The Ten Best Photographic Portraits

Zxc

"Ten Best" lists are always good for starting fierce debate, as has this one by Eamon McCabe in today's Observer.
There's no Irish photographer listed (that I'm aware of) but there are a couple of Irish subjects photographed in the list.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/dec/05/10-best-photographic-portraits-mccabe

DaireQuinlan

No Jane Bown's Becket ? Pff.

Borderfox

Having both Sinead O'Connor and Roy Keane in it personally ruins it for me, other that that superb shot from Don McCullin

magicbastarder

mccullin's autobiography - unreasonable behaviour is well worth a read.

CabanSail

Who decides these things?

How a list like that cannot have the 1941 Yousef Karsh "Winston Churchill" portrait amazes me.

From Wikipedia

The story is often told of how Karsh created his famous portrait of Churchill during the early years of World War II. Churchill, the British prime minister, had just addressed the Canadian Parliament and Karsh was there to record one of the century's great leaders. "He was in no mood for portraiture and two minutes were all that he would allow me as he passed from the House of Commons chamber to an anteroom," Karsh wrote in Faces of Our Time. "Two niggardly minutes in which I must try to put on film a man who had already written or inspired a library of books, baffled all his biographers, filled the world with his fame, and me, on this occasion, with dread."

Churchill marched into the room scowling, "regarding my camera as he might regard the German enemy." His expression suited Karsh perfectly, but the cigar stuck between his teeth seemed incompatible with such a solemn and formal occasion. "Instinctively, I removed the cigar. At this the Churchillian scowl deepened, the head was thrust forward belligerently, and the hand placed on the hip in an attitude of anger."

The image captured Churchill and the Britain of the time perfectly — defiant and unconquerable. Churchill later said to him, "You can even make a roaring lion stand still to be photographed." As such, Karsh titled the photograph, The Roaring Lion.

sineadw

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

No Jane Bown's Becket ? Pff.

Hah! I just referenced that today in my workbook as my favourite, along with Pyke's Iris Murdoch. I love those two..

Thecageyone

The Roy Keane one is terrible, looks real awkward and forced, a portrait should reveal some character - this one makes him look a bit of a gimp.

The Muhammad Ali one isn't really a portrait at all.

Seems Best portraits = pictures of famous people, to whoever compiled it. there's millions of much better portraits out there of unknowns.

alb

That 'top ten' is laughable for a couple of reasons, firstly some of them don't even fit the definition of portrait - "A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant"

Secondly are we talking top ten portraits ever here? none of these would make it imho.

AnimalRights

I learnt everything about photography from the net or by myself, I rarely ever ever look to "famous" photographers.

Maybe that sounds I'm up my own bum but rather me the someone else.

charybdis

AnimalRights wrote: »

I learnt everything about photography from the net or by myself, I rarely ever ever look to "famous" photographers.

Maybe that sounds I'm up my own bum but rather me the someone else.

You don't like any famous photographer's work?

A.Partridge

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

No Jane Bown's Becket ? Pff.

John Minihan's 'Beckett' should be mentioned too.

However, this Top Ten is not really a set of the top ten portraits taken of all time. As a set it contains street photography (Wall St Underground pic) and war photography (Don MCCullin) as well as a very ordinary bread and butter sports profile photograph (see the Roy Keane picture).

I'd say this Top Ten was put together by some junior picture editor at The Guardian in about 3 minutes.

Zillah

Am I missing something here? The Sinead O'Connor portrait is terrible. You can't see her eyes, most of the frame is taken up by the top of her skull, her expression is all squished up because of the angle, her pose is awkward as hell...just absolutely mediocre. If this wasn't a famous person no one would look at it twice.

eas

Zillah wrote: »

Am I missing something here?

Maybe the ability to see a photo for what it is instead of a list of text book requirements?

Zillah

Is there any way I can express my reasons for not liking the photograph that would not result in you using the word "textbook" with an idiotic condescending wink?

magicbastarder

CabanSail wrote: »

Who decides these things?

i found this at the end of the article:
"The list of portraits picked in the article is merely the opinion of the journalist who wrote the article. Any warranties or guarantees implied in the article are illusory, and do not form a legal agreement between the author and the customer, and no complaints will be entertained. Your statutory rights are not affected."

magicbastarder

A.Partridge wrote: »

I'd say this Top Ten was put together by some junior picture editor at The Guardian in about 3 minutes.

eamonn mccabe is the picture editor for the guardian.

eas

Zillah wrote: »

Is there any way I can express my reasons for not liking the photograph that would not result in you using the word "textbook" with an idiotic condescending wink?

Yes, by not using cliched textbook idiotic reasons for not liking a portrait for saying a portrait is terrible such as "you can't see her eyes"

AnimalRights

charybdis wrote: »

You don't like any famous photographer's work?

