Platon Portraits of Power in The New Yorker

rutt

http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon

Let's discuss. I think these are a wow.

Nikonic1

A wow to say the least. That is incredible.

michswiss

I came across this this morning. I'm not so much enamoured with the images themselves as with the process that was set up to gain access to so many world leaders in such a short time frame. I can only imagine the moment to moment dialogue that must have been taking place between various Aides and New Yorker Staff followed by a flurry of activity as the dignitary actually sat.

thoth

This is a fantastic project and is entirely made by the commentary. Unfortunately, that commentary falls quite short on many of them for me. Do I need to be told that Rupiah Banda has crevices in his forehead or that Michelle Bachelet seems uncomfortable? I don't think so. However, the stories that tell us about the experience of acquiring these photographs is most welcome.

Nikonic1

thoth wrote:

This is a fantastic project and is entirely made by the commentary. Unfortunately, that commentary falls quite short on many of them for me. Do I need to be told that Rupiah Banda has crevices in his forehead or that Michelle Bachelet seems uncomfortable? I don't think so. However, the stories that tell us about the experience of acquiring these photographs is most welcome.

Good points....I was thinking some of the clips ended too soon before he really got to explainin'!!

saurora

I really enjoyed these, Rutt, thanks for sharing. One really has to let go of their pre-conceived idea of a "portrait" to look at these. At first glance, a mass of head shots look a little boring and heck, not too flattering! But I think he does an amazing job, given such a short time of capturing his subject's personality....in just a head shot. The photos are not glamorous, but some of them are very strong or even stunning (Evo Morales comes to mind) and there is a stark naked honesty about them. After looking at a couple, I started taking the time to study each shot before listening to his commentary. I was quite often very close in guessing what his feelings about the person would be. To me these shots are very 'telling'. I also enjoy his video interviews on Fly Magazine (which can be viewed on The Strobist). He talks there about shooting famous individuals from politicians to rock bands and how he has learned to become very 'neutral'. Obviously, he has shot a lot of portraits and has learned his craft well. (All said, I wouldn't want to have my head shot that closely and so raw, wrinkles and all! )

rutt

I only looked at these in the print New Yorker, so I haven't heard the commentary. Like the 1 November 2004 New Yorker with Avedon's Democracy, I think this would be a good New Yorker for photography fans to own. Democracy was the project Avedon was working on when he died and it was published shortly after his death which makes it very special. It's interesting to compare the two projects.
Look closely at Karl Rove and Jimmy Carter, for example. Or compare Obama in the two.

sara505

rutt wrote:

I only looked at these in the print New Yorker, so I haven't heard the commentary. Like the 1 November 2004 New Yorker with Avedon's Democracy, I think this would be a good New Yorker for photography fans to own. Democracy was the project Avedon was working on when he died and it was published shortly after his death which makes it very special. It's interesting to compare the two projects.
Look closely at Karl Rove and Jimmy Carter, for example. Or compare Obama in the two.

Both of these are fantastic - Platon and Avedon. The sheer energy involved in getting all of these people to stop and sit for a portrait, and how awesome it must have been to be surrounded by such people.
Powerful photography and subjects.
hmm...didn't know Obama had a mole.

bdcolen

rutt wrote:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/multimedia/2009/12/07/091207_audioslideshow_platon

Let's discuss. I think these are a wow.

Sorry, Rutt. I know they're in the New Yorker, but...While I am certainly impressed by his pulling it off, the photography does nothing for me; very derivative; not especially revealing. Sure, Ahmadinejad looks looney and messianic - so what else is new? And the weird color? Why? Just doesn't do a thing for me. Sorry.

Wil Davis

Interesting series, and I heard a brief reference to this on NPR during the week. I don't like the weird colours; I think all B&W would be better, and I wonder how much PP we're seeing.

I feel that what we see in the series is how the subjects wish to be seen, i.e. posed - I would be much more interested in a series of candids, so we get a chance to see what they're really like… (I think some of them look quite creepy… )

Thanks for sharing the link…

- Wil

pathfinder

I saw that issue of The New Yorker and looked through the images, and wondered how they convinced these power brokers to submit to pictures that look like these. That did amaze me. The images not quite so much.

