Good day, bluedirect-ga,
Photography, a technology first discovered by the Frenchman, Nicephore
Niepce, in 1827, had a profound effect on art in general and
portraiture in particular. In many ways, though, photography's
effects, while important, were neither as great as nor in the ways
initially imagined.
Louis Daguerre, who partnered with Niepce in the late 1920's until
Monsieur Niepce's death in 1833, is credited with reducing the
required exposure time from eight hours to thirty minutes and later,
in 1837, with figuring out a way to "fix" (make permanent) the image.
It was these breakthroughs which inspired assertions such as that of
The Literary Gazette on 7 January 1839 which read:
"Paris, 6th January 1839.
We have much pleasure in announcing an important discovery made by M.
Daguerre, the celebrated painter of the Diorama. This discovery seems
like a prodigy. It disconcerts all the theories of science in light
and optics and, if borne out, promises to make a revolution in the
arts of design."
Not surprisingly, Daguerre's techniques kindled interest worldwide.
Photographs made using his method became known as daguerreotypes.
Daguerreotypes were limited in application because they required
lengthy exposure times, were reversed images, and were not
reproducible - each was one of a kind. But, interestingly, the French
government decided to pay Daguerre for his process and release it to
the general public almost without restriction (except in England,
where Daguerre took out a patent.) This led to an explosion in
interest and use, especially since developments by other inventors in
the next couple of years quickly reduced the necessary exposure times
and improved lens quality.
Robert Leggat notes on his website that "The claim was made that the
daguerreotype 'requires no knowledge of drawing....' and that 'anyone
may succeed... and perform as well as the author of the invention.'"
According to Kenneth E. Nelson of The Daguerrian Society, "By 1843 a
burgeoning daguerreotype portrait industry had evolved. While still
expensive, a miniature portrait "likeness" was no longer lucre for the
painter, nor a privilege of the very wealthy. For the equivalent of $2
to $5 in almost any town, a person's "phiz" could be immortalized on a
slip of silver, framed with a rich gilt mat, and pressed into a fitted
case covered in fine embossed leather."
Mr. Nelson further writes that "Though often far less than flattering
[than painted portraiture], daguerreotype likenesses were regarded as
mirrors of truth. Their brilliance, clarity, and seeming ability to
reveal the soul of the sitter became the stuff of poetry, and at least
one well-known novel, Hawthorne's House of the Seven Gables.
Based on the huge early success of daguerreotypes (and, beginning in
1851, the collodion process) one might suppose that artists painting
portraits in the old-fashioned way might soon be looking for new ways
to earn a living, especially as George Eastman revolutionized
photography with flexible roll film and cheap box cameras. This,
however, much as early predictions that television meant the end of
movies, or that the Internet tolled the death knell for conventional
libraries, proved to be well off the mark. Rather than putting
portrait artists out of business, photography simply changed their
roles somewhat, and, of course, a few are still today successfully
painting in much the same style as their predecessors did 200 years
ago. But, many other aspects of portraiture did change dramatically.
As described by a San Diego State University web page "Before the
advent of photography in the 1830s, portraiture was reserved for the
elite. The traditional painted portrait reflected the aristocratic
patron not only in appearance, but in status as well. After
photography made portraiture accessible to middle-class individuals,
commercial studios continued to use settings and props that evoked the
sophisticated aura of commissioned portraiture."
Or, as Robert Leggat put it, "The invention of photography marked a
watershed as far as portraiture was concerned, and it is not difficult
to understand why photography, from the earliest days, had such an
instant appeal both in America and in Europe, particularly in this
area. Portraiture, once only for the well-to-do, was now available to
all, as a natural leveller." In this sense, photographic portraiture
could actually be considered a social as well as artistic force.
The SDSU essay goes on to explain that "In addition to its benevolent
function of portraiture, early photography was a prime means of
recording and categorizing information about the "other." Criminals,
the unemployed, the mentally and physically ill, and ethnographic
"types" were subjected to the camera's lens." Representations such as
those, of course, had seldom been created when all portraits were done
by the traditional "artist".
