WEBVTT
1
00:00:06.480 --> 00:00:07.560
Welcome everybody.
2
00:00:07.560 --> 00:00:11.790
It's wonderful to see you here in person and online.
3
00:00:11.790 --> 00:00:14.150
So I would also like to acknowledge the Ngunnawal
4
00:00:14.150 --> 00:00:18.240
and Ngambri peoples, the traditional owners of the land,
5
00:00:18.240 --> 00:00:20.460
and pay my respects to the elders past,
6
00:00:20.460 --> 00:00:22.530
present, and emerging.
7
00:00:22.530 --> 00:00:25.620
I'd also like to extend that welcome to any Aboriginal
8
00:00:25.620 --> 00:00:28.380
and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the audience,
9
00:00:28.380 --> 00:00:30.333
either here or online.
10
00:00:31.530 --> 00:00:36.530
So, would you mind those who are here just raising your hand
11
00:00:38.490 --> 00:00:41.340 line:15%
if you've already had a chance to look at the exhibition?
12
00:00:42.936 --> 00:00:44.550 line:15%
Okay, so a lot of you will be familiar
13
00:00:44.550 --> 00:00:46.200 line:15%
with the works I'm going to show.
14
00:00:47.280 --> 00:00:49.350 line:15%
So as you may know then,
15
00:00:49.350 --> 00:00:52.620 line:15%
the exhibition Shakespeare to Winehouse
16
00:00:52.620 --> 00:00:55.770 line:15%
is organised according to themes.
17
00:00:55.770 --> 00:00:59.430 line:15%
And to quote the catalogue, these themes are regarded
18
00:00:59.430 --> 00:01:02.340 line:15%
as being intrinsic to portraiture.
19
00:01:02.340 --> 00:01:07.340 line:15%
So they're identified as fame, identity, self, innovation,
20
00:01:09.420 --> 00:01:11.883 line:15%
power, love, and loss.
21
00:01:12.900 --> 00:01:15.930
I'm gonna touch on some of these themes in passing,
22
00:01:15.930 --> 00:01:18.720
but I'm not going to deal with them in any depth
23
00:01:18.720 --> 00:01:22.230
because what I want to do today is put the photographs
24
00:01:22.230 --> 00:01:24.930
in the exhibition into context.
25
00:01:24.930 --> 00:01:29.930
I'm going to pose three questions and we'll go through them.
26
00:01:30.180 --> 00:01:31.950
This is the way I've structured the talk
27
00:01:31.950 --> 00:01:33.240
around these questions.
28
00:01:33.240 --> 00:01:35.760
And then there's going to be a more open section
29
00:01:35.760 --> 00:01:39.810
where I'm going to discuss other issues right at the end.
30
00:01:39.810 --> 00:01:43.470
So the first question is pretty straightforward one,
31
00:01:43.470 --> 00:01:47.250
and that is how do the photographs in the exhibition relate
32
00:01:47.250 --> 00:01:50.350
to the history and practise of portraiture?
33
00:01:50.350 --> 00:01:52.470
And then the second question is,
34
00:01:52.470 --> 00:01:55.500
well, what do the photographic portraits do
35
00:01:55.500 --> 00:01:57.810
that works in other media don't?
36
00:01:57.810 --> 00:02:00.213
So that's more about how are they different.
37
00:02:01.380 --> 00:02:03.660
And related to that, what's unique
38
00:02:03.660 --> 00:02:06.540
about some of the photographic portraits on display?
39
00:02:06.540 --> 00:02:09.120
So we will take our time and look at a few of them
40
00:02:09.120 --> 00:02:10.800
in more depth.
41
00:02:10.800 --> 00:02:12.300
And then in the last part,
42
00:02:12.300 --> 00:02:14.820
this more open ended part of my talk.
43
00:02:14.820 --> 00:02:17.070
I'm going to look at the interrelationship
44
00:02:17.070 --> 00:02:20.010
between private and public space,
45
00:02:20.010 --> 00:02:23.040
which can be seen in the photographs in the exhibition.
46
00:02:23.040 --> 00:02:25.260
But not only in the exhibition,
47
00:02:25.260 --> 00:02:28.920
this applies really much more to portraiture generally.
48
00:02:28.920 --> 00:02:33.600
So I'm going to refer to a few other examples of portraiture
49
00:02:33.600 --> 00:02:38.190
that are in the national photographic portrait prize,
50
00:02:38.190 --> 00:02:41.610
and also in the NPGs collection.
51
00:02:41.610 --> 00:02:43.563
Most of these works are on display.
52
00:02:44.565 --> 00:02:47.520
Now, what I have to tell you at the outset is that
53
00:02:47.520 --> 00:02:50.970
this exhibition has really strict copyright provisions.
54
00:02:50.970 --> 00:02:54.090
And so I'm not able to show you some of the photographs
55
00:02:54.090 --> 00:02:56.940
that I really want to draw your attention to.
56
00:02:56.940 --> 00:02:59.100
And it means what we're going to do,
57
00:02:59.100 --> 00:03:00.660
I'm gonna try something else instead,
58
00:03:00.660 --> 00:03:04.050
which is use a limited number of the photographic portraits
59
00:03:04.050 --> 00:03:07.200
that are in the show, but we'll keep coming back to them.
60
00:03:07.200 --> 00:03:09.000
So we'll repeat them,
61
00:03:09.000 --> 00:03:11.940
but they will be thinking about them in different contexts,
62
00:03:11.940 --> 00:03:14.550
because of course they relate individually
63
00:03:14.550 --> 00:03:16.950
to some of those questions that I'm posing.
64
00:03:16.950 --> 00:03:19.780
And then I'm hoping that what I'm raising for you
65
00:03:19.780 --> 00:03:23.160
would be transferable skills that once you've looked
66
00:03:23.160 --> 00:03:26.160
at this, you'll be able to go into the other exhibitions
67
00:03:26.160 --> 00:03:29.220
that are on display, including Shakespeare to Winehouse,
68
00:03:29.220 --> 00:03:30.720
and apply some of the things
69
00:03:30.720 --> 00:03:32.763
that we are going to be talking about.
70
00:03:33.870 --> 00:03:36.210
So let's begin then with this first question
71
00:03:36.210 --> 00:03:38.910
relating to the history of portraiture.
72
00:03:38.910 --> 00:03:41.310
And we're very lucky in one sense
73
00:03:41.310 --> 00:03:45.540
that because the exhibition isn't organised chronologically
74
00:03:45.540 --> 00:03:49.260
or according to media, 'cause there's different ways
75
00:03:49.260 --> 00:03:51.150
you can organise the show
76
00:03:51.150 --> 00:03:55.080
and the national photographic portraiture award,
77
00:03:55.080 --> 00:03:58.140
if you think about that, of course it's just photographs.
78
00:03:58.140 --> 00:03:59.670
It's specific to medium.
79
00:03:59.670 --> 00:04:01.440
Where Shakespeare to Winehouse
80
00:04:01.440 --> 00:04:04.230
is what we call an integrated hang.
81
00:04:04.230 --> 00:04:08.850
So you see paintings, you see prints, you see photographs,
82
00:04:08.850 --> 00:04:11.160
you've got a whole range of media in there.
83
00:04:11.160 --> 00:04:12.750
But as you would expect,
84
00:04:12.750 --> 00:04:16.079
because it is a show that's gotten historical sweep,
85
00:04:16.079 --> 00:04:20.853
you'll find that the dominant medium is oil painting.
86
00:04:22.140 --> 00:04:25.530
Shakespeare here, as an example, obviously of that.
87
00:04:25.530 --> 00:04:29.119 line:15%
And then this, which I think is absolutely stunning.
88
00:04:29.119 --> 00:04:31.830 line:15%
That has to be my takeaway painting.
89
00:04:31.830 --> 00:04:33.450 line:15%
I think that is so extraordinary.
90
00:04:33.450 --> 00:04:34.650 line:15%
The Capel family,
91
00:04:34.650 --> 00:04:37.110 line:15%
one of the richest families in England at the time.
92
00:04:37.110 --> 00:04:41.370 line:15%
And don't you just know it just from looking at that setup,
93
00:04:41.370 --> 00:04:43.623 line:15%
but how beautifully executed it is.
94
00:04:44.880 --> 00:04:47.160 line:15%
Okay, so it means then that
95
00:04:47.160 --> 00:04:49.230 line:15%
when we are looking at Shakespeare to Winehouse,
96
00:04:49.230 --> 00:04:52.290 line:15%
we'll see these photographs in the context
97
00:04:52.290 --> 00:04:56.703 line:15%
of these other works, other examples of portraiture.
98
00:04:57.810 --> 00:05:00.150 line:15%
So some things become clear straight away.
99
00:05:00.150 --> 00:05:03.660 line:15%
And that is that the photograph centre are just in dialogue
100
00:05:03.660 --> 00:05:05.411 line:15%
with portraiture generally, regardless of what medium,
101
00:05:05.411 --> 00:05:09.870 line:15%
the portraits have been executed in.
102
00:05:09.870 --> 00:05:13.170
So there is a shared visual vocabulary and operation.
103
00:05:13.170 --> 00:05:14.162
And you can ask yourself, oh,
104
00:05:14.162 --> 00:05:17.160
what do they have in common with the other ones, You know?
105
00:05:17.160 --> 00:05:19.080
And then what is different?
106
00:05:19.080 --> 00:05:22.350
But it means that any photographer making a portrait
107
00:05:22.350 --> 00:05:26.100
like any painter, is engaging with well established
108
00:05:26.100 --> 00:05:27.510
historical conventions.
109
00:05:27.510 --> 00:05:29.130
You cannot get away from them
110
00:05:29.130 --> 00:05:31.140
'cause we're surrounded by portraiture.
111
00:05:31.140 --> 00:05:34.491
We know we're carrying consciously and unconsciously with us
112
00:05:34.491 --> 00:05:37.890
a knowledge about how portraiture works.
113
00:05:37.890 --> 00:05:40.470
And so what you'll see straight off is that
114
00:05:40.470 --> 00:05:44.940 line:15%
the photographic portraits also favour
115
00:05:44.940 --> 00:05:46.923 line:15%
a head and shoulders view.
116
00:05:46.923 --> 00:05:51.923 line:15%
There are very few that are full body, full pose.
117
00:05:52.140 --> 00:05:57.140 line:15%
You'll see much more the face or down to the middle.
118
00:05:57.270 --> 00:06:00.971 line:15%
So that's the preference, is head and shoulders view.
