed, Arnold Newman passed away several years ago, so he can not 'care' about anything, but he did care a lot, mostly his family as he was a true humanist.

To set the record straight, Arnold stated on numerous occasions that he did not care one iota about portraiture, he did care and was caring about the person(s) that he photographed.

That is why he stated over and over that the main 'thing' in portrait photography was to learn about the person who you are photographing, their life, family and beliefs and then to present that person as to who and what they were.

In books, lectures and as a teacher of groups and individuals, he emphasized that craft was of minor importance, gear even less so, the important issue was that the image created must tell us something about that person or the work is a failure.

I am posting this my portrait done by Arnold. I was seated in front of a dozen students, Arnold was standing to the side of my 4X5 Linhof Kardan Bi camera with 210 Red Dot Artar lens, set on a tripod, Tri-X film (that I had to water bath to develop, the tricky devil did it on purpose!). To the left of the scene were eight foot tall windows and Arnold seated me close to the wall on the right, whish was painted semi gloss white and acted like a huge reflector. The 'cutter' in the background was there but he arranged that clutter to speak about the sitter.

One of the students asked about the objects and why he had chosen tom use certain ones and removed others. In the background you can see a small painting just to the left of other painting and placed directly in front of the shuttered window running up the edge of the photograph, these are the windows that lined the left wall that provided the light for the image (the shutters were all open on that left wall. Back to the small painting, left behind by a painting student from an evening class.

Arnold asked me after taking the image and to help him speak to the 'clutter' behind me. I walked over and picked up the small painting and handed to that person asking him what it reminded him of? I then said, it looks an awful lot like a portion of Marcel Duchamp's Magnus opus The Great Glass, a detail titled The Bachelors or The Nine Malic Molds.

Arnold roared with mirth, "You found me out!" I looked at the student and admitted that I ws heavily influenced by Duchamp.

He and I were having such a bit of fun, he kept telling me not to smile as this was to be a serious image. Arnold was such a warm happy guy. You couldn't help but like him.

Side note, after printing the image I did the final crop into a rectangle that mimicked the shape of the drawing board resting on the central painting easel, this I did myself, Arnold had no control over the decision to crop the image in this way.

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

Timmers wrote:

"Clearly, they are the work of a formidable photographer who
cares deeply about portraiture."

I'm not posting to beat on or bring malice upon anyone, yet I feel compelled to set the record straight on Arnold Newman, a dear and close friend of mine.

Just to get everyone up to speed, Arnold Newman passed away several years ago, so he can not 'care' about anything, but he did care a lot, mostly his family as he was a true humanist.

To set the record straight, Arnold stated on numerous occasions that he did not care one iota about portraiture, he did care and was caring about the person(s) that he photographed.

That is why he stated over and over that the main 'thing' in portrait photography was to learn about the person who you are photographing, their life, family and beliefs and then to present that person as to who and what they were.

In books, lectures and as a teacher of groups and individuals, he emphasized that craft was of minor importance, gear even less so, the important issue was that the image created must tell us something about that person or the work is a failure.

I am posting this my portrait done by Arnold. I was seated in front of a dozen students, Arnold was standing to the side of my 4X5 Linhof Kardan Bi camera with 210 Red Dot Artar lens, set on a tripod, Tri-X film (that I had to water bath to develop, the tricky devil did it on purpose!). To the left of the scene were eight foot tall windows and Arnold seated me close to the wall on the right, whish was painted semi gloss white and acted like a huge reflector. The 'cutter' in the background was there but he arranged that clutter to speak about the sitter.

One of the students asked about the objects and why he had chosen tom use certain ones and removed others. In the background you can see a small painting just to the left of other painting and placed directly in front of the shuttered window running up the edge of the photograph, these are the windows that lined the left wall that provided the light for the image (the shutters were all open on that left wall. Back to the small painting, left behind by a painting student from an evening class.

Arnold asked me after taking the image and to help him speak to the 'clutter' behind me. I walked over and picked up the small painting and handed to that person asking him what it reminded him of? I then said, it looks an awful lot like a portion of Marcel Duchamp's Magnus opus The Great Glass, a detail titled The Bachelors or The Nine Malic Molds.

Arnold roared with mirth, "You found me out!" I looked at the student and admitted that I ws heavily influenced by Duchamp.

He and I were having such a bit of fun, he kept telling me not to smile as this was to be a serious image. Arnold was such a warm happy guy. You couldn't help but like him.