Richard

bdcolen wrote:

Sorry, Rutt. I know they're in the New Yorker, but...While I am certainly impressed by his pulling it off, the photography does nothing for me; very derivative; not especially revealing. Sure, Ahmadinejad looks looney and messianic - so what else is new? And the weird color? Why? Just doesn't do a thing for me. Sorry.

I found it an interesting series. We usually see heads of state in contrived settings designed to emphasize their power, but these are as minimal as it gets. Yet individual character comes through well, at least in the ones that I know anything about. Like Wil, I am curious about the PP--some of the heads look distorted to me, though I suppose it could also be from using wide angle lenses up close. I also wonder how many of them were using makeup, which is common in more official shots.

Wil Davis

pathfinder wrote:

I saw that issue of The New Yorker and looked through the images, and wondered how they convinced these power brokers to submit to pictures that look like these. That did amaze me. The images not quite so much.

From the snippets I heard on the radio that the photographer was also quite amazed, after all it was quite a feat; I think he was smart in that he set up his booth "on the way to the forum" so to speak, so that his targets couldn't really avoid him, and I also got the impression that he worked at it and was very persistent but not in a bullying way, but was also very gracious, and in control. I also wonder about the "oh, look! he's getting his picture taken; don't want to lose face so I'd better get mine taken also!" syndrome…

He also mentioned that being surrounded by the "entourage" and SS guys was very intimidating!

- Wil

saurora

bdcolen wrote:

Sorry, Rutt. I know they're in the New Yorker, but...While I am certainly impressed by his pulling it off, the photography does nothing for me; very derivative; not especially revealing. Sure, Ahmadinejad looks looney and messianic - so what else is new? And the weird color? Why? Just doesn't do a thing for me. Sorry.

If Ahmadinejad looks looney and messianic then perhaps Platon failed in his attempt, if we listen to the commentary on what he was attempting to achieve. I struggled with this particular shot myself. Did he look looney because I recognized him immediately and therefore was unable to be "neutral" in judging the image irself? Or was the photographer unable to convey his discovery of what he saw? I am not familiar with a lot of the images of world leaders, but this was one I was. I tried to view them all without reading who they were and before listening to the commentary. It really gave me a chance to study them as just 'faces' and I was really pretty amazed at how much just a head shot of a face could convey. No, it may not tell a story per se, but it is interesting to sense a certain feeling about a person when you don't even know who they are.

As per the strange color used, I notice he thought some photos worked better in color and he was consistent using the same neutral tone in each shot....neutral as in using black and white. If he had used a warm color in some but not others, it could very well change our perception of that portrait compared to the others. We could read something into that warmth that really wasn't there.

I do not like head shots as a general rule, and I did not like the tone of the color, but to see warmth in a face with use of that particular tone was interesting to me.

sara505

Wil Davis wrote:

Interesting series, and I heard a brief reference to this on NPR during the week. I don't like the weird colours; I think all B&W would be better, and I wonder how much PP we're seeing.

I feel that what we see in the series is how the subjects wish to be seen, i.e. posed - I would be much more interested in a series of candids, so we get a chance to see what they're really like… (I think some of them look quite creepy… )

Thanks for sharing the link…

- Wil

I disagree. I think the lighting and the starkness reveals a certain reality - I think that's the point.

Tina Manley

I don't like them at all. I think they are gimmicky with most using an extreme wide angle very close to exaggerate features and make people look bad on purpose. The post processing method of mid-tone detail enhancement just make the portraits even more unflattering. I know the point of the portraits is not the same as a portrait session when you are trying to flatter the subject; but these are too far in the other direction. I don't like any photos that depend on gimmicks.

That's my opinion. YMMV

Tina
www.tinamanley.com

damonff

Rutt,

Unimaginable...I have never differed...I think these are pedestrian.

Some of them even suck.

The Ahmadinejad one is kind of nice.