119
00:06:00.971 --> 00:06:03.150 line:15%
And then of course, because they portraits
120
00:06:03.150 --> 00:06:05.700 line:15%
attention being directed to the face,
121
00:06:05.700 --> 00:06:08.340 line:15%
and the face is often lit in a way then
122
00:06:08.340 --> 00:06:12.603
that you're going to be able to concentrate on that.
123
00:06:13.530 --> 00:06:16.710 line:15%
So you would know that Mandela was the president
124
00:06:16.710 --> 00:06:21.210
of South Africa. And then this young woman you would know
125
00:06:21.210 --> 00:06:25.410
as a activist for the education of young girls.
126
00:06:25.410 --> 00:06:29.290
She was shot by a member of the Taliban
127
00:06:30.660 --> 00:06:32.220
when she was still at school.
128
00:06:32.220 --> 00:06:36.210
Now she lives in England, where she was born in Pakistan.
129
00:06:36.210 --> 00:06:39.990
So why have this here is to show you not just the head
130
00:06:39.990 --> 00:06:44.550
and shoulders view, but also this other common thing
131
00:06:44.550 --> 00:06:47.521
to all the portraits there that we see.
132
00:06:47.521 --> 00:06:52.170
And it's this sense of gravity, of seriousness.
133
00:06:52.170 --> 00:06:54.510
There's very little in the exhibition
134
00:06:54.510 --> 00:06:57.540
in the photographic range that is really lighthearted.
135
00:06:57.540 --> 00:07:00.330
Sure there's a photograph of the grinning Beatles,
136
00:07:00.330 --> 00:07:01.920
early on in their career.
137
00:07:01.920 --> 00:07:05.670
But generally the tone is more serious than that.
138
00:07:05.670 --> 00:07:09.060
Now that's not surprising because of the subjects
139
00:07:09.060 --> 00:07:11.940
and because of the national portrait gallery in London,
140
00:07:11.940 --> 00:07:15.870
its brief is to collect portraits of eminent people.
141
00:07:15.870 --> 00:07:18.540
So, we are obviously going to expect
142
00:07:18.540 --> 00:07:20.430
that many imminent people are going to want
143
00:07:20.430 --> 00:07:23.010
to present themselves very seriously.
144
00:07:23.010 --> 00:07:25.502
And it means that smiles are very rare.
145
00:07:25.502 --> 00:07:28.170
Half a smile, perhaps from lady Diana,
146
00:07:28.170 --> 00:07:31.743
but generally very few smiles.
147
00:07:33.840 --> 00:07:35.840
So what they also have in common then
148
00:07:35.840 --> 00:07:39.060 line:15%
is this real self-consciousness imposed
149
00:07:39.060 --> 00:07:41.100 line:15%
they're what we call formal portraits.
150
00:07:41.100 --> 00:07:44.430 line:15%
They're studied rather than being spontaneous.
151
00:07:44.430 --> 00:07:49.430 line:15%
And this is a great example where the subject
152
00:07:49.680 --> 00:07:51.930 line:15%
Aubrey Beardsley the illustrator,
153
00:07:51.930 --> 00:07:55.740 line:15%
I mean what a profile and to present him as a gargoyle,
154
00:07:55.740 --> 00:07:58.590 line:15%
I mean that's where photographer and subject,
155
00:07:58.590 --> 00:08:00.930 line:15%
maybe they've come up with the idea together.
156
00:08:00.930 --> 00:08:03.300 line:15%
But you'll know those figures of course,
157
00:08:03.300 --> 00:08:07.230 line:15%
that are attached to buildings, especially you'll see them
158
00:08:07.230 --> 00:08:10.200 line:15%
in England and Gothic architecture and so on.
159
00:08:10.200 --> 00:08:12.963 line:15%
So, really self-conscious references.
160
00:08:13.890 --> 00:08:17.182
And then even when settings appear more informal
161
00:08:17.182 --> 00:08:19.200
as in a case like this,
162
00:08:19.200 --> 00:08:23.490 line:15%
because this is a really stunning portrait, I think,
163
00:08:23.490 --> 00:08:27.390 line:15%
of the surrealist artist, Leonora Carrington.
164
00:08:27.390 --> 00:08:30.750 line:15%
There's actually little spontaneity even in that.
165
00:08:30.750 --> 00:08:33.840 line:15%
But note that the photographer here, Lee Miller,
166
00:08:33.840 --> 00:08:36.390 line:15%
her practise was as a documentary photographer.
167
00:08:36.390 --> 00:08:40.470 line:15%
She was someone who was also influenced by surrealism.
168
00:08:40.470 --> 00:08:44.310 line:15%
So the fact that she takes her portrait out of doors
169
00:08:44.310 --> 00:08:47.040 line:15%
is part of her documentary background
170
00:08:47.040 --> 00:08:49.380 line:15%
rather than her being in the studio.
171
00:08:49.380 --> 00:08:51.990 line:15%
But the portrait itself still has a lot of formality
172
00:08:51.990 --> 00:08:52.823 line:15%
about it, doesn't it?
173
00:08:52.823 --> 00:08:54.780 line:15%
And a lot of gravity.
174
00:08:54.780 --> 00:08:57.330 line:15%
So it means then yeah,
175
00:08:57.330 --> 00:09:00.000 line:15%
even when you see these informal settings,
176
00:09:00.000 --> 00:09:03.420 line:15%
there is this level of self-consciousness.
177
00:09:03.420 --> 00:09:05.490 line:15%
Another portrait that's in this vein
178
00:09:05.490 --> 00:09:08.430
is one of the outstanding works in the exhibition,
179
00:09:08.430 --> 00:09:12.570
is by Richard Avedon and it's of the poet W A Jordan.
180
00:09:12.570 --> 00:09:17.220
And where he's standing, is in the street in New York
181
00:09:17.220 --> 00:09:18.720
during a snowfall.
182
00:09:18.720 --> 00:09:23.580
So you have a writer who is not being identified
183
00:09:23.580 --> 00:09:26.310
with his tools of his trade at all.
184
00:09:26.310 --> 00:09:30.150
But as, in one way, you might think part of the people,
185
00:09:30.150 --> 00:09:32.580
but then in another totally separated from them
186
00:09:32.580 --> 00:09:34.530
because he just looms so large
187
00:09:34.530 --> 00:09:39.530
in this rather documentary oriented image.
188
00:09:39.780 --> 00:09:41.880
So make sure you look at that carefully
189
00:09:41.880 --> 00:09:43.173
when you have a chance.
190
00:09:44.040 --> 00:09:47.310 line:15%
So what we do see much more then is that regardless
191
00:09:47.310 --> 00:09:49.830 line:15%
of medium, the portraits are planned,
192
00:09:49.830 --> 00:09:51.510 line:15%
staged, and controlled.
193
00:09:51.510 --> 00:09:54.360 line:15%
And the dominant setting is not outdoors at all
194
00:09:54.360 --> 00:09:56.402 line:15%
it's indoors, and where is it?
195
00:09:56.402 --> 00:09:58.560 line:15%
In the studio, okay?
196
00:09:58.560 --> 00:10:01.050 line:15%
And what great examples these are.
197
00:10:01.050 --> 00:10:05.760 line:15%
So there's two by Dorothy Wilding and this,
198
00:10:07.841 --> 00:10:10.950 line:15%
Anna May Wong was an actress.
199
00:10:10.950 --> 00:10:15.950 line:15%
And I just want you to notice one really important thing
200
00:10:17.280 --> 00:10:19.440 line:15%
about her, which we're gonna come back to.
201
00:10:19.440 --> 00:10:21.390 line:15%
And that is the averted gaze,
202
00:10:21.390 --> 00:10:23.910 line:15%
because here we have still not the full body,
203
00:10:23.910 --> 00:10:25.380 line:15%
it's a longer view,
204
00:10:25.380 --> 00:10:29.811 line:15%
but just note that she isn't looking directly out at you
205
00:10:29.811 --> 00:10:31.860 line:15%
and we'll think about the implications of that later.
206
00:10:31.860 --> 00:10:35.580 line:15%
And then the singer and actor Harry Belafonte.
207
00:10:35.580 --> 00:10:38.640 line:15%
What I would like to direct your attention to here
208
00:10:38.640 --> 00:10:42.810 line:15%
in particular, is how close he is.
209
00:10:42.810 --> 00:10:45.240 line:15%
You could almost reach out and touch him.
210
00:10:45.240 --> 00:10:47.700 line:15%
And yet because of the formality and that
211
00:10:47.700 --> 00:10:51.600 line:15%
in this photograph, which is wonderfully sensuous,
212
00:10:51.600 --> 00:10:54.480 line:15%
he is still in his world and you are in yours.
213
00:10:54.480 --> 00:10:59.480 line:15%
So, there is no direct eye contact with you as the viewer.
214
00:10:59.670 --> 00:11:02.400 line:15%
So there is a kind of distancing going on
215
00:11:02.400 --> 00:11:05.220 line:15%
and that relates to why this talk is titled
216
00:11:05.220 --> 00:11:07.170 line:15%
about changing spaces.
217
00:11:07.170 --> 00:11:10.140 line:15%
You know, think about this interplay
218
00:11:10.140 --> 00:11:11.853 line:15%
between public and private.
219
00:11:13.620 --> 00:11:17.910 line:15%
So the subjects generally in the exhibition,
220
00:11:17.910 --> 00:11:22.890 line:15%
the photographs on display, they do look out of the frame,
221
00:11:22.890 --> 00:11:26.700 line:15%
but we can't always tell if they are looking directly at us,
222
00:11:26.700 --> 00:11:28.050 line:15%
the viewer.
223
00:11:28.050 --> 00:11:30.000 line:15%
Be interesting in a projection where it is
224
00:11:30.000 --> 00:11:31.410 line:15%
you think she's looking,
225
00:11:31.410 --> 00:11:34.140 line:15%
'cause I haven't seen this projected from that angle.
226
00:11:34.140 --> 00:11:35.850 line:15%
But in the exhibition,
227
00:11:35.850 --> 00:11:39.030 line:15%
I feel like she's just looking beyond me, you know?
228
00:11:39.030 --> 00:11:41.040 line:15%
Just slightly beyond.
229
00:11:41.040 --> 00:11:44.400 line:15%
And in that gaze of course, that address to the camera,
230
00:11:44.400 --> 00:11:47.100 line:15%
you get all sorts of things that happen in that space too,
231
00:11:47.100 --> 00:11:49.413 line:15%
about intimacy and distance.
