Learning From The Greats!

Rachel Foster · Nov 10, 2009

I've been perusing links found in the favorite photographers thread and have found some that I wonder about. For example this one is problematic to me because of the shadowed face, particularly the eyes.

Hurrelphotography.com Jean Harlow Circa 1946

In fact, he tended to favor shadowed eyes.

Jean Harlow by George Hurrell

My question is...why does this "work?" Or does it?

Michael Fontana · Nov 10, 2009

well, Rachel

I'm far of beeing a fashion photographer, but the eyes aren't important in that image. If you think them brighter, it would'n change a lot.

Still, I think, that the eyes weren' t that black in the original silverbaryt print. It might have lost quite a bit of tonality when preparing for web and reducing size.

Rachel Foster · Nov 10, 2009

Perhaps that is part of it. I was not viewing it as fashion photography, but looking at it as more of a portrait. As a portrait, I find it disappointing.

Michael Fontana · Nov 10, 2009

hmm, I think it's rather fashion and glamour - but I haven't been in Hollywood ...

Rachel Foster · Nov 10, 2009

Interesting article and perspective. I'm puzzling over a point or two in it, though. It addresses women owning their sexuality as their right, as part of the whole personage. Yet, the shadowed eyes in the type of image I linked to seems to suggest the body is what's important and the person behind them is not. The eyes, being the "window to the soul," would be the symbol of what's inside the person. Leaving them shadowed or hidden (to me) suggests the inside is not important. It's all about the outside.

Asher Kelman · Nov 10, 2009

Rachel Foster said:
I've been perusing links found in the favorite photographers thread and have found some that I wonder about. For example this one is problematic to me because of the shadowed face, particularly the eyes. My question is...why does this "work?" Or does it?

Hurrelphotography.com Jean Harlow Circa 1946

This picture is assembled to appear like a statuesque nude. The lights from either side are directed to shape the thighs, pelvis and breasts, not the face. It was the time of exaggerated fins, headlights and grills for cars. Post war excesses! Soldiers were coming home and having sex with wives and starting families for the American dream: a job, a woman and a home with a picket fence. This was an emblem of this rush to mating!

Asher

Rachel Foster · Nov 10, 2009

Thanks, Asher, I wasn't sure it was acceptable to post an image not mine.

fahim mohammed · Nov 10, 2009

Or do we tend to make justifications for not too good a photo by a known photographer? This photo in my opinion is not a good photo. either of the woman or about the woman.

Michael Fontana · Nov 10, 2009

fahim mohammed said:
Or do we tend to make justifications for not too good a photo by a known photographer? This photo in my opinion is not a good photo. either of the woman or about the woman.

Fahim
I don't think so, even we would today rarely taken a photo of a women like Hurrel did - his goal has been to show in a exaggerated style a woman beeing a sculpture; time changed and with time images tend to change as well.

I think its neither a real good, nor a bad photo....

playing the ball back to Rachel: so what is in your sense a good women's photo - out of that time?

Doug Kerr · Nov 10, 2009

Hi, Asher,

Asher Kelman said:
It was the time of exaggerated fins, headlights and grills for cars.

1946? Most 1946 models were based on designs for model year 1942 (very few which were actually produced as such).

Here's a 1946 Ford:

http://www.seriouswheels.com/pics-1940-1949/1946-Ford-2-Door-Sedan.jpg

I think Jean Harlow, in 1935 (seen above), had much better headlights.

By 1949 (model year), this is how extreme the design of the Ford had become:

http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/Ford/1949_Ford_Convertible-td-red-b1.jpg

Her's a differerent rendering of what is very possibly the same shot:

http://silverscreensirens.com/galleries/jean_harlow_01.htm

Best regards,

Doug

Nigel Allan · Nov 10, 2009

I am not familiar with his work and this is the first I have seen, however why must a 'portrait' be about showing a face or eyes per se?

When I think of Jean Harlow I think of a sex-bomb. I think that is what he has captured here - her 'essence'. Your eyes are drawn to her 'assets' as a sex bomb. If this is the case then it is probably a very successful portrait because it has communicated to the viewer 'who she is'.

