Who We Are(n't)

Photographs are used for more than just memories of the past. Their purpose is not just to capture and preserve who we were, but who we are (at least, who we think we are, or who we want others to think we are). What we choose to include in our self-portraits, artifacts of our hobbies, interests, and favorites, tell as much about who we are as what we leave out tells about who we aren't.

Recently, we looked at the self-portraits of two street photographers: Lee Friedlander and Vivian Maier. Both bore some uncanny similarities.

Their tendency to take photos of their shadows and barely visible reflections can potentially tell us something about who they were as artists. We can see these types of “self-portraits” as statements about the place and work of photographers. They worked in the margins and shadows, mostly unnoticed. This is especially true for street photographers who aimed for raw, candid photographs. In this photograph, it's like Friedlander is saying “look how close I can get and still be unnoticed.”

Even though Maier did take many perfectly clear self-portraits, almost none of them were developed, and certainly not exposed to the world. That act (or non act) is part of the portrait of Vivian Maier. Her secrecy was an essential part of who she was, and why there is so much controversy now that she is gone.

Friedlander, on the other hand, has this very clear, very close image of himself that he then develops and produces. He asserts himself into his photography as both creator and subject, and shares this assertion with others. This just goes to show how the two photographers, while they may have their similarities, were in the end very different people.

Back in the present day, we can still derive a lot about a person’s personality based on the self-portraits they present (or don’t present) to the world. For now, I’ll share my own self-portrait, to add to the collection of exponentially growing visual autobiographies.

For reference, the adorable toddler is not me. She's my niece.