232
00:11:50.550 --> 00:11:54.420 line:15%
So when it comes to considering the works in material terms,
233
00:11:54.420 --> 00:11:58.260 line:15%
as physical objects, you'll also see in the photographs,
234
00:11:58.260 --> 00:12:01.710 line:15%
the persistence of certain portraiture traditions.
235
00:12:01.710 --> 00:12:06.090 line:15%
And one that's immediately obvious relates to scale.
236
00:12:06.090 --> 00:12:09.390 line:15%
Now this is a really large portrait.
237
00:12:09.390 --> 00:12:11.880 line:15%
So it commands your attention from the start.
238
00:12:11.880 --> 00:12:14.430 line:15%
It's what we would call an honorific portrait.
239
00:12:14.430 --> 00:12:17.880 line:15%
It's made to honour the subject and the scale,
240
00:12:17.880 --> 00:12:19.650 line:15%
the size of it is part of that.
241
00:12:19.650 --> 00:12:23.251 line:15%
It's what's alerting you to its importance.
242
00:12:23.251 --> 00:12:28.251 line:15%
And there's a term often used now in artistry,
243
00:12:28.500 --> 00:12:31.170 line:15%
is called the material turn,
244
00:12:31.170 --> 00:12:33.870 line:15%
in art historical or cultural studies.
245
00:12:33.870 --> 00:12:38.130 line:15%
Where we're much more aware of how artworks operate
246
00:12:38.130 --> 00:12:41.430 line:15%
as objects, what their physicality does.
247
00:12:41.430 --> 00:12:45.060 line:15%
And scale, as I say is immediately obvious
248
00:12:45.060 --> 00:12:48.450 line:15%
because all the photographs will be asking you
249
00:12:48.450 --> 00:12:51.750 line:15%
to position yourself somewhere in relation to them.
250
00:12:51.750 --> 00:12:53.880 line:15%
Do you a long way back?
251
00:12:53.880 --> 00:12:56.730 line:15%
Do you need to come really close because it's small
252
00:12:56.730 --> 00:12:58.020 line:15%
and it's more intimate?
253
00:12:58.020 --> 00:13:01.110 line:15%
So as you're going around the exhibition or any exhibition,
254
00:13:01.110 --> 00:13:03.930 line:15%
just note where the optimum viewing position is
255
00:13:03.930 --> 00:13:06.300 line:15%
because it will affect your response,
256
00:13:06.300 --> 00:13:11.130 line:15%
to the way that you respond to the works
257
00:13:11.130 --> 00:13:13.740
that sometimes it's unconscious, you'll just move forward,
258
00:13:13.740 --> 00:13:15.000
other times you'll move back.
259
00:13:15.000 --> 00:13:18.630
But of course the photographer will have taken all that
260
00:13:18.630 --> 00:13:19.620
into account.
261
00:13:19.620 --> 00:13:22.803
They have an idea of where you might be.
262
00:13:24.030 --> 00:13:26.310
So ones like this,
263
00:13:26.310 --> 00:13:30.753
actually they just rival the scale of some of the paintings.
264
00:13:31.650 --> 00:13:35.820
And then also in the exhibition, a really outstanding work,
265
00:13:35.820 --> 00:13:38.610
it's a black and white portrait of the model,
266
00:13:38.610 --> 00:13:41.100
Kate Moss by Mario Sorrenti.
267
00:13:41.100 --> 00:13:45.270
She's nude and of there are references to billboard
268
00:13:45.270 --> 00:13:50.270
and advertising imagery in these large scale works too.
269
00:13:50.310 --> 00:13:52.923
So the next shared factor is patronage.
270
00:13:55.320 --> 00:13:59.393 line:15%
So as with the paintings and works in other media,
271
00:14:00.450 --> 00:14:03.390 line:15%
most of the photographs that you'll see are the result
272
00:14:03.390 --> 00:14:06.570 line:15%
of a commission, they've been taken for a reason.
273
00:14:06.570 --> 00:14:09.408 line:15%
And again, it's usually indicative of the subject's standing
274
00:14:09.408 --> 00:14:12.330 line:15%
in society, their eminence.
275
00:14:12.330 --> 00:14:14.493 line:15%
And you'll also see across the board,
276
00:14:15.720 --> 00:14:20.720 line:15%
famous sitters being paired with famous artists as well.
277
00:14:22.110 --> 00:14:24.990 line:15%
In the photographic term, I can't show you this image,
278
00:14:24.990 --> 00:14:29.280 line:15%
but it's David Bowie is photographed by Lord Snowdon.
279
00:14:29.280 --> 00:14:34.280 line:15%
So you have two people who are very obviously high profile
280
00:14:34.740 --> 00:14:36.690 line:15%
in British society.
281
00:14:36.690 --> 00:14:38.940 line:15%
But the Royal patronage examples,
282
00:14:38.940 --> 00:14:41.520 line:15%
I just wanted to show you then, okay,
283
00:14:41.520 --> 00:14:44.910 line:15%
here's an example from look at the date 1575,
284
00:14:44.910 --> 00:14:46.800 line:15%
quite extraordinary.
285
00:14:46.800 --> 00:14:51.800 line:15%
And then a contemporary example of Royal patronage right?
286
00:14:52.980 --> 00:14:54.030 line:15%
'cause Terence Donovan
287
00:14:54.030 --> 00:14:57.450 line:15%
is another extremely well known photograph.
288
00:14:57.450 --> 00:15:00.303 line:15%
And this is of Diana princess of Wales.
289
00:15:02.100 --> 00:15:05.640 line:15%
Now these subjects then by virtue of being royalty,
290
00:15:05.640 --> 00:15:07.773 line:15%
have a lot of power themselves.
291
00:15:08.610 --> 00:15:12.120 line:15%
They have power in the sense they can also say what they do
292
00:15:12.120 --> 00:15:14.853 line:15%
and don't want, what they will and what will not do.
293
00:15:15.840 --> 00:15:18.570 line:15%
And sometimes they will go further than that,
294
00:15:18.570 --> 00:15:20.490 line:15%
where they'll become active collaborators
295
00:15:20.490 --> 00:15:21.960 line:15%
with their photographer.
296
00:15:21.960 --> 00:15:24.600
Especially those celebrities used to performing
297
00:15:24.600 --> 00:15:25.590
to the camera.
298
00:15:25.590 --> 00:15:27.120
This is an early work of Diana.
299
00:15:27.120 --> 00:15:31.710
So you might say it's more naive or more low key
300
00:15:31.710 --> 00:15:33.120
than perhaps some of the other ones
301
00:15:33.120 --> 00:15:35.580
where she'd be more actively playing with a look
302
00:15:35.580 --> 00:15:37.080
that she wants.
303
00:15:37.080 --> 00:15:40.410
And yet we must remember at the same time
304
00:15:40.410 --> 00:15:42.342
that the subject has power.
305
00:15:42.342 --> 00:15:45.930
That it's not only the photographer then
306
00:15:45.930 --> 00:15:48.480
that is in this relationship with the subject
307
00:15:48.480 --> 00:15:52.230
because really as an R-A-R-E-L-Y,
308
00:15:52.230 --> 00:15:54.060
is it a one-on-one interaction?
309
00:15:54.060 --> 00:15:57.930
Behind the scenes, there'll be all sorts of discussions
310
00:15:57.930 --> 00:16:01.620
going on about the image concept, about styling,
311
00:16:01.620 --> 00:16:04.710
involving hair, dress, jewels and so on.
312
00:16:04.710 --> 00:16:07.110
We know for example, that Margaret Thatcher
313
00:16:07.110 --> 00:16:10.710
she's in the exhibition photographed by Norman Parkinson,
314
00:16:10.710 --> 00:16:14.220
is wearing an outfit that she didn't choose herself.
315
00:16:14.220 --> 00:16:16.710
He chose it for her and that's a power suit
316
00:16:16.710 --> 00:16:19.860
because clearly he wanted to make it obvious
317
00:16:19.860 --> 00:16:22.890
that she had status in standing as the prime minister
318
00:16:22.890 --> 00:16:24.180
in England.
319
00:16:24.180 --> 00:16:26.760
So he said he selected the tailored suit
320
00:16:26.760 --> 00:16:28.890
to suggest the order and deficiency
321
00:16:28.890 --> 00:16:31.590
associated with her public image.
322
00:16:31.590 --> 00:16:33.750
And you'll see this in the painting too.
323
00:16:33.750 --> 00:16:37.440 line:15%
This is where John Millais,
324
00:16:37.440 --> 00:16:42.440 line:15%
he actually discussed with his subject what she should wear.
325
00:16:42.750 --> 00:16:45.870 line:15%
He wanted a dress that would bring out all his skills
326
00:16:45.870 --> 00:16:48.330 line:15%
as a painter, that he could really go to town on,
327
00:16:48.330 --> 00:16:49.863 line:15%
and he has beautifully.
328
00:16:50.940 --> 00:16:54.014 line:15%
So as for the photographers themselves,
329
00:16:54.014 --> 00:16:57.926 line:15%
they would've been fully aware of other photographs
330
00:16:57.926 --> 00:17:00.600 line:15%
taken of their famous subjects.
331
00:17:00.600 --> 00:17:03.450 line:15%
They're already there in their image bank.
332
00:17:03.450 --> 00:17:05.880 line:15%
And they would've been determined to differentiate
333
00:17:05.880 --> 00:17:08.070 line:15%
their work from their competitors
334
00:17:08.070 --> 00:17:11.250 line:15%
because everyone has a particular look as a photographer.
335
00:17:11.250 --> 00:17:13.170 line:15%
You know, David Bailey does work like this,
336
00:17:13.170 --> 00:17:15.060
Lord Snowdon does work like that.
337
00:17:15.060 --> 00:17:17.220 line:15%
So you want your competitive edge
338
00:17:17.220 --> 00:17:20.610 line:15%
'cause it's a very tight market.
339
00:17:20.610 --> 00:17:23.550 line:15%
And yeah, there's a way of perpetuating the look
340
00:17:23.550 --> 00:17:25.803 line:15%
that they become famous for.
341
00:17:26.640 --> 00:17:30.960 line:15%
And this is going to be a photograph I'm using now
342
00:17:30.960 --> 00:17:33.120 line:15%
as our light motif.
343
00:17:33.120 --> 00:17:35.640 line:15%
It's something that we'll keep coming back to.
344
00:17:35.640 --> 00:17:39.600 line:15%
So, this leads me in fact to the second question
345
00:17:39.600 --> 00:17:40.433 line:15%
that I posed,
346
00:17:40.433 --> 00:17:44.910
and that is what do photographic portraits do differently?