And believe me, this is a Rutt recommendation. I looked at and studied every one.

seastack

Well Platon has certainly been the hottest thing in new portrait photography for a few years now, and is
Avedon's literal successor at the New Yorker as staff photographer, but this series did not wow me like some of his other work. Now his photo of Putin for the cover of Time, however ... wow ... and even the Clinton "show me the love Mr. President" shot is a classic. I don't know, if you are going to go for this type of "look" in this series of world leaders you might as well go all the way and go Nadav-Kander-Obama-Administration-for-the-Times on them. But then, I liked Kanders' large format work along the Yangtze much, much better.

I could have sworn I read that Platon actually worked for Avedon at one time but cannot find the reference now? Perhaps as his printer? Could be wrong. I see a lot of emulation of Avedon in Platon's work, and now, a whole lot of people are doing Platon. I wish I enjoyed the evolution more.

rutt

I knew these would be controversial, that's really why I posted the link. B.D. was going to hate these or else I'd have a lot of questions for him.

B.D., what about Avedon's Democracy? I might not have liked these if I hadn't acquired a taste for Avedon.

bdcolen

Tina Manley wrote:

I don't like them at all. I think they are gimmicky with most using an extreme wide angle very close to exaggerate features and make people look bad on purpose. The post processing method of mid-tone detail enhancement just make the portraits even more unflattering. I know the point of the portraits is not the same as a portrait session when you are trying to flatter the subject; but these are too far in the other direction. I don't like any photos that depend on gimmicks.

That's my opinion. YMMV

Tina
www.tinamanley.com

bdcolen

rutt wrote:

I knew these would be controversial, that's really why I posted the link. B.D. was going to hate these or else I'd have a lot of questions for him.

B.D., what about Avedon's Democracy? I might not have liked these if I hadn't acquired a taste for Avedon.

Okay, so now that I've finally gotten the New Yorker to get my account straightened out, I've had a chance to look at the Avedon series. And I have absolutely NO idea how you can even waste time look at this Platon crap after seeing that. Granted, every photographer approaching this kind of photography is manipulating his subjects in some way, but I feel as though I really know something about every one of Avdeon's subjects from looking at these photos; they seem to be wonderfully revealing. In fact, I know one of the subjects and what Avedon is showing us is dead-on accurate. Sure, these 'look like Avedon,' and are not technically different from what he'd been doing since at least the project with James Baldwin. But that would be like knocking Irving Penn for having been Irving Penn.

Gimme the dead guys and let's lose the wannabees.

Awais Yaqub

I like the portraits of Russian and Libyan Leaders among all of them...

Justiceiro

Photos such as these are supposed to tell us stories. These didn't. Whatever reaction I had to them is due entirely to the subject and how I felt about him or her previously. Those who I did not know... told me nothing.

Rather a lot of big chins. Meh.

Richard

I guess I'm the odd guy out here, but I like the element of caricature that some of Platon's pics display: Banda, Arias, Qaddafi, Zuma, Hatoyama, and several others. They seem more akin to David Levine than to Avedon. In fact, maybe Platon better stay out of Africa for a while .

seastack

I understand what you are saying Richard and with Platon that certainly may be the point but I wonder if this is a case of trying so hard to be different or new to make a name for oneself (or keep) that it just goes over the edge instead of actually being edgy. "Gimmicky" is perhaps the most apt description I've heard yet and these seem much more "gimmicky" in their execution than other past work I've seen from Platon, much of which I like. Then again, I wonder if I'm just getting old remembering that Avedon was viscously criticized for some of his work, especially In the West, which I think was some of his best even if a bit contrived at times. That seems forgotten now. In 20 or 30 years I wonder how these will be perceived ... probably as brilliant.

Justiceiro

seastack wrote:

In 20 or 30 years I wonder how these will be perceived ... probably as brilliant.

I seriously doubt these will be regarded as anything other than banal. Which they are.

Too much of the wow factor for photographers, when they have the opportunity to photograph the rich and famous (or in this case, the powerful) comes from the wonder at how they got the opportunity to get the shot, not what they did with the opportunity. And here, Platon did little or nothing that was interesting, his other work notwithstanding.

