I have a new project to amuse myself with over the next few weeks. It's inspired by two recent events in my life.
The first was visiting the Facing The World exhibition at the National Portrait Gallery, my favourite amongst the city's excellent and varied art houses of art. A collection of self portraits from Rembrandt to the present day, it was striking, intriguing and sometimes disturbing. There were plenty of images that left an impact upon me, but two would return to mind later when the second event hit me.
It was seeing the photo above one morning. Hillary Clinton, US Presidential Candidate, waving to a crowd. All of whom are looking at her on tiny screens while they turn their back on one of the most famous women in the world. Could anything exemplify what's become known as the Selfie Culture any more than this image? A society where many people appear not to believe they've been somewhere, done something, seen someone unless they have a photograph to place themselves in the place, the action, with the person. It's a phenomenon the likes of Nicola Sturgeon has seized on and not only accepted but used to her advantage. It seems Clinton is going the same route.
I take photos of the place the event, the person, but I know I've been behind the lens, I don't need to place myself in the shot to prove it. Maybe it's an age thing, but I confess to being one of those people who winces at the sight of a selfie stick. All the time I have no good reason for doing so, other than another attitude that's stuck in the past... Move on Crawford!
Yet the apparent narcissism of the selfie's predominance is an issue that's discussed seriously in many publications and discussions. It's a significant cultural change, yet another arriving through new technology and the power of interconnectedness, whether deemed beneficial, detrimental or neutral. Is it also art? When does the selfie stop being narcissism and become art? Or can these two things coexist?
So was Rembrandt a narcissist? Lacking the advantages of photography artists frequently painted themselves simply for practice, to improve their technique, to experiment with lighting and poses and expressions. Models were expensive and not always readily available. The selfie of the time was a practical necessity for an artist seeking to improve.
But the selfie now? The same approach can apply if you want to seriously undertake some portrait photography. But it can be art too. In that exhibition there was an intriguing self portrait photograph by an artist in the 1930s (I have forgotten her name, sadly). The camera is slightly above her and to her left. She is sat down looking relaxed, looking away to the left of the shot, one hand in her lap, the other out of the frame. It was thought the (missing) left hand was holding the pressure bulb used to trigger the remote control to take the picture. Nowadays our cameras have timers, making this kind of shot easier to set up. That thirties photo, so striking in it's composition, is proof of the selfie as art. It said as much about the subject as many of the wonderful paintings on those walls.
So how can you or I turn selfies into an art form? Are there rules to follow? Or is the intent that enables the transformation? My own wee experiment is to take frequent selfies over the next couple of months and see what the results are. To use varied lighting, poses, angles, facial expressions. Rather than my phone I'm going 'old tech'. Well back to 2008, before the selfie exploded into what it is today. Nothing fancy, just a compact Canon, new enough to have reasonable pixel count and lens, old enough to be a break from the social media immediacy of the selfie as we know it today. No photoshopping, no filters, no fancy effects. Flash, tripod and timer are the only conveniences I'll employ.
I have no idea where this is leading me, but I'll be posting the results in December.
No comments:
Post a Comment