Being photographed is not something I have thought much about. I have always felt that part of photographing someone is to show who they are, what their present condition is, what is motivating them—generally something that whomever looks at the photograph will be able to understand about them. It seems that often these photographs are inspiring by either the virtue or the disgust they represent. It is hard for me to objectively say what it is about me that is photographable. Should it be something that portrays my positive aspects or my negatives? What should it say about me? How can one photograph tell my story? Am I so full of myself that I think there is way too much to tell in a single photograph?
Portraits don’t often make me feel any particular way. When I look at a portrait, I think more about the fact that I am being told that this person or moment or situation is important and that I should have an emotional reaction to it. But I typically don’t. I think more about what the photograph isn’t saying and is likely omitting to make a concise story. I’m more interested in the process surrounding the creation of the portrait than the actual portrait.
I think the editing of information is what is often interesting. The edit is what makes the new story. Similarly, the medium of film has similar issues when it comes to documentaries and other narrative formats. What isn’t being said? Why not? Should I trust this depiction? I am unsure if it is possible to ever represent something while maintaining the reality of the thing itself.
The portrait, like a documentary, creates its own story, separate from the exact reality of the subject. That’s why it is interesting. I don’t need to trust the depiction by the photograph, I just need to accept it as it own reality. So then, if a photograph of me won’t tell my whole story, or possibly even tell a lie, then I am not sure if it even matters who photographs me. If I am unrelated to the eventual product, then the photographer can do whatever they want with me.
I am not really interested in who photographs me, because they will do whatever they want with my depiction. Should Robert Mapplethorpe investigate my sexuality or fetishes? Sure. Will Nan Goldin be interested in creating portraits of me after an awful experience? I don’t know that they happen often enough. Would John Coplans enjoy documenting someone else’s body? Probably not.
This isn’t to say that I would feel comfortable about being photographed or allowing others to see them, but as a subject I don’t have any control over the way I am represented. A single photo has at times both ruined lives and brought others together, started wars and ended them, created scandals and exonerated the accused. It is often unknown if the reality depicted is the reality they represent, but sooner or later it doesn’t seem to matter. A photographer, like other representational artists, generates their own story. It is not up to the things they photograph to generate it for them.
My ffffound