So, with the advent of photography, not only were portraits done of
many people who would never before have been captured artistically,
but, perhaps more importantly, photography freed artists to pursue
their work in new ways. Since photographs can capture people and
places in much greater literal detail than a person can with a brush
and paint, artists, after the mid-1800's began to swap their role as
documentarians for that of seekers of a subjects "essence". That means
that, particularly after 1900, as explained by Carol Strickland in the
Christian Science Monitor, "Instead of rendering 'improved' reality in
paint or marble, artists chose to suggest, rather than explicitly
describe. They broke rules of naturalistic color, perspective, and
realistic shapes to show a more complicated truth than the external
version."
Artists today, rather than acting as glorified "cameras", have the
freedom to seek to portray a deeper and more interesting meaning of
their subject matter, be it landscape, portrait, or some other
subject. Moreover, artists are now free to portray things not
capturable by any conventional photographic method, such as
"intelligence", "fear", "confusion", "irony", and things that do not
conform to standard conventions of language. In other words, artists
are no longer constrained by what they see with their eyes, but are
instead free to express what they "see" with their mind. This
relatively new freedom applies to portraits as to all other so-called
conventional artistic subjects.
Again, as expressed by Carol Strickland "Modern artists questioned
everything. The concept of woman - a ministering angel in paintings by
Mary Cassatt - was reinterpreted by Gustav Klimt and Munch as a
devouring temptress. Images were simplified, distorted, and
embellished to shake up reigning assumptions."
Now, as John Gere said in 1974, rather than simply being a
representation of a person's physical being, "A portrait is an image
in which the artist is engaged with the personality of the sitter and
is preoccupied with his or her characterization as an individual."
How did this sea change in how portraits were executed affect the
experience of the subject? It did so in many ways. The most obvious is
that subjects sitting for photographic portraits no longer had to sit
for hours or days. Instead, once photography reached the a certain
level of technical sophistication (around 1843), they could complete
the portrait process in a matter of minutes. Of course, they had to
sit more motionlessly for the relatively brief time they *were* in
front of the camera than they did for the conventional artist since
the camera tends to record (sometimes unwanted) movement as well as
physical detail.
Other differences brought about by use of photography for portraiture
(in the early days), as recounted by Leggat, were:
"As the process was only sensitive to blue or white, one had to dress
in appropriate colours.
The portrait could only be taken if the weather was suitable; clients
would often have to climb a number of stairs, as most of the studios
were located on the top of a building
There were various methods of keeping a sitter still, a popular one
being a metal clamp (hidden from the camera) behind the sitter's head.
(This was not new to photography, one must add - it was quite commonly
used on conventional portraiture)."
In more modern times, photography has freed the portraiture subject
from the shackles of the extended posing sessions necessary for either
a painting or an early photograph. Today, with flexible film stocks,
sophisticated lighting, and finely crafted lenses, subjects are
allowed to move more freely, and can experiment with as many poses and
ideas as the photographer and subject have time, money, and patience
to try.
http://216.239.57.100/search?q=cache:r5Y5Q-ipfnQC:www.urtonart.com/history/photography.htm+photography+%22art+history%22+portraiture&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/daguerr.htm
http://www.rleggat.com/photohistory/history/collodio.htm
http://www.daguerre.org/resource/history/history.html
http://advancement.sdsu.edu/marcomm/Spring97News/persona.html
http://www.library.unt.edu/classes/art/2300Portraiture.htm
http://csmweb2.emcweb.com/durable/2000/06/23/p18s1.htm
While the questions you've raised can easily justify a more extensive
treatise, I trust this answer has adequately addressed your needs,
bluedirect-ga. If it leaves any issue inadequately or unclearly
answered, please use the Clarify Answer feature before posting your
rating of this answer.
Thanks for your question,
ericynot-ga
Google search terms:
photography "art history" portraiture
daguerre
history of photography
Other source: personal background in art history |
