Varying perspectives of the portraiture

Varying perspectives of the portraiture

                                                                                                                                           

The Daguerreotype drastically changed the identity of the portrait, which for the first time, was available to the masses and not just the social elite. Previously, oil paintings were the medium of choice and were for the most part, unaffordable to all but the wealthy. Several factors seemingly made the daguerreotype an excellent medium for portraits: first, the direct positive process made each image unique; second, it was a mirrored image, so it was not as we see ourselves, but as others see us; third, because the silver surface was so delicate, they were protected by a varying array of covers which is suggestive of the way "the individual image was both prized and enclosed mysteriously” (Clarke, 103). However, it fails in one critical factor; it often failed to capture personality. This was primarily due to the exposure times being so long. "Candid" type poses were impossible, as the subject must sit still and maintain the same pose and facial expression. This caused the person being photograph to lose their uniqueness and individuality.

[William Young McAllister, head-and-shoulders
portrait, facing left].
Root, M. A. 1808-1888, (Marcus
Aurelius), photographer.

[H.H. Fage, head-and-shoulders portrait,
facing slightly left].  Anson, Rufus, photographer. 

Along with the photographic process, gender also played a significant factor in the style early portraits. Below are two photographs by Margaret Cameron which illustrate the difference gender played in early photographic portraiture. Hershel boldly stares into the camera with a very confident demeanor, while Mary Hillier is positioned in a passive eloquent pose as she looks away from the camera. These differences were more than likely a result of cultural standards of the time. This is not to say that all early portraits demonstrated these qualities, but it certainly was not uncommon.    

Sir John Herschel (1867)
Photographer, Margaret Cameron

Mary Hillier (1872)
Mary Hillier

Unlike Margaret Cameron, who was very much studio-based and favored a staged image, David Octavious Hill and Robert Adamson were a stark contrast, as they preferred capturing people in their natural element. They brought a new approach to photographing portraits, "taking it away from the studio and insisting on giving the figure a context in which its life and day-to-day existence could be suggested and felt" (Clarke, 106). By embracing this style and providing context, Hill and Adamson are able to more accurately capture the unique personalities of the fishermen. In the picture at the bottom, James Linton is clearly the target subject of the photograph; however, the boat and the kids provide context which helps capture the essence of the intended target.  Inge Morath accurately identifies that “a successful portrait catches a moment of stillness within the daily flows of things, when the inside of a person has a chance to come through”.

David Octavius Hill and Robert Adamson Hill and Adamson Newhaven Fishermen

James Linton and unknown boys- New Haven
David Octavius Hill and Robert Adamson Hill and Adamson

Reference:

Graham Clarke. The Photograph, New York:  Oxford University Press , 1997.