Karsh
Alan Browne
I took a book from my local library, a collection of Karsh portraits
called "Karsh Portfolio" (1967). As my girlfriend and I were having our
coffee this morning, she was flipping through it, reading some of the
descriptions ... she flipped open the cover and discovered that it the
book had been dedicated by Karsh to "G. Thomson". I suspect that this
dedication had been done at a "book signing" rather than as a personal
signing, as the dedication is dated the same year as the book being
published.
Looking at the "borrowers" card at the back, I was only the third person
to borrow the book. The first entry was in 1983 and the next illegible,
and then me in 2003. 3 borrowers in 20 years! (The book is in
excellent condition, but the pages are slightly yellow [not acid free
paper, I suppose].
The Library took special pains to stamp the page with the Karsh
signature twice...
Among the portraits: the famous scouling Churchill, a strong Hemingway
in a rough sweater, a bizarre shot of Nikita Khrushchev in a wool cap
and fur coat, forward looking Martin Luther King, a light outline
shaddowgraph of François Mauriac, a poised Georgia O'Keefe, a crisp
silver Albert Schweizer, a rascalish George Bernard Shaw and a smoke and
whiskey Tennessee Williams...
Cheers,
Alan.
Bruce MacNeil
"Alan Browne" <alan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:3EC7B5FC...@videotron.ca...
Jack Germsheid
the early '70s inclucing some colour work. They don't use-take out cards
here but the volume appeared very dog-eared. His technique looks fairly
straight forward and he mentions loving strobes after studying portrait
technique in a north-light studio in Boston. It's worth looking at for
beginers studying technique and style of a Great photographer.
However methinks Bruce the Iconoclast is right and most of his images
are thought great because they are pictures of the Greats of our time
from Picasso to Churchill and Hemingway. The lesson here is get out and
photograph ther greats of our time or place and we will make a name for
ourselves. A song Zeitgeist often sings.
Right now I'm looking One Hundred Of Vouge which goes through each
decade up to the early nineties. I know this is an apples and oranges
comparison but I find Irving Penns portraits more interesting.
Any other books worth recommending?
Jack
Neuman - Ruether
<bruce@no_spambrucemacneil.com> wrote:
>Karsh does not appear to bear the test of time very well.
I agree - I find most of Karsh's "portraits" irritatingly
cliched and "stagey", with little photographic beauty in
them...
David Ruether
rp...@cornell.edu
http://www.ferrario.com/ruether
Hey, check out www.visitithaca.com too...!
Randall Ainsworth
reamed for it.
I've certainly seen worse work but if it weren't for him photographing
famous people nobody would have made note of him.
Alan Browne
Neuman - Ruether wrote:
> On Sun, 18 May 2003 20:51:51 -0400, "Bruce MacNeil"
> <bruce@no_spambrucemacneil.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Karsh does not appear to bear the test of time very well.
>
>
> I agree - I find most of Karsh's "portraits" irritatingly
> cliched and "stagey", with little photographic beauty in
> them...
> David Ruether
First of all, the comment by Bruce was (I believe) a comment on the fact
that the library book in question had only been borrowed 3 times in 20
years.
Regarding your comment: I like most of Karsh's work as portraits. He
worked quite hard to get the sitter to reveal something of themslelves
in the portrait. Some sitters worked hard to portray something
specific. As you look at a collection of his work you do see
differences in what was sought. In many he chose (or was forced) to use
settings that one might seek to avoid. Yet, he managed to get great
portraits. In a portrait, especially the formal style of Karsh, he was
not seeking anything especially unique in a photographic sense. He was
seeking to make an image that he thought evoked a sense of the person
photographed.
If a photo is special in a "photographic beauty" sense, then is it
also an honest portrait of the person sitting for the portrait? That is
essentially what Karsh was seeking, IMO.