Not really, for some reason I only like looking at fellow boardise or Pixies to study their pics and to learn, I feel I can relate more to them then complete strangers, it's a bit along the lines that I'd prefer the woman next door then to a model.

You have to remember I didn't read books, I left school at 15 and just knacker drank with friends.

Only famous photographer I really know is Pennie Smith who was The Clash's personal photographer.

Zillah

eas wrote: »

Yes, by not using cliched textbook idiotic reasons for not liking a portrait for saying a portrait is terrible such as "you can't see her eyes"

Er, ok, but I like to be able to see someone's eyes in a portrait. You're telling me that I'm not allowed to feel that because you think it's textbook? Do we have to keep inventing new reasons to not like a photo?

"I don't like the framing, the horizon is at 45 degrees".
"No, no. I've heard that one before. Think of a new reason to not like it."
"I like straight horizons."
"That is so textbook!"

Tell you what. Why don't you make a list of the reasons that you think are too common for not liking photos and put it in your signature or something and we can avoid this happening again.

magicbastarder

Zillah wrote: »

If this wasn't a famous person no one would look at it twice.

i'd agree with you there. it's not a bad portrait, it's just forgettable.

eas

You can not like a photo for 100 lame reasons, but claiming a photo is terrible because it doesn't conform to your idea of what a portrait should be is what I think needs more consideration on your part. You personally not liking something and something being rubbish are two different things in my view.

You asked in your post if you where missing something, I think you are.

magicbastarder

eas wrote: »

You personally not liking something and something being rubbish are two different things in my view.

that supposes that a picture can have a worth outside what peoples' opinions of it are. and that's a whole other debate.

magicbastarder

speaking of portrait photography:
http://www.pieromartinello.com/projects/a-life%E2%80%99s-work/

Jim

eas wrote: »

You can not like a photo for 100 lame reasons, but claiming a photo is terrible because it doesn't conform to your idea of what a portrait should be is what I think needs more consideration on your part. You personally not liking something and something being rubbish are two different things in my view.

You asked in your post if you where missing something, I think you are.

I totally agree with you in that respect but also agree with everyone else in the thread! heh. Totally crap and forgettable photos. I reckon the guy who compiled the list did so trying to be "different" etc.

I have almost no interest in portraits of famous people. The fact that they are famous seems to give the photos more kudos than they are due.

Zillah

eas wrote: »

You can not like a photo for 100 lame reasons, but claiming a photo is terrible because it doesn't conform to your idea of what a portrait should be is what I think needs more consideration on your part. You personally not liking something and something being rubbish are two different things in my view.

You asked in your post if you where missing something, I think you are.

No photograph is worth anything outside of someone's opinion of it. There are no objectively good or bad photos, just people's reactions to them. I could preface everything I say about photographs with "In my opinion..." if you like, but considering that it will always be in my opinion, let's just assume it's always there.

charybdis

Zillah wrote: »

No photograph is worth anything outside of someone's opinion of it. There are no objectively good or bad photos, just people's reactions to them. I could preface everything I say about photographs with "In my opinion..." if you like, but considering that it will always be in my opinion, let's just assume it's always there.

He wasn't suggesting that there are objectively good photographs, your implication that he was is a fallacy. I think his point was that it's usually not a good idea to dismiss something on the grounds that it doesn't conform to your idea of what it should be.

Zillah

charybdis wrote: »

He wasn't suggesting that there are objectively good photographs

Yes he was. He said:

eas wrote: »

You personally not liking something and something being rubbish are two different things in my view.

...clearly distinguishing between subjective and objective criticism.

I think his point was that it's usually not a good idea to dismiss something on the grounds that it doesn't conform to your idea of what it should be.

This is literally the only reason to criticise something, by definition.

charybdis

Zillah wrote: »

Yes he was.

Ahem.

Zillah wrote: »

This is literally the only reason to criticise something, by definition.

Don't you think there's distinction between "this is a bad thing" and "I do not like this thing"?

challengemaster

Jesus they're all pure crap.

Zillah

charybdis wrote: »

Ahem.

I don't see how this applies. He implies two ways in which a photograph can be judged, one using subjective language and the other using objective.

Unless you're just linking random logic article, in which case I'll play too: Ahem.

Don't you think there's distinction between "this is a bad thing" and "I do not like this thing"?

In a realm of discussion that is inherently subjective, no. If I use objective language for the sake of brevity I shouldn't have to hold your hand by prefacing "In my personal and subjective opinion..." at the start of every post. Mentally insert it like other reasonable people do.

