The idea of ‘self’

Self portrait is a unique theme in photography, usually one that is personal to the photographer. Items and objects when used to represent something can promote self reflection and self investigation through photography. There is a direct link between photography and how it influences us in our idea of the development of self. Imagery within the bracket of self portraiture can often make us respond with questions like:

-who are we?

-what is the message in the image that I can relate to?

-How do we relate it to our personal history?

-Are self portraits just for artists?

-What is work connected to?

-Photographers method and process?

-How far can you communicate with ides of self portrait?

The hybrid nature of self portrait is a multi disciplined technology, the unique aspect of which allows the artist the opportunity for self reflection using the work as a tool for investigation. But to understand an artists self portrait do you have to be an artist? To a certain extent I would say yes, but only where objects are concerned. Well mainly what they symbolise, then again anyone can draw conclusions from the representation in the image. Usually we reflect on images with a personal intervention on our own experience and memory, a photograph can effect anyone no matter their background. I just suppose a background and knowledge of symbolism could help, as someone who doesn’t make imagery could be at a loss.

The composition plays a key part in bridging the gap between identity and representation. Staging for example plays a part in our reading as it allows clues. For example Sarah Lucas’s work that I looked at under the theme of metaphor and allegory is a perfect example of how staging influences our reading of an image. The masculinity in her pose and he general attitude toward the camera challenges stereotypical roles of gender. The open pose alludes confidence but also shows an air of venerability about her, of being exposed in front of the camera.

Sarah Lucas ‘Self Portrait with a Cup of Tea’ 1993

More often than not in photography the photographer becomes the subject, acting out ideals that are generated through a practise based setting which allows the audience to directly connect with the image. Most photographers create versions of persona being playful with how the photograph can elaborate on the notion of identity and our sense of self. By placing something theatrical, or using physical props that we can make a connection with through symbolism. This alludes to a strong conceptual ideal of the photographer and tests the audience to make a connection with the image. Today’s technology in photography can represent a number of things; which we are lucky to have; including: Performance, Situation, Narrative, Tests of process, Self reflection and a nuanced gesture to camera devised through photographic training.

What interests me is that there are a few photographers out there that attempt self portraiture without being the subject themselves. Like Laurence Demaison. Using self portraiture to emanate the overall feeling of ‘self’ in the viewer. A self reflection that I want to promote in my photography of objects and the relationships we place on them. Time alters both the technology and the reading of a piece. Through changing technology and cultural references it is sure that people of this century will read a photograph differently to that of an 19th century person.  What will people think of images in the future?

Npg.org.uk, (2015). National Portrait Gallery – Sarah Lucas Self-Portraits. [online] Available at: http://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/display/2011/sarah-lucas-self-portraits.php [Accessed 10th Mar. 2015].

Vanitas Paintings.

Our recent trip to the National Gallery in London fuelled my research into these Vanitas paintings. Upon looking into some of the historical portraits I saw I came across an interesting fact; that in the 17th and 18th century portrait artists used to paint objects to keep their skill in whilst waiting for commissions.

More often than not they would represent their subject using a range of  objects in a painting that resembles still life. These objects each held their own symbolism or range of meanings:

Pieter Claesz Vanitas Martwa Natura 1625

• Skull: Death, this is a clear memento mori message or the transience of life, a universally recognized symbol of death.
• Watch or hourglass: time is limited and is passing, therefore, use it wisely.  See a typical one-handle XVII century watch at the lower right of the photo.
• Books: Human knowledge and its temporary nature.
• Artist’s instruments e.g. Palette, brushes, easel: Indulgence in the arts, very few could afford to be painters let alone patronize the arts.
• Shell: they were normally exotic ones not commonly available in the Netherlands. They were a symbol of the vanity that comes with wealth, as these were exotic items at the time, only a very wealthy person would have one of those.
• Insects, decaying flowers: transience of life. They were inserted in paintings depicting expensive objects as a reminder that life is temporary and moral considerations deserved more attention than material things.
• Broken or tipped over glassware: transience of life or life is fleeting.
• Musical instruments: indulgence of the senses as a luxury. Sometimes they are present as artistic inspiration, as music would inspire artists.
• Silk or velvet tablecloths: vanity, as these were expensive things. Silk being the ultimate fabric material and purple the most expensive dye, hence the Roman emperors wore purple tunics.
• Oriental rugs or carpets:  These were prohibitively expensive items, carpets were placed on tables to avoid stepping on them and causing decay in their colors or integrity. They were a symbol of wealth but also a sign of pride as they were items brought into the United Provinces through trade and commerce.
• Jewelry, clothes or mirrors: remember the temporary nature of beauty, wealth and wisdom. Earthly riches are temporary and therefore life should be carried out according to the modesty traditions that were in place at the time.
• Mirror: a clear symbol of the vanity that should be avoided.
• Jars: Stoneware or porcelain were used for water or oil, both substance sustain life at the time.

(Sourced from http://levinrodriguez.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/symbolic-meaning-of-objects-used-in.html)

The image above is one painted by Pieter Claesz in 1625 and from the information above we can begin to read the painting. Noting that the subject he was representing was both wealthy due to the compass which signifies that he was well travelled and the pen and paper which meant he could read and write. Something that at the time only the wealthy could do. The skull and the flower represents his mortality. The fact that we select objects upon which to place these narrative is what I am intrigued by. This notion was born in the 17th century and is still present today in the relationship we have with our affects.

This unique depiction of human life has defined people for centuries. And I can’t help but connect this historical technique to what I am exploring within this project for portraiture. Picking objects to show their representation of humans. Having the symbolism defined here is essential to the objects I select. Taking them out of context as the painter does is also something I want to be playful with.

Rodriguez, Levin. ‘..The Berkemeyer Project..: Symbolic Meaning Of Objects Used In Vanitas Paintings’. Levinrodriguez.blogspot.co.uk. N.p., 2012. Web. 18 Feb. 2015.

National Gallery, London, Visited 4th February 2015

Within the faded element.

Clare Hewitt ‘Charlotte Ritchie’, The Independent Magazine, May 2014

One of the more interesting images I have seen is by Clare Hewitt. I adore how she uses layers to explore the identity of her subject. Hewitt had a rather strange introduction to photography, studying a Law at degree level before changing her path completely to commercial photography. She is another photographer who makes a living from her skill. Clients include The Independent Magazine and The Telegraph Magazine among others. As well as winning the Taylor Wessing Portrait prize in 2013. Renowned for her portrait photography she has been commissioned for many celebrity profiles, including the one of Charlotte Ritchie above. Taking contextual references from paintings it is the done thing for the subject to not make eye contact. Even in both layers eye contact with the viewer is not made. This composition of facing away makes the layers even more evident even though they are subtle. Her indicative layers are something that inspires me most. The way in which the clearer image is framed far away and the faint layer is the one in which the subject fills the frame gives a drifting feel. Like the audience becomes disconnected. Trapped between who this actress is and her various personalities. Possibly a preconception that actresses have to remain dethatched from reality when playing a role. Or just a change in what Hewitt is used too. Much like the work of Emma Tunbridge who explains that she strives fro different framing and angles in order to keep her commercial work interesting. However, no matter why she uses layers, its what drew me to her work as layers are something I want to experiment in using within my own work. To capture a personality or different sides of a person within one frame. Of what is hidden in the faded elements. How we as an audience can read between the lines and layers.

Hewitt, Clare, http://clarehewitt.co.uk/portraits-2/ online source visited 26^th January 2015