Homeless Man, Copyright 2000 Jeff Spirer

Can a portrait exist without the physical presence of the person?

Photographs of homeless people usually evoke pity or horror. I've thought for a long time about photographing the things that homeless people care about in order to show something more. But I'm not sure if the result can be considered a portrait. And most homeless people don't feel good about how they look and resent being photographed.

I was at the Santa Barbara Mission, one of the Spanish missions built by Indian slave labor under the direction of Father Juniper Serra (well my political views are probably something for another time) and there was a man sitting on a bench outside, sporadically writing on a piece of paper. I went over and talked to him for around an hour, he told me he was homeless, I asked about the writing, and he told me it was his journal. Eventually, I asked if I could photograph it. He got up, walked away from the bench, and this was what I got.

I feel as if this is a far better portrait than showing his face (which was quite interesting). But maybe it isn't a portrait...

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), October 12, 2000

Answers

Oh, almost forgot, since someone might ask. Mamiya 7, 80mm lens, Tri- yes-X again, Rodinal, negative scan.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), October 12, 2000.

This is not only a portrait of the person, but one of his personality and his being as well. Little does he realize (or does he) that he is in this photograph! Well done, Jeff.

One item of note: The film Tri-X is virtuous. Nothing at all about it to complain about. Beautiful. Wonderful, in fact.

Did you really talk w/him for an hour? How do you do that?

-- Tony Rowlett (rowlett@alaska.net), October 12, 2000.

Response to Portrait without a Person

Your best yet. The grain of the aged wood, the 'manuscript' and the small writing, the diagonal of the bench works this time and retains the attention to the pen and paper.

Regards

Jack.

-- Jack McVicker (jack.m@virgin.net), October 12, 2000.

accompanied by your heartfelt narrative, the photo is most certainly effective. without some explication, the image is, well, terminally vague.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), October 12, 2000.

I like the photo a lot, and I think it says some things (and raises my questions) about the "indirect subject." So, yeah, what the hell, it's a portrait.

Without your explanation and without the context of other photos supporting the theme, I don't get the sense that it's about homelessnees. But I don't think its vagueness is terminal. . .

-- Mike Dixon (burmashave@compuserve.com), October 12, 2000.

As far as pictorial qualities go there are lots of things I like about this image, but as a portrait I think it falls flat. That anonymous-looking piece of paper has no personality that I can see, and might just as well be somebodys shopping list. It needs your written description very much.

-- Christel Green (look.no@film.dk), October 12, 2000.

portrait?

I too think that without your explanation the image, as a portrait in the usual sense, falls on deaf eyes. With your explanation it is indeed a portrait but it is too deep for some of us. James PS- and the paper is too centered. It should be one third the way into the frame and..........

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), October 14, 2000.

james, forgive me; but your observation that the portrait "falls on deaf eyes" simply is the best single metaphor mix that i have ever seen.

-- wayne harrison (wayno@netmcr.com), October 14, 2000.

> Without your explanation and without the context of other photos > supporting the theme, I don't get the sense that it's about > homelessnees. But I don't think its vagueness is terminal. . .

> As far as pictorial qualities go there are lots of things I like > about this image, but as a portrait I think it falls flat. That > anonymous-looking piece of paper has no personality that I can see, > and might just as well be somebodys shopping list. It needs your > written description very much.

I don't know quite what it is about photographers and their aversion to contextual information (such as the written word or being part of a series).

The only shots that don't need a context are stock shots - which are just visual cliches - and ones so familiar that they've become cliches.

-- John Kantor (jkantor@mindspring.com), October 15, 2000.

The description helps narrow down the possibilities, but the image niggles nevertheless. The parchment-scroll format of the paper and the tiny size of the writing make this look like some oldy-worldy study of Amish/Mission/Schoolhouse simplicity. But juuuust as the photo teeters on the edge of easy explanation, there's that pen. Disposble; plastic; out of place. What's going on here?

But I can't see it as a portrait without the extra context. Other photos could easily replace your text if you want to remain pure and unsullied by the demon word.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), October 16, 2000.

Hmmm. Trying to hard to alliterate. By 'niggles nevertheless' I meant that the description wasn't necessary to get me interested in the image (there I go again). It was necessary to make me see it as a portrait.

-- Struan Gray (struan.gray@sljus.lu.se), October 16, 2000.