Woman: "Here, try this."
Man: *eats some* "Ugh, that's horrible!"
Woman: "What?"
Man: "Oh sorry, according to the subjective experience of my taste buds this is horrible."
Woman: "That's better".

Zillah

challengemaster wrote: »

Jesus they're all pure crap.

In your subjective opinion!

Jesus guys, come on.

Mellor

Zillah wrote: »

In your subjective opinion!

Jesus guys, come on.

seeing how we are linking stuff

Ahem!

Zillah

In this context some people don't seem to be following that opinions are always subjective, so considering my audience, it is, in fact, not a pleonasm. :pac:

charybdis

Zillah wrote: »

I don't see how this applies. He implies two ways in which a photograph can be judged, one using subjective language and the other using objective.

eas never posited there were objectively good photographs, you suggested he did.

(As an aside, I don't like several of these photographs, but I don't think any of them are bad photographs. I believe they are a legitimate articulation of the photographer's intent, they just don't resonate with me.)

Zillah wrote: »

Unless you're just linking random logic article, in which case I'll play too: Ahem.

That's actually pretty funny.

Zillah wrote: »

In a realm of discussion that is inherently subjective, no. If I use objective language for the sake of brevity I shouldn't have to hold your hand by prefacing "In my personal and subjective opinion..." at the start of every post. Mentally insert it like other reasonable people do.

Woman: "Here, try this."
Man: *eats some* "Ugh, that's horrible!"
Woman: "What?"
Man: "Oh sorry, according to the subjective experience of my taste buds this is horrible."
Woman: "That's better".

Any discussion of art is inherently subjective, but within that subjectivity it is possible to understand there is a distinction between what is tasteless and what is not to one's taste. It's possible to appreciate something while not liking it and it's possible to deem something to be unworthy of consideration, but they're not the same thing.

Woman: "Here, try this."
Man: *eats some* "Ugh, that's horrible!"
Woman: "What?"
Man: "I don't like it."
Woman: "You never did like strawman."

magicbastarder

this is fascinating, guys.

Zillah

charybdis wrote: »

eas never posited there were objectively good photographs, you suggested he did.

You're familiar with the concept of inference, right? The statement "I like cake" is not the same as "I believe cake exists", but one can conclude that I believe in the existence of cake by inference.

Any discussion of art is inherently subjective, but within that subjectivity it is possible to understand there is a distinction between what is tasteless and what is not to one's taste. It's possible to appreciate something while not liking it and it's possible to deem something to be unworthy of consideration, but they're not the same thing.

Taste is a question of propriety, which is consensus, not objectivity. Liking something and "appreciating" something are both also subjective.

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is fascinating, guys.

In your opinion. I wish everyone would stop confusing eas and charybdis with this objective terminology.

charybdis

Zillah wrote: »

You're familiar with the concept of inference, right? The statement "I like cake" is not the same as "I believe cake exists", but one can conclude that I believe in the existence of cake by inference.

Your inference was predicated on a fallacy, which is what I said.

Zillah wrote: »

Taste is a question of propriety, which is consensus, not objectivity. Liking something and "appreciating" something are both also subjective.

I explicitly said it was subjective. That it is subjective is not being debated.

Zillah wrote: »

In your opinion. I wish everyone would stop confusing eas and charybdis with this objective terminology.

You can keep strawmanning, it's not helping your argument.

Thecageyone

magicbastarder wrote: »

this is fascinating, guys.

It is?

Zillah

charybdis wrote: »

Your inference was predicated on a fallacy

But it's not. You linked to a non-applicable fallacy and have failed to defend your assertion that it applies somehow. He used terminology that drew a clear distinction between the subjective and objective.

I explicitly said it was subjective. That it is subjective is not being debated.

You can keep strawmanning, it's not helping your argument.

You can keep saying this but then you go and say something like "Don't you think there's distinction between "this is a bad thing" and "I do not like this thing"?"

"This is a bad thing" is an objective proposition. You cannot make objective propositions while pretending to be discussing subjective concepts. You are all over the place. You don't seem to see a connection between using objective terminology and the concept of objectivity. In which case I'm not sure what I can do for you.

eas

charybdis wrote: »

He wasn't suggesting that there are objectively good photographs, your implication that he was is a fallacy. I think his point was that it's usually not a good idea to dismiss something on the grounds that it doesn't conform to your idea of what it should be.

That is my point.

No photograph is worth anything outside of someone's opinion of it.

Obviously I don't agree. If this is really how you feel then why the original comment questioning validity of the selection?

kelly1

Poor top ten if you ask me!

thebaz

CabanSail wrote: »

Who decides these things?