A really good portrait of a powerful person should give you an insight into that person, such as my personal favorite of this genre, Arnold Newman's portrait of German industrialist Alfried Krupp.



This rocks. Platon's current offering makes me think he set up a passport camera next to the side entrance to the security council, and then PS'ed the crap out of the results. Which may well be what he did.

Even Liebovitz is better than this. I'd rather one picture worth a thousand words than a thousand pictures worth one word, particularly when that word is "Yawn."

bdcolen

seastack wrote:

I understand what you are saying Richard and with Platon that certainly may be the point but I wonder if this is a case of trying so hard to be different or new to make a name for oneself (or keep) that it just goes over the edge instead of actually being edgy. "Gimmicky" is perhaps the most apt description I've heard yet and these seem much more "gimmicky" in their execution than other past work I've seen from Platon, much of which I like. Then again, I wonder if I'm just getting old remembering that Avedon was viscously criticized for some of his work, especially In the West, which I think was some of his best even if a bit contrived at times. That seems forgotten now. In 20 or 30 years I wonder how these will be perceived ... probably as brilliant.

Well, I know I'm a stodgy old fart. But in answer to your question of how these will be perceived in 20 or 30 years...they won't be. If anyone then still cares about still photography, they will still be studying, discussing, and collecting Avedon's work. Know one other than Platon and his mother will remember Platon.
But given we live in the age we live in, where pseudo-celebrity, gimmick and flash seem to count far more than real talent and vision, I could be complete wrong. Twenty years from now Platon may be the star of Real Photographers of SoHo on the Bravo network.

Andy

damonff wrote:

And believe me, this is a Rutt recommendation. I looked at and studied every one.

Me, too.

I have to agree w/ BD and Damonff!

bdcolen

Justiceiro wrote:

I seriously doubt these will be regarded as anything other than banal. Which they are.

Too much of the wow factor for photographers, when they have the opportunity to photograph the rich and famous (or in this case, the powerful) comes from the wonder at how they got the opportunity to get the shot, not what they did with the opportunity. And here, Platon did little or nothing that was interesting, his other work notwithstanding.

A really good portrait of a powerful person should give you an insight into that person, such as my personal favorite of this genre, Arnold Newman's portrait of German industrialist Alfried Krupp.



This rocks. Platon's current offering makes me think he set up a passport camera next to the side entrance to the security council, and then PS'ed the crap out of the results. Which may well be what he did.

Even Liebovitz is better than this. I'd rather one picture worth a thousand words than a thousand pictures worth one word, particularly when that word is "Yawn."

Agree, but before you write off Liebovitz, take a look at that massive retrospective book of her work. I am not at all a fan of her commercial work, which I think is repetitive, self-reverential, and often just plain silly. And before I saw the book I had no kind words for her. Well, all I can say is that I was wrong. The personal, mostly black and white work in that book is really, really strong. And as much as her train may have jumped the tracks - or she may have jumped the shark - she is unarguably an exceptional talent.

Which brings me to the thought that we expect too much talent from real talents. I'd argue that Robert Frank has done little worth discussing since the publication of "The Americans." But if he had never done anything else, would he be any less a seminal figure in the history of photography? J.D. Salinger wrote, "Cather In The Rye," "Franny and Zoe," Raise High The Roof Beam..." and then disappeared. I don't know about you, but if all it said in my obit was that I wrote "Catcher," I'd be pretty damn happy. Bob Dylan could have died in that motorcycle crash following the release of Blond on Blond and he'd still be considered one of the great poets of the 20th century and the reinventor of what rock could be.
All of which is to say is that a single flash of genius is a single flash more than 99.99999999 percent of the population will ever produce.

:ivar :ivar

seastack

Good discussion:)) Great post Rutt!

seastack

Interesting. I just looked at some of Platon's documentary work on his website and it's good but not great. Very derivative and, this is for B.D., LOTS of tilts ). Contrast this with Leibovitz' great early work for Rolling Stone and with her partner's illness and death. It's interesting to me how telling a photogs doco work is ... at least in these two cases.