Cheers,
Alan
zeitgeist
Karsh worked in the big camera and studio lighting world like Hurrell and
other Hollywood photogs. the equipment was very slow and clunky, as were
the films and lenses. It took a long time to set up for a portrait, to
shape the light to sculpt a face. Using highly specular light at its best
requires understanding of how such light effects the perception of 3d shapes
in 2d world of gray scale, each set up was unique for the subjects
particular face. IIRC, Karsh only shot one set up, and only a couple
frames, and by that I do mean about 2. Definitely not a cookie cutter, and
yeah, not very journalistic.
did authors do the big book store and talk show tour back then like they do
these days? btw the book might have been in someone's possession for years
before being returned, either during an amnesty or an estate closure, or
kept in a private reserve or special collections room.
this reply is echoed to the z-prophoto mailing list at yahoogroups.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
T. P.
>I've certainly seen worse work but if it weren't for him photographing
>famous people nobody would have made note of him.
Then you'd better find some famous people and photograph them.
Do it quick, in case no-one wants to make a note of *you*.
Neuman - Ruether
"Honest portraiture" does not place the maker in the
realm of the "artist", but of, possibly, the "very
good portrait photographer" (which I don't think Karsh
was...;-), of which there are MANY now living and
working, even locally, and whose work I would prefer
to view... (the "classic" Karsh "portrait", for me,
is the sweaty view of an over-dressed Khruschev,
obviously suffering under the hot lights...;-).
Randall Ainsworth
>
> Do it quick, in case no-one wants to make a note of *you*.
I don't do photography for fame and wealth...any more :-)
T. P.
>
>I don't do photography for fame and wealth...any more :-)
Well, if you *ever* did it, it obviously failed.
;-)
T. P.
>
>"Honest portraiture" does not place the maker in the
>realm of the "artist", but of, possibly, the "very
>good portrait photographer" (which I don't think Karsh
>was...;-), of which there are MANY now living and
>working, even locally, and whose work I would prefer
>to view... (the "classic" Karsh "portrait", for me,
>is the sweaty view of an over-dressed Khruschev,
>obviously suffering under the hot lights...;-).
If that was the impression Karsh wanted to convey, he obviously
succeeded, and that might be a pretty good description of "art".
Randall Ainsworth
How would you know...ever see any of my work?
Jack Germsheid
Sixty years ago we might have looked at his lighting as edgy, now it's old hat, but still classical. What one has to ask is if Churchill was my neighbor and Karsh was the portrait guy down the street would we still think this was a good portrait? The answer is yes,of course. Is it Art? Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Karsh's portrait of Georgia O'Keefe is fantastic. Period. I wonder what Herb Ritts (instert name of other dead/famous photog here) would have done with Georgia? What would any of us have done? Could we have created this portrait. I have only the faintest inkling who O'Keefe was but it is a great portrait.
The genreal public just doesn't care who is behind the camera, but they know who the famous person in the portrait is. The portrait is an art form but it won't be recognized as such until the artist and the subject matter are long dead.
Where Vermeer and Rembrant famous in their day? Probably not as well-known as they are now.
Two more bits,
Jack
Neuman - Ruether
Not really...;-)
Alan Browne
T. P. wrote:
> Then you'd better find some famous people and photograph them.
>
> Do it quick, in case no-one wants to make a note of *you*.
Let's see some of your photography, T.P., any category. We've been
asking for the longest time.
Cheers,
Alan
Bruce MacNeil
> I don't do photography for fame and wealth...
Neither do I....
zeitgeist
Compare Karsh to other practitioners of that style, Hurrell used large
format cameras and multiple light set ups,
> Where Vermeer and Rembrant famous in their day? Probably not as
> well-known as they are now.
> Two more bits,
Rembrandt was almost vilified by his work which is now noted as his most
famous, perhaps the first instance of a storytelling tableau of a group
instead of everybody just sitting there staring at the camera, I mean paint
brush... I think it was called the Night Watch (which was the night patrol
or what they had for police). but he was top of the line in his era, but
got fired some top position cause of the scandal the Night Watch caused.
Bill
From these comments, it appears that the writers have been looking at
published reproductions. May I suggest you find some original Karsh
prints before settling on a final opinion of his work or talent. On a
recent visit to Ottawa, the hotel I stayed in had half of dozen 20x24 in.
prints hanging around the public areas--most impressive, even under glass.
Not only
could the man capture a mood and personality, he (or his darkroom person)
really knew how to print.
WAF