Idea Blog (9-23-09): Character

In my meeting with Paul earlier this week, we discussed my focus on my subject. I always use myself in my images because I am comfortable, can easily direct and can always rely on myself to show up for the shoot. But I can't use myself for only those reason. Therefore I am trying to define and figure out who would be best to portray as my "subject" if not myself.

There are several different definitions of character

1. in art

2. in science

3. in personality

There are more, but these are the three that I think I need to consider the most.

Character defined in art is defined as "a part played by an actor" and "illusion of being a human person." This is defined in numerous subsections but the most important, proxemics identified as body spacing and posture.

Character defined in science is defined as almost an attribute or characteristic/quality of an individual.

In personality, "the assemblage of qualities that distinguish one individual from another."

In the Parkeharrison's work, Robert uses himself as the character but masks himself as the "every day man." Personally, even though the character is male, his plain, simple, every day appearance and dress is normal and easily relatable. In my past work I had been using nudes so clothing would not disturb the nature coming through the body. I do not believe this work needs nudes. I think I can use plain white clothing, almost a cloth sack so it isn't distracting.

I think it would benefit if I use one model as opposed to multiple ones.

And just for fun, here is a project I did in the past where various models were used however I adjusted my exposure so that their faces were unrecognizable.

Source:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character

(I know...wikipedia, really? Am I in college?)