Had a quick glance at the Hurrell site and seen in the concetxt of his other movie star pictures this 'works' for me for two reasons.

1. It is stylised and is congruous with his other works, all of which have a similar approach, which indicates it is deliberate and not some sort of lighting mistake
2. It was also probably part of the fashion of the day to represent female Hollywood glamour like this. Put in the context of when these were taken, it wasn't so many years beforehand when Victorians used to cover up the legs of a table, so partially obscuring these sex objects in shadows may have as much to do with social mores as much as anything else.

Rachel Foster · Nov 11, 2009

I don't think that portraits always have to show the eyes. Some are quite good without even showing the face. This one, though, just seems "off" to me.

Michael, I think a portrait should show something of a woman's (or man's) personality, regardless of time. This one could be a photo of a mannequin. It shows nothing about the person, only her body.

Here are two of my favorites that I've taken. They are technically and compositionally flawed, but they show personality of the models without showing the eyes.

Rachel Ann Foster "Semi Nude"

Rachel Ann Foster "Pensive Guitarist"

And they're wearing the same hat. Oh well.

Nigel Allan · Nov 11, 2009

Rachel I would argue that this photo of Jean Harlow is not just a shot of a lifeless mannequin but captured who she was and what she represented to many people, which in her case is a curvy womanly form. If this is the case, the face is not only irrelevant it would detract from the image

The way he has emphasised the breast and hips shows more intent and thought than would have been demonstrated on a doll

Rachel Foster · Nov 11, 2009

Yes, Nigel, I agree that he shot a symbol. But I don't see it as a portrait of her. In fact, he almost dehumanized her, in a way. I suppose it's all in how you present it. If I'd come across it as a depiction of attitudes toward women, I might have thought it very good. But as a portrait it doesn't work (for me).

And that is what Asher means by Arc of Intent, I suppose.

Rachel Foster · Nov 11, 2009

Back to the question of shadowed eyes, this one works extremely well, I think.

Yousuf Karsh "Grey Owl"

Nigel Allan · Nov 11, 2009

Yes it does, but the eyes are important to this picture. I would argue that Hurrell brought out the parts which were important in HIS picture. I have looked at his picture again just now and like it more and more. No it is not a classical portrait of her face, but I don't think that's the intention (or he would have lit it differently).

It is a portrait of her 'personality' or essence (I use the term personality loosely where it and her essence means her sexuality and curves). This is Jean Harlow, not Mother Teresa

Rachel Foster said:
Back to the question of shadowed eyes, this one works extremely well, I think.

Yousuf Karsh "Grey Owl"

Rachel Foster · Nov 11, 2009

I would love to hear what others think on this.

Rick Greely · Nov 11, 2009

Rachel,
I find this discussion interesting, I think the picture of Harlow may show more of how she may have been viewed at the time. The shadowed eyes give her the appearance of mysterious, perhaps unobtainable or even hidden. The highlights show her curvy form....which is what she was known for. So perhaps it does show more about thye person than we might first see? The eyes in the last picture imho make the picture without them this picture would lake the intensity the eyes show. Gray Owl would be just a hat if we could not see his eyes.

Ken Tanaka · Nov 11, 2009

I agree with Nigel, Rick and Rachel's remarks on this Harlow portrait. Rachel's comment, "In fact, he almost dehumanized her, in a way." is spot-on. "Eye shine", as it's called, signals life and identity. Throughout much of Jean Harlow's tragically short film career she was presented very much as an object. Darkening her eyes while emphasizing the sensuous curves of her body in that tight, silky gown perfectly captured her standard film persona. As such, this is less a portrait than a publicity still and male fantasy.

Rachel's posting of Karsh's "Grey Owl" presents us with a perfect illustration of the value and weight of eye shine. Look at the intensity of the man's expression; perhaps a bit angry, but certainly very serious and focused. Look at his head/shoulder position; he's not angry at, or focused on, "you", per se. He looks beyond. Grab the image and take the eye shine out to experiment for yourself.

