Portraits being "important"; Yosuf Karsh

[thronobulax]

As Anthony says, this painting is stunning. It is hard to see how a photographer can get anywhere near this level of intensity and feeling. Caravaggio wasn't tied to "reality", of course. He included only those things that were necessary to create the effect he had in mind, and left out everything he thought would be irrelevant. Photographers, unfortunately, can't do this. In photography, everything that is actually there in front of the lens gets included in the picture.
<snip>

Alan

I had the great privilege of being at the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam right after the had restored some of the paintings of the Flemish Masters. I had much the same reaction. The light just poured OUT of those paintings. They were spectacular. I was on the Continent on a business trip, and later than evening I got to see Concertgebouw play so it was indeed a day of high art.

That said, I would take gentle umbrage with the observation above. When photography is approached as art (rather than journalism,
documentation, advertising, propaganda ...) it is a construct. We make pictures, we do not "take" them. It is well within the purview of the artist photographer to construct the image out of what is there, what is not there but implied, and that which we put together. It's likely that this is exactly what Caravaggio did in constructing this scene.

We also have a lot of creative control in how we interpret the constructed image in our printing process.

My sense is that painters actually have no more real control of the final artifact than we do - which is to say, we both have great control, albeit in rather different ways.

P.S. Anyone who has ever met me will assure you that I am not remotely "tied to reality"

 

[David M]

I believe it was the practice of these painters to paint from models, rather than imagination. Not necessarily posed together in the same scene, but assembled into the final composition. The techniques are well documented.
Our view of art (...or Art!) has changed over time. The great masters made work to order, and the work was agreed in detail with the client, even to the extent of specifying the amount to be spent on expensive materials like ultramarine and gold leaf (and of what quality). It was a long way from our own legendary f8 and be there.
Cellini’s autobiography is a good account. The process of pitching for work reminds me very much of the practice of advertising agencies.
Nowadays, we don’t regard bespoke work quite so highly. We might dismiss it as mere illustration.Today, the Artist turns out whatever they see fit and it‘s displayed for sale, rather like the souvenir mugs and monogrammed pencils in the gift shop at the end of every museum trip.
But yes, outside a very narrow view of photography, a photograph can certainly be arranged and controlled to give any desired result. Perhaps the most familiar is wedding photography where the bride, groom, bridesmaids, groomsmen, parents, children, clergy and guests are carefully arranged in significant kinship or functional groups.
Not Rembrandt, by any means, but who is? Advertising and fashion are filled with highly controlled photography too.
...and then there’s Photoshop, today’s equivalent of the invention of painting in oils.
This is not to say that there is not a great deal of merely competent, or even substandard work to observe. I suppose that this has been the common human condition for ever.

 

[Alan Clark]

David, yes, artists like Caravaggio and Rembrandt obviously painted from models. What I meant was that the original concept for the painting, and the compositional arrangement of shapes and light, all came from the imagination of the artist.

Alan

 

[David M]

I don’t want to discount imagination at all, but it would have been much more businesslike.
The Abbey of Saint (...let’s call him Ansel) might want a picture of their patron Saint, with his emblems, in the incident where (shall we say) St Peter revealed the Zone System to him. As this is being paid for by (shall we say again) Donald, they would need to have him represented as a cherub. The picture is to be displayed in such-and-such a space so the size must be such-and-such, including the frame. The monks liked the altarpiece that you did for the Church of Saint Edward, so can we have something similar?
So, probably much more like briefing your interior decorator. Or dressmaker. People choose their interior decorator for their flair and skill. We are all a bit hypnotised by the idea of Art for Art’s sake which is comparatively modern.
It’s a tribute to the painters we now admire that they made something of lasting value. Who knows? In a few centuries, people may revere some TV commercials in the same way.