Side note, after printing the image I did the final crop into a rectangle that mimicked the shape of the drawing board resting on the central painting easel, this I did myself, Arnold had no control over the decision to crop the image in this way.

"Clearly, they are the work of a formidable p... (show quote)

Arnold Newman is one of my favorite photographers. After seeing his work and meeting him on 3 separate occasions in New York, I began shooting many of my portraits with wide angle lenses and including pertinent elements in the background. Many other prominent portraitists like Al Gilbert of Toronto, Canada and William McIntosh incorporated his influence in their styles.

Mr. Newman was a lovely man. Al too, was one of my most influential teachers, sadly he also passed away recently. I never considered Newman's portraits totally
untraditional. His lightg and use of light was quite classical. The Krupp image has 2 vey classic kickers, a method often employed by Yousuf Karsh. His uniqueness, to me, was his incredible characterization of his subjects and the storytelling aspect in his background usage. I don't remember if it was Newman's own remark or someone else's is that Krupp, the German Industrialist, in his portrait looks like on of his own machines or part of his own factory.

Your portrait is awesome!

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

E.L.. Shapiro wrote:

Arnold Newman is one of my favorite photographers. After seeing his work and meeting him on 3 separate occasions in New York, I began shooting many of my portraits with wide angle lenses and including pertinent elements in the background. Many other prominent portraitists like Al Gilbert of Toronto, Canada and William McIntosh incorporated his influence in their styles.

Mr. Newman was a lovely man. Al too, was one of my most influential teachers, sadly he also passed away recently.

Yes, I totally agree!
I did have a minor issue with Arnold and he disagreed with me but my Mother Thelma told me that I was soooo correct, that was, Listing tom Arnold was like talking to my Father! LOL!!! I loved both of those guys, and both loved sweets!

Haydon

Bipod wrote:

* no modeling lights

This isn't entirely true. The 600EX-RT linked with a custom function [DOF button] allows a short burst showing you how the light will fall. It can also be triggered on the speedlight itself. Canon cameras after 2011 are capable of this feature but it's not nearly as good as a continuous modelling light. It is better than nothing but you have to be careful in use, otherwise it can overheat.

https://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/tipsandtricks/4312.do

I started out with speedlights and an umbrella [dirt cheap modifier & soft light] to get my feet wet. I'm glad I took baby steps before purchasing dedicated monolights.

Bipod

Haydon wrote:

This isn't entirely true. The 600EX-RT linked with... (show quote)

Thanks good to know. Thanks!

But as you say, a short flash isn't nearly as good as a continous modelng light.

Bipod

Timmers wrote:

"Clearly, they are the work of a formidable photographer who
cares deeply about portraiture."

I'm not posting to beat on or bring malice upon anyone, yet I feel compelled to set the record straight on Arnold Newman, a dear and close friend of mine.

Just to get everyone up to speed, Arnold Newman passed away several years ago, so he can not 'care' about anything, but he did care a lot, mostly his family as he was a true humanist.

To set the record straight, Arnold stated on numerous occasions that he did not care one iota about portraiture, he did care and was caring about the person(s) that he photographed.

That is why he stated over and over that the main 'thing' in portrait photography was to learn about the person who you are photographing, their life, family and beliefs and then to present that person as to who and what they were.

In books, lectures and as a teacher of groups and individuals, he emphasized that craft was of minor importance, gear even less so, the important issue was that the image created must tell us something about that person or the work is a failure.

I am posting this my portrait done by Arnold. I was seated in front of a dozen students, Arnold was standing to the side of my 4X5 Linhof Kardan Bi camera with 210 Red Dot Artar lens, set on a tripod, Tri-X film (that I had to water bath to develop, the tricky devil did it on purpose!). To the left of the scene were eight foot tall windows and Arnold seated me close to the wall on the right, whish was painted semi gloss white and acted like a huge reflector. The 'cutter' in the background was there but he arranged that clutter to speak about the sitter.

One of the students asked about the objects and why he had chosen tom use certain ones and removed others. In the background you can see a small painting just to the left of other painting and placed directly in front of the shuttered window running up the edge of the photograph, these are the windows that lined the left wall that provided the light for the image (the shutters were all open on that left wall. Back to the small painting, left behind by a painting student from an evening class.

Arnold asked me after taking the image and to help him speak to the 'clutter' behind me. I walked over and picked up the small painting and handed to that person asking him what it reminded him of? I then said, it looks an awful lot like a portion of Marcel Duchamp's Magnus opus The Great Glass, a detail titled The Bachelors or The Nine Malic Molds.