Back to the original image in question, George Hurrell was very much part of the early American film industry publicity photography crowd. He actually studied here at the Art Institute of Chicago and, as such, I believe the AIC has several of his images in the collection. Entertainment celebrity publicity portraiture was his specialty and he did it very, very well.

Rachel Foster · Nov 11, 2009

Then, given these factors, perhaps what I'm responding to is the deconstruction of a person into something sexual while denying her personhood. In that respect, I suppose it works. But she -- as any person -- is far, far more than that. I submit, then, that this is not a "portrait," per se, but is a symbol of the times, a comment on attitudes, sexuality, and exploitation.

I'm still thinking on this.

Nigel Allan · Nov 11, 2009

Rachel, with respect, you are filtering this through your 21st century value system and sensibilities and prejudices about how you believe women 'should' be portrayed instead of seeing it for what it is - a depiction of Jean Harlow and how SHE chose to portray herself to the outside world. Do you think this would have seen the light of day had she not given her consent?

Try and view it without judgement of whether you think is it 'right' or 'wrong' (in feminist terms if you'll forgive the presumption) and try and view it dispassionately and objectively and whether it achieved what it set out to achieve as a character study/publicity shot/studio portrait or whatever.

I think the answer is it did.

[if the idea was to promote her as a sex object (dehumanised in your view) then it has worked because it has certainly hit a raw nerve with you (as a woman

]

Rachel Foster · Nov 11, 2009

Yes, there is definitely a huge dose of presentism in how I view this. But, I'm not an historian when I look at images. This speaks to the test of time, does it not?

And that begs the question of art and staying power. Does it have to have to transcend time to be "good art?"

I could question if it was how Jean Harlow chose to portray herself, but that would be semantics and hair-splitting, I suspect.

So, where do we stand with this image? I don't feel that I can summarize it as I'm too involved with my own approach/reaction/perspective.

Nigel Allan · Nov 11, 2009

That depends on whether 'art' (whatever that is) has anything to do with cultural mores, or personal religious views or whatever filter you choose to view it through

In the Victoria and Albert Museum in London stands a cast of Michaelangelo's 'David', a tall imposing sculpture of a naked man, genitals and all. Is that 'art'? Is it pornography? Is it dehumanising him and objectifying him? Is it degrading to men? Should I be horrified (as a man) that it hasn't stood the test of time and shows a naked man in these neo-Victorian times where most people are more prudish than they were 30 years ago?

No I just see it as a well put together iconic sculpture that happens to show male genitalia...ho humm

No doubt you are going to say that this statue is somehow different because it is a 'classical masterpiece' recognised by all. But is it? Doesn't that depend on where you are standing (I don't mean standing behind him

)

If you view it through a certain value system (Mormon for example) you might think it was indecent to show this degree of anatomy. Others will view it as good art, to use your words.

I don't think it is to do with viewing something as a historian, it's more to do with making a conscious decision to either allow one's own cultural prejudices to affect your objectivity or not. That's a personal decision

Rachel Foster · Nov 12, 2009

Nope, I wouldn't say David is different. What I do say is different is the historian's training and task. The historian is charged to be as impartial as possible (all human endeavor is value-laden but the attempt to be impartial is still important). I was more questioning whether or not art is different. My own view of art is that it should evoke emotion. That in itself makes it unique, different from scholarship. However, as Rick Greeley pointed out to me, this image did evoke an emotion/reaction in me. That's worth pondering.

Asher Kelman · Nov 12, 2009

Rachel Foster said:
Nope, I wouldn't say David is different. What I do say is different is the historian's training and task. The historian is charged to be as impartial as possible (all human endeavor is value-laden but the attempt to be impartial is still important). I was more questioning whether or not art is different. My own view of art is that it should evoke emotion. That in itself makes it unique, different from scholarship. However, as Rick Greeley pointed out to me, this image did evoke an emotion/reaction in me. That's worth pondering.

Rachel,

An historian has to write within the context they find themselves. We, after all, can never give a non-subjective account. We don't yet know the long term relevance of any event. That has to wait until life, as we know it, has almost fully played out. Then, the last few people can no longer find one another to mate, might examine everything that occurred until that tragic point.