347
00:17:44.910 --> 00:17:48.600
We've looked already at how they are similar in a way,
348
00:17:48.600 --> 00:17:52.200
the dialogue they enter into with the traditions
349
00:17:52.200 --> 00:17:54.750
of portraiture more generally.
350
00:17:54.750 --> 00:17:55.953
So crucially,
351
00:17:56.970 --> 00:17:59.163
and this is different to a lot of the other works
352
00:17:59.163 --> 00:18:00.840
that are on display.
353
00:18:00.840 --> 00:18:04.650
The photographs were made predominantly for reproduction
354
00:18:04.650 --> 00:18:08.294
and especially in magazines because in this period
355
00:18:08.294 --> 00:18:11.182
that photography's coming into its own in portraiture
356
00:18:11.182 --> 00:18:12.060
in the 20th century.
357
00:18:12.060 --> 00:18:15.210
But especially in the second half of the 20th century,
358
00:18:15.210 --> 00:18:16.980
magazines are booming.
359
00:18:16.980 --> 00:18:19.260
So you have all the popular magazines like Vogue,
360
00:18:19.260 --> 00:18:21.180
and Harper's Bazaar, and so on.
361
00:18:21.180 --> 00:18:24.120
But you also have those niche magazines in England,
362
00:18:24.120 --> 00:18:26.880
like ID, The Face, and so on.
363
00:18:26.880 --> 00:18:28.920
And that means that these magazines
364
00:18:28.920 --> 00:18:33.920
have been absolutely central to this whole consolidation
365
00:18:33.960 --> 00:18:37.230
and perpetuation, what we call celebrity culture.
366
00:18:37.230 --> 00:18:40.740
They promoted the celebrities are promoted through articles
367
00:18:40.740 --> 00:18:44.550
in the magazines, but also through their advertisements
368
00:18:44.550 --> 00:18:47.100
for fashion, for products, and so on.
369
00:18:47.100 --> 00:18:49.680
But it will help explain when you look at a photograph
370
00:18:49.680 --> 00:18:53.070 line:15%
like this, the strong graphic qualities.
371
00:18:53.070 --> 00:18:55.260 line:15%
Because if you have a photograph that has a whole lot
372
00:18:55.260 --> 00:18:57.480 line:15%
of background stuff going on,
373
00:18:57.480 --> 00:19:00.210 line:15%
it might not have the same visual appeal,
374
00:19:00.210 --> 00:19:02.460 line:15%
the same sort of clarity of emphasis.
375
00:19:02.460 --> 00:19:06.780 line:15%
So you will often find that these celebrity portraits
376
00:19:06.780 --> 00:19:08.310 line:15%
are paired right back.
377
00:19:08.310 --> 00:19:11.610 line:15%
There is not a lot of detail around them.
378
00:19:11.610 --> 00:19:14.400 line:15%
So this brings me to my second point about these.
379
00:19:14.400 --> 00:19:17.087 line:15%
And that is that what you see happening in the second half
380
00:19:17.087 --> 00:19:21.360
of the 20th century, is that the face and fame
381
00:19:21.360 --> 00:19:22.713
become conflated.
382
00:19:23.640 --> 00:19:27.480
All you need for these famous people is their face.
383
00:19:27.480 --> 00:19:30.510
And maybe sometimes the body, especially if they're models,
384
00:19:30.510 --> 00:19:34.320
but you don't need a whole lot of other detail.
385
00:19:34.320 --> 00:19:39.320
And it means then in the exhibition Shakespeare to Winehouse
386
00:19:39.810 --> 00:19:43.800
you will find very few portraits of the genre
387
00:19:43.800 --> 00:19:45.993
that we call environmental portraits.
388
00:19:46.920 --> 00:19:50.490
And what I mean by that is that the, where the subject,
389
00:19:50.490 --> 00:19:54.540
instead of just being with a blank background in a studio,
390
00:19:54.540 --> 00:19:57.090 line:15%
is in a carefully curated setting
391
00:19:57.090 --> 00:19:59.910 line:15%
with props around them, accessories that help establish
392
00:19:59.910 --> 00:20:03.570 line:15%
their occupation and their standing in society.
393
00:20:03.570 --> 00:20:06.300
Because if you look at a painting for example,
394
00:20:06.300 --> 00:20:09.600
now this is extraordinary that we get to see this
395
00:20:09.600 --> 00:20:10.433
in Australia.
396
00:20:10.433 --> 00:20:12.557 line:15%
It's so important in the history of portraiture
397
00:20:12.557 --> 00:20:15.480 line:15%
but in the history of women's art too.
398
00:20:15.480 --> 00:20:19.080 line:15%
We know straight away, oh, she's a painter
399
00:20:19.080 --> 00:20:21.210 line:15%
because all the tools of her trade are there,
400
00:20:21.210 --> 00:20:24.720 line:15%
the chalks, the crayons, the leather bound book.
401
00:20:24.720 --> 00:20:26.973 line:15%
Or something like this,
402
00:20:28.200 --> 00:20:31.440 line:15%
we can tell the painter is giving us all the clues
403
00:20:31.440 --> 00:20:34.440 line:15%
that his subject is an Explorer.
404
00:20:34.440 --> 00:20:37.020 line:15%
One of the most obvious ones in the exhibition,
405
00:20:37.020 --> 00:20:39.303 line:15%
Shakespeare to Winehouse of a boxer.
406
00:20:40.350 --> 00:20:45.060
And this is taken by Don McCullen of the boxer, Frank Bruno,
407
00:20:45.060 --> 00:20:49.680
because he sits on chair, but next to him is a training ring
408
00:20:49.680 --> 00:20:51.570
and his hands are all bandaged,
409
00:20:51.570 --> 00:20:53.340
but they look like boxing gloves.
410
00:20:53.340 --> 00:20:54.780
They make that reference of course,
411
00:20:54.780 --> 00:20:57.090
to the hands and the punching.
412
00:20:57.090 --> 00:21:01.440
So this is an example where detail is all important.
413
00:21:01.440 --> 00:21:05.040
We can tell immediately what the occupation
414
00:21:05.040 --> 00:21:07.410
of a subject like that is.
415
00:21:07.410 --> 00:21:09.330
And stepping away from the exhibition
416
00:21:09.330 --> 00:21:13.950 line:15%
into the NPGs collection, this kind of portrait
417
00:21:13.950 --> 00:21:18.180 line:15%
by Greg Weight of the painter Suzie Petyarre,
418
00:21:18.180 --> 00:21:20.370 line:15%
so you know straight away she's a painter.
419
00:21:20.370 --> 00:21:24.125 line:15%
Everything is in there to tell you about that.
420
00:21:24.125 --> 00:21:28.260 line:15%
But in fact, what is much more typical in the exhibition
421
00:21:28.260 --> 00:21:30.690 line:15%
are these kinds of portraits
422
00:21:30.690 --> 00:21:33.540 line:15%
for reasons that I've already explained.
423
00:21:33.540 --> 00:21:36.300
We know David Beckham is a footballer,
424
00:21:36.300 --> 00:21:38.760
but he's also described as a model.
425
00:21:38.760 --> 00:21:41.700
But we don't, all we need is the face in the body.
426
00:21:41.700 --> 00:21:45.540
There are no props, none of his commercial products
427
00:21:45.540 --> 00:21:46.950
in the image there.
428
00:21:46.950 --> 00:21:49.650
And Jagger, Mick Jagger and David Bowie,
429
00:21:49.650 --> 00:21:53.070
likewise in the exhibition, there's no instruments in sight.
430
00:21:53.070 --> 00:21:54.330
They're not needed.
431
00:21:54.330 --> 00:21:57.690
And then a great example, you'll be able to go and see this
432
00:21:57.690 --> 00:22:00.600 line:15%
in the first introductory room in the portrait gallery
433
00:22:00.600 --> 00:22:04.110 line:15%
is Robin Sellick portrait of the late Shane Warne.
434
00:22:04.110 --> 00:22:06.630 line:15%
Now, if you came from outer space
435
00:22:06.630 --> 00:22:08.850 line:15%
and you came across this image,
436
00:22:08.850 --> 00:22:11.010 line:15%
you are not going to know he's a cricketer, right?
437
00:22:11.010 --> 00:22:12.960 line:15%
There is just nothing in there
438
00:22:12.960 --> 00:22:15.232 line:15%
that gives you that information.
439
00:22:15.232 --> 00:22:20.220 line:15%
If you come from Australia, you already know from that face,
440
00:22:20.220 --> 00:22:24.090 line:15%
that's been in the news countless times,
441
00:22:24.090 --> 00:22:26.940 line:15%
that was advertising hair product and so on that,
442
00:22:26.940 --> 00:22:29.460 line:15%
that is Warnie.
443
00:22:29.460 --> 00:22:32.280 line:15%
And notice the halo like effect
444
00:22:32.280 --> 00:22:34.110 line:15%
that he has created around there.
445
00:22:34.110 --> 00:22:36.180 line:15%
So that helps you understand
446
00:22:36.180 --> 00:22:38.370 line:15%
that this is an important subject.
447
00:22:38.370 --> 00:22:41.400 line:15%
I mean, he's just booming out of that image
448
00:22:41.400 --> 00:22:42.660 line:15%
through the light,
449
00:22:42.660 --> 00:22:45.813 line:15%
the kind of propulsion that is coming through it.
450
00:22:46.650 --> 00:22:50.253 line:15%
So, compared to the old days,
451
00:22:50.253 --> 00:22:54.750 line:15%
if you think of something like this,
452
00:22:54.750 --> 00:22:58.560 line:15%
where there is so much information and detail
453
00:22:58.560 --> 00:23:02.850 line:15%
to make it clear to you that this is a person of status.
454
00:23:02.850 --> 00:23:06.090 line:15%
This is a person has the reputation.
455
00:23:06.090 --> 00:23:09.180 line:15%
And it's interesting to contrast it with something like this
456
00:23:09.180 --> 00:23:13.336 line:15%
now, where it's so much more paired down.
457
00:23:13.336 --> 00:23:15.900 line:15%
Certainly I think those earrings to me,
458
00:23:15.900 --> 00:23:19.440 line:15%
they have the sense of expense.
459
00:23:19.440 --> 00:23:20.910 line:15%
Like they look valuable to me
460
00:23:20.910 --> 00:23:23.790 line:15%
and I'm sure they're precious stones.