Arnold roared with mirth, "You found me out!" I looked at the student and admitted that I ws heavily influenced by Duchamp.

He and I were having such a bit of fun, he kept telling me not to smile as this was to be a serious image. Arnold was such a warm happy guy. You couldn't help but like him.

Side note, after printing the image I did the final crop into a rectangle that mimicked the shape of the drawing board resting on the central painting easel, this I did myself, Arnold had no control over the decision to crop the image in this way.

"Clearly, they are the work of a formidable p... (show quote)

Thanks for sharing the reminiscence.

Now let me "set the record straight": nobody takes hundreds of portraits unless they
care about portraits. Of course, a photographer may say he doesn't--fine. If that's a
way of being humble, then its admirable. (But every politician says he only wants to
"serve the People"--which in most cases ain't being entirely frank.)

Folks who only care about people don't become photographers or painters--they become
nurses, teachers or firemen.

But I think your real point was that you knew the Great Man and he was you Close Personal
Friend. Got it. The usual way to say this is "he gave me a backstage pass with his own
hands!".

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Bipod wrote:

Thanks for sharing the reminiscence. br br Now le... (show quote)

Ok by me, much of what I have experienced in my life is clearly beyond the scope of others lives and sharing the experiences is of no value to people on the HOG. Perhaps there is something beyond a dictionary definition of what Newman was doing, just like the statement by Man Ray that photography is not art. A signal is sent but maybe we have no ears to hear? To quote Duchamp, "You can see seeing, you can't hear hearing".

Bipod

Timmers wrote:

Ok by me, much of what I have experienced in my life is clearly beyond the scope of others lives and sharing the experiences is of no value to people on the HOG. Perhaps there is something beyond a dictionary definition of what Newman was doing, just like the statement by Man Ray that photography is not art. A signal is sent but maybe we have no ears to hear? To quote Duchamp, "You can see seeing, you can't hear hearing".

Look, the plain fact is that fashion photography has influenced portraiture.
We don't need to go to the extreme of posing our sitters with a boa constrictor
(like Rirchard Avedon did with Nastassja Kinsky), but we can't go back to
"traditional classic portrature" either.

Basically, something is a visual art if people (especially collectors and
museums) put in a frame and hang it on the wall, and are willing to pay
a lot for it. (More than for wallpaper, anyway.)

If you are making Cubist, Dada, or Conceptual photographs--or "found"
photographs-- then fine: quote Ducahmp. But don't quote him in support of
utilitarian, made-for-hire portraiture. He despised it.

Experience is just that. Columbus discovered the New World--quite an
accomplishment. But he thought he was in India---big screw-up. And he
did it with the stated goal of making money for the Spanish Crown -- which
failed, but eventually led to the Conquistadores. So he used to be a saint,
but he's not now.

The truth (or falsity) of a proposition is independent of who says it.

Timmers Loc: San Antonio Texas.

Bipod wrote:

If you are making Cubist, Dada, or Conceptual photographs--or "found"
photographs-- then fine: quote Ducahmp. But don't quote him in support of
utilitarian, made-for-hire portraiture. He despised it.

The truth (or falsity) of a proposition is independent of who says it.

Well, lets stay on task and get our notions correct, at least in the arts.
"He despised it." The only issue for Duchamp was taste, He though it pretentious to make distinctions between what was labeled good and bad taste.
"Utilitarian", really? So where do you place the series of 'ready mades'. The Bottle Rack (Bottle Drier), or the "In Advance of the Broken Arm".

"The truth (or falsity) of a proposition is independent of who says it."
This is just not defensible. Back to Duchamp, if he championed an artist work then the art critics, collectors and artists changed their position and attitude 100%, thus he rarely gave such opinions. Case in point, 'Mobiles' by Alexander Calder, which Duchamp gave the name Mobil to his style of sculpture. Notably the larges shift was when Duchamp gave the nod to an obscure painter Jackson Pollock, over night everyone changed their opinion of Pollock.

What also became critical was Duchamp's deep and abiding relationship with the artist Man Ray. They defined for artists and the arts an area which falls into what is loosely called collaboration. One of the single most critical turning points for the history of art and what became known as the art form Cubism. that which help define the notion of modern art. It was the collaboration between Braque, Duchamp and Man Ray that defined the evolution of that art form. Picasso was a part of the Cubist Form on the periphery, as was Juan Gris to an even lesser extent.