In the meanwhile, let me object to any idea that art "should evoke emotion". After all, art can be made merely to be agreeable, not agitate, but offer space and opportunity for intelligent comment. We discussed this with an example, here.

Asher

Rachel Foster · Nov 12, 2009

That's where you and I differ, Asher. "Wallpaper" may be pretty, but to me (only to me) it's not art. Art doesn't have to be pretty, either (i.e., Bosch).

fahim mohammed · Nov 12, 2009

Each to her/his own. What might seem art to one might be nothing more than an attempt to cater
to our carnal desires. This particular photograph for me ( and me alone ) is a poor attempt to pander to
to some sort of sexual desires or wants within us.

Some photographs might do so with some success and for a certain audience. This photograph fails to do it for me. If it arouses some emotions in others...more power to them.

To me intelligence and knowledge ( good/useful/otherwise ) is not the same thing, and also is subject
to disagreement depending on your environment.

I have to hurry now or I shall miss the commercial breaks on tv.

Asher Kelman · Nov 12, 2009

Rachel Foster said:
That's where you and I differ, Asher. "Wallpaper" may be pretty, but to me (only to me) it's not art. Art doesn't have to be pretty, either (i.e., Bosch).

Wait a minute Rachel!!

Where did I ever say that art needs to be pretty? You must be thinking of someone else. I think that art might be pretty. Prettiness does not exclude a work being art. Depending on where it has to be put, it just has to be agreeable for that location.

Still, you did entertain me with the Yousuf Karsh photograph, so I will not hold a grudge, LOL

Rachel Foster said:
Back to the question of shadowed eyes, this one works extremely well, I think.

Yousuf Karsh "Grey Owl"

This is, BTW neither pretty nor does it switch on any emotions. It's just memorable picture!

Asher

Nigel Allan · Nov 12, 2009

This seems to be triggering responses in people due to their particular cultural, gender or religious bias and 'judging' whether the picture is 'right' or 'wrong' from their particular moral standpoint (which is relative) rather than whether it works or not.

I think the issue is not whether you like it or not, or whether it 'exploits' women (sic - only one woman gave her sanction for this and presumably it suited her agenda) and shows them in a bad light and sexualises the female form (God forbid the female form becomes asexual, the race would die out).

The issue is very simple and clear cut. Did the picture work? Did it achieve its objective? Did it communicate the message the subject and photographer wanted to convey?

On all counts I believe it did (partly because it has hit some raw nerves with people who find it offensive for its very effective communication of its message

).

For a moment put aside your prejudices and ask yourself, is this an effective, memorable and iconic image of a Hollywood sex symbol?

And that's my final word on this subject

because we'll never agree if we're discussing things through a cultural, religious, or gender agenda (I am proud to say I don't have a gender agenda - I only said it because I like the play on words)

Nigel

...now what about that TV commercial break, Fahim? There must be some art to watch there

Rachel Foster · Nov 12, 2009

But Nigel, that's my whole point. We are humans and we can't divorce ourselves from our cutural, gender, or religious biases. We can try to compensate for it but we cannot.

"I think the issue is not whether you like it or not, or whether it 'exploits' women (sic - only one woman gave her sanction for this and presumably it suited her agenda) and shows them in a bad light and sexualises the female form (God forbid the female form becomes asexual, the race would die out)."

Yes, exactly. That's why I posted the image and raised the question. You see, I know I'm mired in my background, attitudes and beliefs. And, I don't find it offensive, per se, but I do find it (after the discussion) as an interesting commentary on attitudes toward women and men in the last century. I wonder, though, if that was intentional when I look at his other images. He seemed to favor the shadowed eyes.

"Gender agenda." Nice one.

Asher: I only mentioned art as pretty because if it does not evoke emotion, of what else can it consist?

Learning From The Greats!

New member

pro member

New member

pro member

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

New member

Well-known member

pro member

Well-known member

Member

New member

Member

New member

New member

Member

New member

New member

pro member

New member

Member

New member

Member

New member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

New member

Well-known member

OPF Owner/Editor-in-Chief

Member

New member