Re: [Leica] Portfolios (disquisition alert)

["Margaret Jeffcoat" <margaret01@excelonline.com>]

Blow on Mike, Blow on!!
Wilber
- ----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Johnston <michaeljohnston@ameritech.net>
To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, October 13, 2000 10:18 PM
Subject: [Leica] Portfolios (disquisition alert)


>
>
> > This is yet another naive question from an amateur.  What should a
> > "personal portfolio" look like?
>
>
> Ah, you have stepped into my web, Grasshopper. A topic near and dear to my
> heart. Disquisition alert! (Windbag alert too, maybe. You have been
warned.)
>
> The form a personal portfolio would take would vary with the person, but
its
> function probably wouldn't. The idea is simply this--you're a
photographer.
> Can you show a representative sampling of your best work, in fully
realized
> form? Whatever that is?
>
> And make it so that it actually exists?
>
> This latter point is important. Many photographers have a vague idea in
> their heads of some given subset of their pictures, some of which might
> already exist in viewable form. This is their idea of "their work." But
> that, I would argue, doth not a portfolio make.
>
> The idea is to do the work to have on hand something that shows off what
you
> do, without apologies. The question I used to ask students is, if a museum
> curator knocked on your door tomorrow morning and asked to "see your
work,"
> are you READY? Do you have something finished, right now, to show? It's
not
> enough to lead them to a huge pile of workprints, or lead them around the
> house and show them the seventeen pictures you liked enough to have framed
> over the past decade, or to open the slide cabinet to reveal 5,000 slides
in
> cascading piles and say pleadingly, "can you give me a while?" or
(shudder)
> to open your contact book and start flipping through it, every now and
then
> jabbing your finger at the page.
>
> The "work" I'm talking about is what my friend Allen (A. D.) Coleman calls
> "reification"--making it real. The idea is that other people cannot see
your
> visualizations about your finished work in its absence, or from
incompletely
> realized clues.
>
> What the work consists of is going to depend upon what you visualize, but
> generally speaking it can be divided into three main tasks: editing the
> pictures, crafting prints (or whatever), and selecting and assembling and
> method of presentation.
>
> Re editing: most photographers are mediocre to execrable editors of their
> own work. The problem is that they lack a.) objectivity and b.) the
> requisite ruthlessness. What I mean by the first point is that they
consider
> all sort of thoughts, feelings, and factors extraneous to the picture in
the
> selection process--who they were with or what kind of day they were
having,
> how much the subject matter means to them, how hard they worked to
get/make
> the pictures (this happens frequently with amateurs--if they worked hard
to
> get it they somehow think it has to be good), some meaningless technical
> feature (a very saturated blue, or you like the sharpness), or (heaven
> forfend) their fetishistic slavering over whatever nifty piece of gear
they
> happened to make it with (that would never be pertinent to this
> list--Luggers are all too intelligent to get caught in that trap).
>
> Strategies to overcome these impediments to effective editing are
numerous,
> but I'll mention three: work at it; take your time; and, get help. I've
said
> many times and many places that the best editing tool is a large bulletin
> board where you put your pictures up to look at (assuming you make
prints).
> Another good idea is to gather other peoples' opinions and watch for other
> peoples' reactions as they look at your pictures.
>
> Another problem of editing is a false or obsequious objectivity, wherein
we
> pick things we think other people will like rather than the things _we_
like
> (I've been guilty of this my own self.)
>
> Then, of course, there is the problem of indulgence, wherein photographers
> who are sentimental over their own efforts, or egocentric, admit a lot of
> filler into the final selection becase they don't have the heart to leave
> the almost-good-enough stuff out (or they simply don't have enough work to
> come up with the number of truly strong pictures they think they ought to
> have).
>
> Finally there's the problem of coherence--coming up with a group of
pictures
> that makes some sort of sense together. Variety isn't necessarily bad, but
> it's got to hang together somehow.
>
> So, most amateurs never make it through the editing process.
>
> If you have enough gumption and verve to actually come up with a group of
> pictures that make sense together, things can get fun. Because there's
> nothing like having a clear goal in mind to give energy to the work of
> crafting prints. And, really, the crafting of the presentation method can
be
> almost as much fun as making the pictures.
>
> If you've never done this sort of thing before, I think you'll find:
>     --That it's surprisingly difficult;
>     --That it's even more satisfying than you imagine it will be when
you're
> done;
>     --That you never need return to that work again, because you have
> already done your level best by it;
>     --And one more very fortunate and happy result, which is that it helps
> direct your _future_ work. It helps you decide what kind of photography
you
> really like, and what you're best at; it helps you (even if only
> half-consciously) focus your efforts on work that will more easily and
> directly lend itself to reification later. All good.
>
> So as to what form your portfolio should take, I don't really know.
Depends
> what you do and how you want it to look. Traditional box and mounted b&w
> prints? Laminated color prints? Transparencies in mounts? A slide show? I
> personally like print books. It doesn't greatly matter. What matters is
> whether it's PERFECT, perfectly realized, a true representation of the
best
> you've done. No apologies or explanations necessary.
>
> And, unfortunately, most photographers never do all this. Even most of
those
> who may read this very message and become temporarily enthused about the
> idea of reifying a master portfolio of their work will never follow
through.
> Don't ask me why that is, but I know photographers, and I know it to be
the
> case. Sad but true.
>
> --Mike
>
> P.S. If you want some practical tips as to how to actually go about doing
> all this, ask me tomorrow and I'll type another disquisition, presuming
> there is not too vociferous a chorus of complaints about my longwindedness
> tonight.
>
>
>
>
>