461
00:23:23.790 --> 00:23:26.700 line:15%
And I couldn't resist bringing this one in,
462
00:23:26.700 --> 00:23:30.630 line:15%
because think of that in relation to the first princess,
463
00:23:30.630 --> 00:23:32.220 line:15%
I mean, first queen Elizabeth,
464
00:23:32.220 --> 00:23:34.080 line:15%
and now we have queen Elizabeth here.
465
00:23:34.080 --> 00:23:36.180 line:15%
I think that is quite an extraordinary portrait.
466
00:23:36.180 --> 00:23:41.180 line:15%
And I also think it's quite subversive because no crown,
467
00:23:41.850 --> 00:23:46.560 line:15%
not even any fancy jewels, we just have her in,
468
00:23:46.560 --> 00:23:49.560 line:15%
it looks like a suit that okay, it's well made,
469
00:23:49.560 --> 00:23:52.290 line:15%
but it doesn't scream wealth at you in the way
470
00:23:52.290 --> 00:23:54.000 line:15%
that some other things might.
471
00:23:54.000 --> 00:23:56.355 line:15%
And the handbag is there too.
472
00:23:56.355 --> 00:23:58.584 line:15%
So this is a portrait I think that is engaging
473
00:23:58.584 --> 00:24:03.584 line:15%
with traditions of portraiture and then playing with them,
474
00:24:04.060 --> 00:24:04.893 line:15%
you know?
475
00:24:04.893 --> 00:24:09.333
Actually extending them into more contemporary ways.
476
00:24:10.860 --> 00:24:13.067
Also before we part from it,
477
00:24:13.067 --> 00:24:17.010
'cause we will come back to it in a different context.
478
00:24:17.010 --> 00:24:19.260
The queen is smiling.
479
00:24:19.260 --> 00:24:22.050 line:15%
So of all those other subjects that we've been looking at,
480
00:24:22.050 --> 00:24:23.820 line:15%
who, you know, you talk about the gravity
481
00:24:23.820 --> 00:24:25.950 line:15%
and the seriousness and then what it is
482
00:24:25.950 --> 00:24:30.950 line:15%
to break into a smile that gives it maybe playing here
483
00:24:31.260 --> 00:24:34.380 line:15%
with candidness or, but you know of course,
484
00:24:34.380 --> 00:24:36.423 line:15%
that is totally contrived too.
485
00:24:39.100 --> 00:24:41.670 line:15%
Okay, so more specifically then
486
00:24:41.670 --> 00:24:44.160 line:15%
what are some of the unique qualities
487
00:24:44.160 --> 00:24:46.860 line:15%
of some of the photographic portraits on show?
488
00:24:46.860 --> 00:24:50.100 line:15%
And I'm not going doing this in any order of priority.
489
00:24:50.100 --> 00:24:53.790
But let's start with the idea of an inner life.
490
00:24:53.790 --> 00:24:56.100
Now, if you go back to the 19th century
491
00:24:56.100 --> 00:24:58.770
and to someone like Julia Margaret Cameron,
492
00:24:58.770 --> 00:25:01.320
there was the idea that you could try and get the essence
493
00:25:01.320 --> 00:25:03.420
of an individual in a photograph.
494
00:25:03.420 --> 00:25:04.980
So you had to do two things,
495
00:25:04.980 --> 00:25:08.629
one is you had to give them the likeness,
496
00:25:08.629 --> 00:25:12.960
what we call the physiognomic look, that had to be accurate.
497
00:25:12.960 --> 00:25:15.840
But something about the person about the character
498
00:25:15.840 --> 00:25:19.230
had to be conveyed and portraitist strived
499
00:25:19.230 --> 00:25:21.960
to achieve that through the 19th century.
500
00:25:21.960 --> 00:25:25.290
In the modernist period, especially, less so now,
501
00:25:25.290 --> 00:25:26.700
because we've had post-modernism
502
00:25:26.700 --> 00:25:29.340
and all sorts of other things that have happened since.
503
00:25:29.340 --> 00:25:32.820
But it means that in the exhibition,
504
00:25:32.820 --> 00:25:35.820
there's actually not a lot of engagement
505
00:25:35.820 --> 00:25:38.730
with the inner life, which I think is quite fascinating.
506
00:25:38.730 --> 00:25:42.360
Except I think for this portrait of Mandela
507
00:25:42.360 --> 00:25:46.950 line:15%
and also of Malala Yousafzai,
508
00:25:46.950 --> 00:25:49.290 line:15%
which we'll have a look at in a minute.
509
00:25:49.290 --> 00:25:54.290 line:15%
So, the inner life then now, how is that conveyed?
510
00:25:54.720 --> 00:25:56.340 line:15%
What is our evidence here?
511
00:25:56.340 --> 00:26:00.573 line:15%
See how inscrutable his expression is, that face.
512
00:26:01.440 --> 00:26:04.710 line:15%
He's not looking directly, I don't think at you,
513
00:26:04.710 --> 00:26:09.710 line:15%
there's just a slightly down thing as if he is preoccupied,
514
00:26:09.840 --> 00:26:13.170 line:15%
but I would suggest that that gaze suggests
515
00:26:13.170 --> 00:26:16.740 line:15%
a kind of suffering and a kind of conviction.
516
00:26:16.740 --> 00:26:20.970 line:15%
And as mentioned earlier with this one that,
517
00:26:20.970 --> 00:26:25.410 line:15%
okay, size alone tells us that it's an honorific portrait
518
00:26:25.410 --> 00:26:27.780 line:15%
and we've got the formality and the gravity.
519
00:26:27.780 --> 00:26:29.880 line:15%
But then it's overlaid with the text,
520
00:26:29.880 --> 00:26:33.780 line:15%
which also gives another level of complexity,
521
00:26:33.780 --> 00:26:37.837 line:15%
but of importance because the photographer here,
522
00:26:37.837 --> 00:26:41.430 line:15%
`Shirin Neshat has written directly onto the photographic
523
00:26:41.430 --> 00:26:44.460
print and the poem comes from a Pashto poet,
524
00:26:44.460 --> 00:26:46.470
Rahmat Shah Sayel.
525
00:26:46.470 --> 00:26:49.560
Which as extended label tells us,
526
00:26:49.560 --> 00:26:54.450
addresses the legendary Pashton heroin, Malala of Maiwand
527
00:26:54.450 --> 00:26:57.630
and praises her contemporary namesake.
528
00:26:57.630 --> 00:27:00.030
Now why I'm just giving you that detail is
529
00:27:00.030 --> 00:27:02.040
you've got the past, then you've got history,
530
00:27:02.040 --> 00:27:04.830
you've got legend, you've got the present.
531
00:27:04.830 --> 00:27:08.704
And so by merging the two together in this vocabulary,
532
00:27:08.704 --> 00:27:11.880
it means that for you, as a viewer,
533
00:27:11.880 --> 00:27:15.000
you'll understand she is someone of importance.
534
00:27:15.000 --> 00:27:18.477
And for the photographer,
535
00:27:18.477 --> 00:27:23.275
there is a sense then of her inner relevance.
536
00:27:23.275 --> 00:27:27.480
What Neshat described was Malala's humility, wisdom,
537
00:27:27.480 --> 00:27:29.880
and a rare sense, sense of inner beauty.
538
00:27:29.880 --> 00:27:31.920
That's what I mean by something inside her
539
00:27:31.920 --> 00:27:35.343
that is she is trying to communicate.
540
00:27:36.390 --> 00:27:39.540
But more often in the exhibition, the orientation
541
00:27:39.540 --> 00:27:44.220
is towards the outer, towards appearances, the outer look.
542
00:27:44.220 --> 00:27:47.340
And that's why I keep using this photograph
543
00:27:47.340 --> 00:27:50.070 line:15%
because I think it is such a perfect example
544
00:27:50.070 --> 00:27:53.730 line:15%
of that artfulness.
545
00:27:53.730 --> 00:27:56.370 line:15%
You'll see in the show that some of the subjects
546
00:27:56.370 --> 00:28:00.517 line:15%
appear androgynous, especially David Bowie, Mick Jagger too,
547
00:28:00.517 --> 00:28:05.517 line:15%
'cause he's in a jacket that's got a fur around here,
548
00:28:06.450 --> 00:28:09.855 line:15%
but his face in some ways is feminised.
549
00:28:09.855 --> 00:28:14.820 line:15%
And so this one not only speaks to that,
550
00:28:14.820 --> 00:28:17.550 line:15%
but to these strategies that I'm calling
551
00:28:17.550 --> 00:28:20.220 line:15%
strategies of obfuscation.
552
00:28:20.220 --> 00:28:22.770 line:15%
So what I mean by that is that the subject's face
553
00:28:22.770 --> 00:28:24.870 line:15%
is only partially revealed.
554
00:28:24.870 --> 00:28:28.397 line:15%
Naomi Campbell, the famous, so famous as a model,
555
00:28:28.397 --> 00:28:31.950 line:15%
her face known instantly,
556
00:28:31.950 --> 00:28:33.900 line:15%
in the show she's wearing sunglasses
557
00:28:33.900 --> 00:28:36.570 line:15%
so that the face is partially obscured.
558
00:28:36.570 --> 00:28:38.842 line:15%
Maybe that's to slow down the reading,
559
00:28:38.842 --> 00:28:41.940 line:15%
our instant recognition of her.
560
00:28:41.940 --> 00:28:44.760 line:15%
Margaret that's face is modified by this bright beam
561
00:28:44.760 --> 00:28:48.660 line:15%
of light, so it's sort of broken by that.
562
00:28:48.660 --> 00:28:51.330 line:15%
And then here in David Beckham's case,
563
00:28:51.330 --> 00:28:55.410 line:15%
see how the hair is falling across his eye
564
00:28:55.410 --> 00:28:58.050 line:15%
and then the other eye is in shadow.
565
00:28:58.050 --> 00:29:02.130 line:15%
So what do these strategies, what's the point of that?
566
00:29:02.130 --> 00:29:06.843
You need to ask why your reading is being slowed down.
567
00:29:08.183 --> 00:29:09.573
(clears throat) Excuse me.
568
00:29:12.152 --> 00:29:17.152 line:15%
So, we might just stay here just for one more second then.
569
00:29:17.700 --> 00:29:21.220 line:15%
So, because what I'm going to do in this last section
570
00:29:22.418 --> 00:29:25.380
of my talk, is touch on this inter-relationship
571
00:29:25.380 --> 00:29:27.780
between private and public space,
572
00:29:27.780 --> 00:29:31.350
which we've been flirting with all the way through.