How a list like that cannot have the 1941 Yousef Karsh "Winston Churchill" portrait amazes me.

that shot of Churchill is my favourite photo of all time, in the 50 years since, with all the advancement of technology it is yet to be bettered IMO. Karsh actually is a superb portrait photographer he has some amazing stuff

magicbastarder

it's a grand photo, but one of the top ten of all time? i don't see the fuss about it. granted, it's iconic, but doesn't do an awful lot for me.

kelly1

thebaz wrote: »

that shot of Churchill is my favourite photo of all time, in the 50 years since, with all the advancement of technology it is yet to be bettered IMO. Karsh actually is a superb portrait photographer he has some amazing stuff

Dammit, he's good! http://www.karsh.org/#/the_work/portraits/

thebaz

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's a grand photo, but one of the top ten of all time? i don't see the fuss about it. granted, it's iconic, but doesn't do an awful lot for me.

i'm sure some people dont like picasso , its subjective - my favourire Irish photo hangs on my wall , its a Bill Doyle - when i tell people that it is my fav. - they look at me weird

magicbastarder

there's a portrait i haven't seen in 20 years, which i remember seeing in practical photography - i think it was a lichfield one, but it was a shot of michael heseltine, and just the top half of his face. anyone know the one i'm talkign about? a quick google did not help.

charybdis

Zillah wrote: »

But it's not. You linked to a non-applicable fallacy and have failed to defend your assertion that it applies somehow. He used terminology that drew a clear distinction between the subjective and objective.

Strictly speaking, it applies because you took what could be considered an implication that there are objectively bad photographs to mean that there are objectively good photographs. I don't think that's was eas was saying, but if you want to consider it that way for the purposes of argument, you still committed a fallacy.

Zillah wrote: »

"This is a bad thing" is an objective proposition. You cannot make objective propositions while pretending to be discussing subjective concepts. You are all over the place. You don't seem to see a connection between using objective terminology and the concept of objectivity. In which case I'm not sure what I can do for you.

As you have already repeated, when talking about inherently subjective things one should be able to speak with the implication that what they say is an opinion without having to repeatedly clarify that they are speaking subjectively. To somewhat return to your earlier food analogy: you can say that "I dislike carrots" or "I think that carrots are bad" but they mean different things, although both are clearly subjective statements.

Zillah

charybdis wrote: »

Strictly speaking, it applies because you took what could be considered an implication that there are objectively bad photographs to mean that there are objectively good photographs. I don't think that's was eas was saying, but if you want to consider it that way for the purposes of argument, you still committed a fallacy.

One necessitates the other. "Good" and "bad" are two ends of a scale, asserting one invokes the other.

As you have already repeated, when talking about inherently subjective things one should be able to speak with the implication that what they say is an opinion without having to repeatedly clarify that they are speaking subjectively. To somewhat return to your earlier food analogy: you can say that "I dislike carrots" or "I think that carrots are bad" but they mean different things, although both are clearly subjective statements.

And if he had simply stated "That is a good photo" or "That is a bad photo" I would have given him the benefit of the doubt that it was within his subjective opinion. But he specifically drew a dichotomy between the subjective ("not liking") and the objective ("being rubbish"). And as he just stated here, he does think photos have objective worth.

eas wrote: »

Obviously I don't agree. If this is really how you feel then why the original comment questioning validity of the selection?

Because I don't like the selection, not because I think the selection is objectively bad. I gave my reasons for not liking the selection, but you apparently felt they were too "textbook". If the way I phrased it threw you off, refer to my eating analogy.

Oh the internet.

eas

Zillah wrote: »

Because I don't like the selection, not because I think the selection is objectively bad. I gave my reasons for not liking the selection, but you apparently felt they were too "textbook". If the way I phrased it threw you off, refer to my eating analogy.

oh, I see what you've done there - you're the man and I'm the woman. You're so clever Zillah.

Zillah

No...if anything charybdis is the woman. Look, you can make it Mr Smith and Mr Brown for all I care, it wasn't some weird joke or insult.

charybdis

Zillah wrote: »

One necessitates the other. "Good" and "bad" are two ends of a scale, asserting one invokes the other.

This is really a semantic issue of whether you consider "good" to mean "not bad".

Zillah wrote: »

And if he had simply stated "That is a good photo" or "That is a bad photo" I would have given him the benefit of the doubt that it was within his subjective opinion. But he specifically drew a dichotomy between the subjective ("not liking") and the objective ("being rubbish").

I don't agree that he was positing a dichotomy, or that calling something "rubbish" is a specifically objective statement (and if he was, I don't agree with either suggestion).

Zillah wrote: »

And as he just stated here, he does think photos have objective worth.

That's not what he said, you're strawmanning again. I can't pretend to speak for him, but I think the meaning of your statement relies heavily upon the meaning of "someone" and the assumption that worth is also objective.