On Mon, 19 May 2003 21:45:04 -0400, Alan Browne <alan.browne@videotron.ca> wrote:

>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.

"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...;-).