573
00:29:31.350 --> 00:29:33.270
Because it really struck me as an issue
574
00:29:33.270 --> 00:29:36.870
when I was looking at Shakespeare to Winehouse.
575
00:29:36.870 --> 00:29:39.780
But it extends to images beyond the show,
576
00:29:39.780 --> 00:29:44.070
including in the national photographic portraiture prize
577
00:29:44.070 --> 00:29:47.280
and in the NPG in national portrait gallery here
578
00:29:47.280 --> 00:29:48.960
its own collection.
579
00:29:48.960 --> 00:29:52.980
So my specific point is about the construction of intimacy
580
00:29:52.980 --> 00:29:55.350
and a false intimacy.
581
00:29:55.350 --> 00:29:59.820
And this is why David Beckham work works so well
582
00:29:59.820 --> 00:30:03.690
because you might think that the close up
583
00:30:03.690 --> 00:30:08.070
is going to give you maximum information.
584
00:30:08.070 --> 00:30:09.990
And if you look around the exhibition,
585
00:30:09.990 --> 00:30:12.780
that's where you'll see that the dominant vantage point
586
00:30:12.780 --> 00:30:14.190
is this close up.
587
00:30:14.190 --> 00:30:16.863
As we've already said, okay, head and shoulders view.
588
00:30:17.880 --> 00:30:21.240
So usually then you would expect that close up,
589
00:30:21.240 --> 00:30:23.790
by giving you this information,
590
00:30:23.790 --> 00:30:27.277
assuming it's not to do with scrutiny and surveillance,
591
00:30:27.277 --> 00:30:31.586
in anthropology, but in a more benign mode,
592
00:30:31.586 --> 00:30:33.930
that it will imply intimacy.
593
00:30:33.930 --> 00:30:35.730
Because you have to get close to somebody.
594
00:30:35.730 --> 00:30:39.000
The person has to agree, yes, you can photograph me,
595
00:30:39.000 --> 00:30:41.493
come close, I trust you or whatever.
596
00:30:43.440 --> 00:30:48.300
So, in photographs of lovers, this is where you see
597
00:30:48.300 --> 00:30:50.550
especially really interesting things happen
598
00:30:50.550 --> 00:30:54.960
where the space and I can't show you the actual photographs.
599
00:30:54.960 --> 00:30:57.300
It's a series, you'll be able to look at it online.
600
00:30:57.300 --> 00:31:01.350
But Alfred Stieglitz, his photographs of his partner,
601
00:31:01.350 --> 00:31:05.735
Georgia O'Keeffe the American painter.
602
00:31:05.735 --> 00:31:08.363
He did a whole series of her because he said,
603
00:31:08.363 --> 00:31:10.500
there's no point taking one portrait.
604
00:31:10.500 --> 00:31:13.260
You never get the sum of a person in one portrait.
605
00:31:13.260 --> 00:31:16.590
I need to take a series to try to know her,
606
00:31:16.590 --> 00:31:18.210
try to represent her.
607
00:31:18.210 --> 00:31:22.440
So he photographs, her hands, her hair and so on.
608
00:31:22.440 --> 00:31:25.800
But the space that he creates is so intimate
609
00:31:25.800 --> 00:31:28.800
that she begins to fall away as a subject.
610
00:31:28.800 --> 00:31:31.050
You know, there's a whole lot of blur and in distinctness
611
00:31:31.050 --> 00:31:33.060
in there, because he's practically
612
00:31:33.060 --> 00:31:36.180
so far into her physical space,
613
00:31:36.180 --> 00:31:38.340
what we think of as the personal space.
614
00:31:38.340 --> 00:31:40.418
So that space of intimacy is used to great effect.
615
00:31:40.418 --> 00:31:45.150
It's quite a common trope in photographs of lovers
616
00:31:45.150 --> 00:31:47.310
or intimate others.
617
00:31:47.310 --> 00:31:50.190
But when we are seeing close up in the exhibition,
618
00:31:50.190 --> 00:31:53.790
Shakespeare to Winehouse, it's operating in a different way
619
00:31:53.790 --> 00:31:57.114
because our subjects don't become indeterminate.
620
00:31:57.114 --> 00:32:00.180
You know, the boundaries don't don't collapse.
621
00:32:00.180 --> 00:32:04.920
We're still reminded I think, that we are other
622
00:32:04.920 --> 00:32:07.498
to the subject there.
623
00:32:07.498 --> 00:32:11.580
So there's toying then with conventions of intimacy
624
00:32:11.580 --> 00:32:13.080
by this personal space,
625
00:32:13.080 --> 00:32:16.680
like how close you are to the subject in this agreement,
626
00:32:16.680 --> 00:32:21.540
is also apparent in the calculated use of nudity
627
00:32:21.540 --> 00:32:23.490
and or a state of undress.
628
00:32:23.490 --> 00:32:26.400
So in the show, there are a few cases
629
00:32:26.400 --> 00:32:28.487
where nudity is implied.
630
00:32:28.487 --> 00:32:32.430
Naomi Campbell I've mentioned already, so from here up,
631
00:32:32.430 --> 00:32:35.037
but you think, okay, maybe she's fully nude.
632
00:32:35.037 --> 00:32:37.020
You just can't know.
633
00:32:37.020 --> 00:32:39.840
David Bowie, there's a very lovely portrait,
634
00:32:39.840 --> 00:32:41.820
just the head and shoulders, but again,
635
00:32:41.820 --> 00:32:43.950
maybe he has no top on.
636
00:32:43.950 --> 00:32:46.260
Kate Moss being an example.
637
00:32:46.260 --> 00:32:47.760
And then Vivienne Westwood.
638
00:32:47.760 --> 00:32:52.530
That's why we can't look at this in reality,
639
00:32:52.530 --> 00:32:54.750 line:15%
but I do want to discuss it because I think
640
00:32:54.750 --> 00:32:57.690 line:15%
it's the most subversive image in the exhibition.
641
00:32:57.690 --> 00:33:01.890 line:15%
And it's by the documentary photographer, Martin Parr,
642
00:33:01.890 --> 00:33:04.920
who has a great reputation,
643
00:33:04.920 --> 00:33:07.800
not as a photographer of celebrities necessarily,
644
00:33:07.800 --> 00:33:11.220
but through his colour documentary practise.
645
00:33:11.220 --> 00:33:15.360
And as I know that some of you, hopefully online
646
00:33:15.360 --> 00:33:17.880
as well as in person have seen the exhibition,
647
00:33:17.880 --> 00:33:21.861
you'll know that Vivienne Westwood, Dame Vivian Westwood,
648
00:33:21.861 --> 00:33:26.861
the very famous fashion designer, and one of the pioneers
649
00:33:27.751 --> 00:33:30.180
of the British punk movement.
650
00:33:30.180 --> 00:33:34.181
She's in her undies with her stockings on and no shoes.
651
00:33:34.181 --> 00:33:35.338
And she got a t-shirt, which is important
652
00:33:35.338 --> 00:33:38.661
because the t-shirt really does stress her involvement
653
00:33:38.661 --> 00:33:43.661
in the climate change movement, like climate activism.
654
00:33:45.150 --> 00:33:48.810
But where she's standing is in a toilet cubicle,
655
00:33:48.810 --> 00:33:50.400
a public toilet cubicle.
656
00:33:50.400 --> 00:33:54.060
So she's in the state of not her going out dress at all
657
00:33:54.060 --> 00:33:56.970
of undress, but in a public realm.
658
00:33:56.970 --> 00:33:59.882
So you have that weird incongruity between,
659
00:33:59.882 --> 00:34:02.550
if you're you're in that kind of outfit,
660
00:34:02.550 --> 00:34:06.360
you would expect you are in a more private space.
661
00:34:06.360 --> 00:34:10.710
Sure, a public toilet is the door is still shut,
662
00:34:10.710 --> 00:34:13.140
but it is playing with those boundaries
663
00:34:13.140 --> 00:34:15.870
between the domestic and between the public.
664
00:34:15.870 --> 00:34:20.870
And so I can make the point through that
665
00:34:21.030 --> 00:34:26.030
about revealment then, because when you see her undressed
666
00:34:26.430 --> 00:34:30.270
like that, you can't take it at face value.
667
00:34:30.270 --> 00:34:33.180
The revealment is a deliberate strategy
668
00:34:33.180 --> 00:34:36.570
employed not to establish authentic intimacy,
669
00:34:36.570 --> 00:34:39.270
but to play with its effective qualities.
670
00:34:39.270 --> 00:34:41.520
Like what you get out of seeing someone
671
00:34:41.520 --> 00:34:45.810
who looks like they are prepared to show more
672
00:34:45.810 --> 00:34:48.630
than you would be expecting conventionally.
673
00:34:48.630 --> 00:34:51.630
So in the Westwood case, viewers might be surprised
674
00:34:51.630 --> 00:34:54.613
that a fashion icon isn't dressed,
675
00:34:54.613 --> 00:34:57.960
and that she's posed in the most unglamorous setting.
676
00:34:57.960 --> 00:35:01.230
Squeezed into that awkward space that I have described.
677
00:35:01.230 --> 00:35:02.880
And this is where the colour,
678
00:35:02.880 --> 00:35:05.400
the fact of power working in colour is so important
679
00:35:05.400 --> 00:35:08.040
because the colours are not attractive.
680
00:35:08.040 --> 00:35:11.103
You know, the whole thing looks purposefully tacky.
681
00:35:12.540 --> 00:35:15.330
That's why I see it as subversive,
682
00:35:15.330 --> 00:35:20.330 line:15%
but this is where we can use the photograph by Polly Borland
683
00:35:20.790 --> 00:35:24.210 line:15%
from the NPGs collection to make a similar point,
684
00:35:24.210 --> 00:35:29.210 line:15%
because we have nudity in the sense that this,
685
00:35:29.250 --> 00:35:32.141 line:15%
you'll all know Germaine Greer is the feminist activist,
686
00:35:32.141 --> 00:35:37.141 line:15%
pose nude in a private space, assuming that it's bathroom,
687
00:35:37.980 --> 00:35:40.927 line:15%
but everything in this portrait is a contrivance,
688
00:35:40.927 --> 00:35:42.840 line:15%
`it's a conceit.
689
00:35:42.840 --> 00:35:45.900 line:15%
So she's fully aware of what she's doing
690
00:35:45.900 --> 00:35:48.720 line:15%
just in the way that Polly Borland and the photographer
691
00:35:48.720 --> 00:35:50.340 line:15%
is fully aware of what she's doing.
