When does a portrait start to look vain?

Hey guys, Andy here. I was asked a question I have rarely considered, when do professionally posed and directed portraits start to look a little too vain? And how to keep the authenticity? I have photographed people who were introverted, lacked confidence in front of the camera or who simply did not like their portrait being taken. Trying to glean a meaningful expression from such people is a challenge and takes time. By comparison when people are confident and receptive to being photographed, well… if a horse starts talking, I try not to look too closely at it’s mouth.

The definition of vain is;

adjective

1. having or showing an excessively high opinion of one's appearance, abilities, or worth. "their flattery made him vain”

The keyword here is excess and it is subjective; what may be excessive to one person or in one industry may be the norm to someone else or in another field.

With this in mind, I think it is a challenge to gauge vanity in an image where the subject is the sole and only ingredient and there are no comparative elements to offer context. This is especially the case both in a headshot (where your likeness fills the frame and the image is limited to your head and shoulders) and also in a portrait taken against a plain or coloured backdrop as compared to a photograph taken on location. Where is the tipping point between emotions such as confidence, smugness and vanity in a facial expression if there is no context? Additionally an action completed in context will appear normal. However the same action undertaken out of context may not be and thusly may be considered vain.?

Comparatively it is easier to determine vanity in portraits where there is either more than one person or other compositional and contextual elements. Is someone elbowing aside someone else to get in front of the camera or are they stealing scene and drawing attention to themselves??

And to the second part of the question; how to keep authenticity? In regards to portraiture, a general rule of thumb is for the person to wear their own clothes, to be in their own environment, doing something that is natural to them and not to force someone to adopt an unnatural pose or expression. For most people a portrait session is rare, something undertaken perhaps once every few years. In that respect a session is outside the comfort zone of most people. So in order to maintain authenticity it is important to keep as many anchor elements in place as guide rails for a person to hold on to. If someone is wearing clothes that do not belong to them, if they are undertaking a pose or action for the first time, if they are in a new location, in all likelihood the reaction you will see is one of unease.

When I direct a person in my portrait sessions I try and tap into a genuine emotion. That is to say I do not ask the person ‘to imagine themselves’ in a situation where they have to invent an emotional response, I ask them to remember a personal experience and to recall how they felt in that moment. As a photographer this requires empathy and understanding insofar that often what a person believes is a positive memory does not elicit the positive facial reaction they are led to believe. Thus I need to be able to recognise a person’s micro expressions to ascertain if the expression they are giving me is actually the one as per the portrait brief. And I also need to know them well enough, or to have gained enough information during the session, to be able to (re) direct them.

It is worth mentioning British photographer Jimmy Nelson and his 2014 project Before They Pass Away. The project was billed as “capturing the lives and traditions of the last surviving tribes who have managed to preserve their traditional ways and customs within our increasingly globalised world”? with prints priced at up to ￡45, 000. However Before They Pass Away ran into stinging criticism with African, Asian and Amazon Indian groups dismissing the project as “wrong” as well as being called “false and damaging” by the world’s leading defenders of indigenous peoples.?

Before They Pass Away offers lessons in regards to vanity and authenticity; firstly presentation is key. Despite what the marketing may say, it is hard to ignore the rebuttals from indigenous people who state, “Nelson’s mission is built on a horrifying assumption: that these Indigenous peoples are on the brink of destruction. He couldn’t be more wrong.” In regards to context there is a pattern of omertà, “Nelson’s section on the Tibetans makes no reference to the fact that their country was invaded and annexed by China, which maintains its grip through lethal force. The same is true of the West Papuan tribes, raped and killed under Indonesian occupation.” Additional criticism is that Nelson presents a fictionalised portrait of tribal people, with the subjects ‘dressing up’ for the camera.

Lastly, in such an instance, perhaps it is the photographer to whom the charge of vanity may be directed, “[Jimmy Nelson’s] words of ‘authenticity, purity, beauty,’ are hollow adoration while his romanticized images are nothing but his own reflection.”

It is worth noting that the original question refers to professionally taken photography and not images captured by a layperson. I mention this insofar that nowhere have I mentioned technical ability or proficiency; in my opinion high technical ability is a given for a professional. This goes to show that the planning, the interpersonal skills and a photographer’s own values, and the what and how they present their work is of equal importance, perhaps more than, to the actual taking of a photograph.?