692
00:35:50.340 --> 00:35:52.230 line:15%
They're working together to create something
693
00:35:52.230 --> 00:35:54.300 line:15%
that hasn't occurred naturally.
694
00:35:54.300 --> 00:35:55.999 line:15%
It's not documentary at all.
695
00:35:55.999 --> 00:36:00.510 line:15%
So, it's where they are playing with these ideas
696
00:36:00.510 --> 00:36:04.399 line:15%
about intimacy and the boundaries between
697
00:36:04.399 --> 00:36:06.840 line:15%
the private and the public.
698
00:36:06.840 --> 00:36:08.190 line:15%
And if you compare this,
699
00:36:08.190 --> 00:36:11.580 line:15%
I think it's quite striking looking at the entries
700
00:36:11.580 --> 00:36:14.550 line:15%
in the national photographic portraiture prize,
701
00:36:14.550 --> 00:36:19.140 line:15%
because the idea of an authentic setting is actually key
702
00:36:19.140 --> 00:36:21.900 line:15%
it's it's evident time and time again,
703
00:36:21.900 --> 00:36:24.540 line:15%
where people are opposing in spaces
704
00:36:24.540 --> 00:36:29.400 line:15%
that either belong to them inside or out.
705
00:36:29.400 --> 00:36:30.990 line:15%
We can't always know that, of course,
706
00:36:30.990 --> 00:36:34.440 line:15%
but we make assumptions about their them being authentic.
707
00:36:34.440 --> 00:36:38.130 line:15%
And this can be seen in Bec Lorrimer's portrait
708
00:36:38.130 --> 00:36:41.490
of Emily and Effy where the backyard,
709
00:36:41.490 --> 00:36:45.240 line:15%
the actual setting then comes to have a very active role
710
00:36:45.240 --> 00:36:48.330 line:15%
in its ordinariness and then its familiarity.
711
00:36:48.330 --> 00:36:51.499 line:15%
Especially as Australians, we are very aware of the backyard
712
00:36:51.499 --> 00:36:54.900 line:15%
as part of our domestic realm.
713
00:36:54.900 --> 00:36:58.320
And so we then can identify these two subjects
714
00:36:58.320 --> 00:37:01.299
as being at home in it.
715
00:37:01.299 --> 00:37:06.299
It gives you a look that, as I describe as being authentic.
716
00:37:07.050 --> 00:37:11.880
But the incongruity of a setting can also be activated
717
00:37:11.880 --> 00:37:15.240
for its narrative dynamism and its visual energy.
718
00:37:15.240 --> 00:37:18.540
So as I said, with the Vivienne Westwood portrait,
719
00:37:18.540 --> 00:37:21.928
you don't expect to see a fashion icon in a toilet.
720
00:37:21.928 --> 00:37:26.190
There is something here in this portrait by Igvar Kenne,
721
00:37:26.190 --> 00:37:29.460 line:15%
which I think the barmaid isn't in the bar,
722
00:37:29.460 --> 00:37:30.838 line:15%
she's in the laundry,
723
00:37:30.838 --> 00:37:33.488 line:15%
but she's in the laundry in presumably her work gear,
724
00:37:37.260 --> 00:37:39.900 line:15%
what she would be wearing in the bar.
725
00:37:39.900 --> 00:37:43.980 line:15%
So these incongruities introduce
726
00:37:43.980 --> 00:37:47.880 line:15%
interesting narrative questions, I think.
727
00:37:47.880 --> 00:37:51.600 line:15%
And that's why I've brought this back
728
00:37:51.600 --> 00:37:54.240 line:15%
because that kind of incongruity applies
729
00:37:54.240 --> 00:37:57.330 line:15%
to Polly Borland's photograph of the queen,
730
00:37:57.330 --> 00:37:59.580 line:15%
because where is she?
731
00:37:59.580 --> 00:38:03.303 line:15%
I mean, it looks like a Marimekko display behind her.
732
00:38:04.296 --> 00:38:06.360 line:15%
Is she in a shop or is that a curtain?
733
00:38:06.360 --> 00:38:07.230 line:15%
Is she at home?
734
00:38:07.230 --> 00:38:08.520 line:15%
Is she in Borland's studio
735
00:38:08.520 --> 00:38:11.610 line:15%
and they've used a piece of fabric as a backdrop?
736
00:38:11.610 --> 00:38:15.720 line:15%
So that immediately, you actually get a sense
737
00:38:15.720 --> 00:38:16.950 line:15%
of uncertainty.
738
00:38:16.950 --> 00:38:20.130 line:15%
Now, certainly there's the colour, the complimentary colours,
739
00:38:20.130 --> 00:38:22.126 line:15%
which make you realise once again, how contrive of this is
740
00:38:22.126 --> 00:38:26.340 line:15%
and how worked out it probably was in advance.
741
00:38:26.340 --> 00:38:27.750 line:15%
But why do that?
742
00:38:27.750 --> 00:38:30.810 line:15%
What is the kind of narrative flow
743
00:38:30.810 --> 00:38:33.753 line:15%
that comes from that sort of juxtaposition?
744
00:38:37.200 --> 00:38:39.900 line:15%
So where I thought we would end is with this,
745
00:38:39.900 --> 00:38:43.080 line:15%
this is Petrina Hicks's dragonflies
746
00:38:43.080 --> 00:38:48.080 line:15%
and it's in the national photographic portraiture prize.
747
00:38:48.390 --> 00:38:50.250 line:15%
So you'll be able to go and have a look at it
748
00:38:50.250 --> 00:38:53.550 line:15%
because the show only opened last night.
749
00:38:53.550 --> 00:38:55.980 line:15%
Because I wanted to make the point then,
750
00:38:55.980 --> 00:38:59.430 line:15%
that portraiture and its traditions are not static.
751
00:38:59.430 --> 00:39:03.810 line:15%
And we can see that through just following this idea
752
00:39:03.810 --> 00:39:06.420 line:15%
about the changing spaces,
753
00:39:06.420 --> 00:39:09.540 line:15%
the changing public and private spaces.
754
00:39:09.540 --> 00:39:12.980 line:15%
So there are many contemporary portraits that ask questions
755
00:39:12.980 --> 00:39:14.520 line:15%
of portraiture itself.
756
00:39:14.520 --> 00:39:17.940 line:15%
Those very traditions that I started off with.
757
00:39:17.940 --> 00:39:21.320 line:15%
And I think this image by Hicks is one example.
758
00:39:21.320 --> 00:39:24.990 line:15%
Like so many subjects in the Shakespeare to Winehouse
759
00:39:24.990 --> 00:39:28.800 line:15%
exhibition, the young woman is performing for the camera.
760
00:39:28.800 --> 00:39:32.490 line:15%
She knows she's there, she knows why she's there,
761
00:39:32.490 --> 00:39:36.420 line:15%
but in this case she isn't identified.
762
00:39:36.420 --> 00:39:39.870 line:15%
So not only do we have no identity markers
763
00:39:39.870 --> 00:39:41.580 line:15%
'cause Krysia used that term just before,
764
00:39:41.580 --> 00:39:44.670 line:15%
and I thought, oh yeah, that's a great summary
765
00:39:44.670 --> 00:39:49.470 line:15%
in the sense that there's nothing to tell us what she does,
766
00:39:49.470 --> 00:39:51.990 line:15%
but there's also nothing to tell us who she is
767
00:39:51.990 --> 00:39:55.650 line:15%
because she's not identified in the title.
768
00:39:55.650 --> 00:39:58.979 line:15%
We don't know her and we can't actually know her.
769
00:39:58.979 --> 00:40:03.780 line:15%
So I think that the fact then to end with a portrait
770
00:40:03.780 --> 00:40:06.000 line:15%
which is engaging with portraiture,
771
00:40:06.000 --> 00:40:08.910 line:15%
but is making identity irrelevant,
772
00:40:08.910 --> 00:40:12.420 line:15%
might be a most provocative place to stop.
773
00:40:12.420 --> 00:40:14.806 line:15%
So thank you very much.
774
00:40:14.806 --> 00:40:17.806
(audience applauds)
775
00:40:21.480 --> 00:40:26.480
So now we can see if there's anything from the chat,
776
00:40:27.720 --> 00:40:30.870
any questions that you would like to bring up?
777
00:40:30.870 --> 00:40:31.703
Thanks, Helen.
778
00:40:31.703 --> 00:40:33.780
That was a really fantastic talk
779
00:40:33.780 --> 00:40:35.640
and gave us a lot to think about.
780
00:40:35.640 --> 00:40:36.900
There hasn't been a lot of questions
781
00:40:36.900 --> 00:40:37.920
from the online audience,
782
00:40:37.920 --> 00:40:40.380
but there was one from a regular of ours,
783
00:40:40.380 --> 00:40:42.944
Nita who lives in Sweden, and joins in just about
784
00:40:42.944 --> 00:40:45.930
every single programme that we have on,
785
00:40:45.930 --> 00:40:48.374
even though the time differences horrendous for her.
786
00:40:48.374 --> 00:40:50.610
She did make an observation that she thought
787
00:40:50.610 --> 00:40:52.890
it was interesting that at times there's an assumption
788
00:40:52.890 --> 00:40:54.720
that there's no Photoshop changes made
789
00:40:54.720 --> 00:40:56.970
and that we assume that photos are of a total scene
790
00:40:56.970 --> 00:40:58.620
and there's no after fix.
791
00:40:58.620 --> 00:40:59.900
Yeah.
792
00:40:59.900 --> 00:41:00.733
Do you have anything that you'd like,
793
00:41:00.733 --> 00:41:01.830
any observations about that?
794
00:41:01.830 --> 00:41:04.451
No, i think that is that's another really important point.
795
00:41:04.451 --> 00:41:07.320
And if you think about the evolution of portraiture,
796
00:41:07.320 --> 00:41:08.970
especially in photography.
797
00:41:08.970 --> 00:41:10.318
In the 19th century,
798
00:41:10.318 --> 00:41:13.800
we can't even assume that things were naturalistic
799
00:41:13.800 --> 00:41:15.900
because you could use collage
800
00:41:15.900 --> 00:41:18.270
and there were a whole lot of things you could do
801
00:41:18.270 --> 00:41:22.020
to manipulate the final photograph.
802
00:41:22.020 --> 00:41:24.960
So, we have long worked with this assumption
803
00:41:24.960 --> 00:41:27.450
that the historical portraits may be more accurate
804
00:41:27.450 --> 00:41:28.920
than contemporary ones.
805
00:41:28.920 --> 00:41:31.512
When sure you could manipulate in the dark room,
806
00:41:31.512 --> 00:41:33.570
you could manipulate the print.
807
00:41:33.570 --> 00:41:35.203
Now you can manipulate digitally.
808
00:41:35.203 --> 00:41:38.340
But my point there would be that,
809
00:41:38.340 --> 00:41:40.040
yes, everything is up for grabs.
810
00:41:40.040 --> 00:41:43.312
There are so many people working historically
811
00:41:43.312 --> 00:41:46.952
who were so active as manipulators.
812
00:41:46.952 --> 00:41:50.640
But why I like that question is it's just bringing the,
813
00:41:50.640 --> 00:41:55.590
or the comment, it's just reminding you to always be working
814
00:41:55.590 --> 00:41:57.360
with a critical mind, you know?
815
00:41:57.360 --> 00:41:59.550
Don't take things at face value.
816
00:41:59.550 --> 00:42:02.883
Think about the decisions that a photographer is making
817
00:42:02.883 --> 00:42:06.930
when he or she takes the portrait.
818
00:42:06.930 --> 00:42:11.550
But also the decisions about what the subject,
819
00:42:11.550 --> 00:42:13.254
how do you want to appear?
820
00:42:13.254 --> 00:42:16.590
And as I said, the styling and everything else
821
00:42:16.590 --> 00:42:19.983
that might be involved if it's of someone very famous.
822
00:42:21.300 --> 00:42:22.140
Thank you.
823
00:42:22.140 --> 00:42:23.070
Thank you, Helen.
824
00:42:23.070 --> 00:42:24.900
That's all the questions from the online audience,
825
00:42:24.900 --> 00:42:27.390
apart from the fact that you may like to receive
826
00:42:27.390 --> 00:42:28.860
a compliment from Gale Newton,
827
00:42:28.860 --> 00:42:31.890
who has said that it's been a very insightful talk.
828
00:42:31.890 --> 00:42:33.060
Oh, thank you.
829
00:42:33.060 --> 00:42:33.990
We all know Gale.
830
00:42:33.990 --> 00:42:36.780
So that's lovely that she's zoomed in today.
831
00:42:36.780 --> 00:42:39.570
We probably have time to take maybe one or two questions
832
00:42:39.570 --> 00:42:41.340
from the onsite audience.
833
00:42:41.340 --> 00:42:44.340
If anybody would like to ask a question off Helen
834
00:42:44.340 --> 00:42:45.190
before we finish?
835
00:42:46.170 --> 00:42:47.720
No one's gonna be brave enough.
836
00:42:49.290 --> 00:42:51.870
Or, you can tell me what your favourite portrait is
837
00:42:51.870 --> 00:42:55.443
in the exhibition and suggest why.
838
00:42:57.118 --> 00:42:58.410
We've got one question at the front.
839
00:42:58.410 --> 00:43:00.360
I'll just pass the microphone over.
840
00:43:00.360 --> 00:43:01.443
Sorry to run under.
841
00:43:03.690 --> 00:43:08.340
I was interested to see the Naomi Campbell portrait
842
00:43:08.340 --> 00:43:09.690
that you mentioned.
843
00:43:09.690 --> 00:43:13.530
To my eye was somewhat out of focus.
844
00:43:13.530 --> 00:43:15.696
Is there a reason?
845
00:43:15.696 --> 00:43:19.110
If that were my photo, I wouldn't obviously put it up.
846
00:43:19.110 --> 00:43:20.239
Yeah.
847
00:43:20.239 --> 00:43:21.180
Because I think, oh, that's out of focus
848
00:43:21.180 --> 00:43:23.100
so I won't display that.
Yeah.
849
00:43:23.100 --> 00:43:25.203
Is there something behind that?
850
00:43:25.203 --> 00:43:27.540
Why somebody would do that?
851
00:43:27.540 --> 00:43:29.693
Yeah, now that's a really interesting point
852
00:43:29.693 --> 00:43:32.979
because I agree and I think it is out of focus.
853
00:43:32.979 --> 00:43:37.680
So yeah, you have to ask, why would that be the case?
854
00:43:37.680 --> 00:43:42.248
And I think, I use that word obfuscation that why is it
855
00:43:42.248 --> 00:43:45.930
in the exhibition that there's quite a number
856
00:43:45.930 --> 00:43:50.040
of photographers doing things that just block that access,
857
00:43:50.040 --> 00:43:52.800
that real specificity of the subject?
858
00:43:52.800 --> 00:43:54.750
The directness between them and you.
859
00:43:54.750 --> 00:43:57.540
And I think it's probably another example of that.
860
00:43:57.540 --> 00:43:58.860
If you look in the glasses,
861
00:43:58.860 --> 00:44:01.590
you can see that the photographer is there.
862
00:44:01.590 --> 00:44:04.530
So you're being reminded of the whole transactional nature
863
00:44:04.530 --> 00:44:05.760
of the process,
864
00:44:05.760 --> 00:44:09.660
but the fact that she does appear nude and she is so famous
865
00:44:09.660 --> 00:44:13.200
that she is so kind of overexposed,
866
00:44:13.200 --> 00:44:15.180
I guess you'd say normally in the public realm,
867
00:44:15.180 --> 00:44:16.890
it's just a way of softening perhaps then
868
00:44:16.890 --> 00:44:18.342
and taking it down a bit.
869
00:44:18.342 --> 00:44:21.933
Yeah, so I think it would all be very purposeful.
870
00:44:25.590 --> 00:44:28.814
I think Mike's got a question too up there.
871
00:44:28.814 --> 00:44:31.397
(indistinct)
872
00:44:37.950 --> 00:44:39.910
I'll just repeat that for the online audience.
873
00:44:39.910 --> 00:44:43.230
So Mark's observation was that the Margaret Thatcher image
874
00:44:43.230 --> 00:44:44.640
is also outta focus,
875
00:44:44.640 --> 00:44:47.550
but that was intentional to sort of soften the look.
876
00:44:47.550 --> 00:44:48.663
Yeah, well, what's great that Mark just gave us then was,
877
00:44:48.663 --> 00:44:53.663
okay, it's outta focus, but why?
878
00:44:55.020 --> 00:44:58.500
Because it's softens her look and I think that's right.
879
00:44:58.500 --> 00:45:03.430
And because that portrait is so dominated by the light
880
00:45:03.430 --> 00:45:06.540
that the light of course is a thing of power
881
00:45:07.700 --> 00:45:08.790
of illumination.
882
00:45:08.790 --> 00:45:12.600
You know, you could read as having a symbolic role,
883
00:45:12.600 --> 00:45:16.410
but I know Parkinson talks about the need to glamorise
884
00:45:16.410 --> 00:45:19.320
or make his subjects look good.
885
00:45:19.320 --> 00:45:22.437
So in that case, perhaps the light is also doing that too.
886
00:45:22.437 --> 00:45:27.437
Maybe their soft focus is part of enhancing her,
887
00:45:27.750 --> 00:45:29.520
making her look better.
888
00:45:29.520 --> 00:45:32.310
And who doesn't wanna photograph where you look better
889
00:45:32.310 --> 00:45:34.427
than you think you're doing real life?
890
00:45:35.261 --> 00:45:36.510
Thanks, Helen.
891
00:45:36.510 --> 00:45:38.220
We do have one more question coming through
892
00:45:38.220 --> 00:45:42.060
from the online audience from John, John Swainston,
893
00:45:42.060 --> 00:45:44.680
who asks, has technology now advanced so much
894
00:45:44.680 --> 00:45:47.670
that in the intent of the subject in the photographer
895
00:45:47.670 --> 00:45:50.723
can now be without technical limit, unlike the 1840s?
896
00:45:53.070 --> 00:45:56.490
Well, I think that's a really open question
897
00:45:56.490 --> 00:46:00.363
and technology, I guess I've always,
898
00:46:01.500 --> 00:46:04.980
in the way that I approach photographs as images
899
00:46:04.980 --> 00:46:08.070
and not objects is not to be too swayed by
900
00:46:08.070 --> 00:46:10.440
what technology has made possible.
901
00:46:10.440 --> 00:46:12.712
Sure, you've gotta establish its role.
902
00:46:12.712 --> 00:46:17.670
But I can tell you something that Max DuPain
903
00:46:17.670 --> 00:46:18.862
said about this,
904
00:46:18.862 --> 00:46:22.950
because yesterday I was reading some newspaper reviews
905
00:46:22.950 --> 00:46:25.920
that he had written in the 1980s.
906
00:46:25.920 --> 00:46:29.730
Now, Max DuPain, one of our very well known photographers.
907
00:46:29.730 --> 00:46:32.820
And his own style kind of cool.
908
00:46:32.820 --> 00:46:35.400
A lot of his portraits you might think were,
909
00:46:35.400 --> 00:46:37.080
they are certainly set up.
910
00:46:37.080 --> 00:46:41.460
But what he said is optics and techniques are never enough.
911
00:46:41.460 --> 00:46:43.680
What do you want is warm humanity?
912
00:46:43.680 --> 00:46:46.230
And I thought now that's actually really interesting
913
00:46:46.230 --> 00:46:50.610
for someone who we do think of as having a cool style,
914
00:46:50.610 --> 00:46:53.490
still wanting in his photographs and the photographs
915
00:46:53.490 --> 00:46:54.540
of others.
916
00:46:54.540 --> 00:46:57.420
He uses words like compassion, tenderness,
917
00:46:57.420 --> 00:47:00.180
a whole lot of words that I wasn't expecting,
918
00:47:00.180 --> 00:47:01.590
but that's what he was saying.
919
00:47:01.590 --> 00:47:04.440
He wanted human feeling and that.
920
00:47:04.440 --> 00:47:08.940
So sure, technologically, yeah, the sky's the limit.
921
00:47:08.940 --> 00:47:10.560
We don't know what's gonna happen
922
00:47:10.560 --> 00:47:14.460
or what will be possible in portraiture in the future.
923
00:47:14.460 --> 00:47:19.460
But that's why the Petrina Hicks, I think, is a provocation.
924
00:47:19.560 --> 00:47:23.280
Like how much do you wanna know about a person?
925
00:47:23.280 --> 00:47:26.853
What is it even possible for us to know about a person?
926
00:47:28.890 --> 00:47:29.723
Thank you, Helen.
Thank you.
927
00:47:29.723 --> 00:47:31.440
On that note, I'll pass back to Krysia.
928
00:47:31.440 --> 00:47:32.273
Thank you.
929
00:47:32.273 --> 00:47:33.106
Thanks.