« B&H BILD Show Report | Main | Mike and Milly »

Sunday, 22 June 2025

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Way back in the early ‘90s, before the word “selfie” even existed, I started to work on a series of sarcastic self portraits in which I would recreate classic paintings with myself as the model. I don’t remember exactly what the point was, but there was some aspect of “taking the piss” involved. (It might also have been me taking a shot at many of my fellow art school students who were compelled to do VERY SERIOUS nude self portraits.)

The project never got off the ground, as the test shots of me recreating Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres’ “La Grande Odalisque” (1814) with me sitting awkwardly on my ratty sofa holding a vacuum cleaner were so undeniably stupid that I nipped it in the bud. I am pleased to announce that I will not be showing a sample image. For reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Odalisque

I've been photographing since I was 10 (over 60 years ago) and I've made about three "selfies" and they were for a specific purpose. All were made in last 10 years. I've sat for three portraits in my life. One at four years after taking my first flight in a small plane, one high school graduate photo and in just the last couple months I sat for a tintype. My favorite is the tintype because it captured me as I see myself.

I can distinctly remember first reading in "Outdoor Photography" magazine back when physical magazines were the norm about some photographer that came up with a cool new thing. He carried a Nikon film SLR with a 20mm lens mounted and get this... he aimed the camera at himself while standing in front of famous world landmarks.

This was in the late '80s or early '90s and the word selfie didn't exist, much less the pocketable camera phone. But the magazine gave this guy credit for this way of documenting your travels and he got several pages with half a dozen photos in the magazine usually filled with world class shooter's work. I bet he wishes he could have patented this thing that now comprises most of today's photography.

Andrez Kertesz took some wonderful self-portraits over many years, and some of my favorite “reverse selfies.” Vivian Maier seemed to enjoy the creative process as well; no sticks needed.

Hi.

I take self-portraits quite often. They may not be particularly good, but I take them consciously and with care. And thus, ‘self-portrait’ is also what I call them.

Why? I like taking portraits, but subjects are not always available. Sometimes I see light falling in a certain place in a certain way, and I have no one else to position in it. Sometimes I just want to photograph something, but there’s just nothing else going on. Sometimes I just want to experiment.

But often, more often than not probably, it’s just some unarticulated curiosity about how I’m feeling.

I really like self portraits too, in of themselves. I enjoy looking at them. I have about maybe 20 saved in a note app on my phone, that I like to look at. Many from the National Portrait Gallery collection, but others too.

Recently I’ve really enjoyed Leonard Cohen’s series of Polaroids, one of which is on the cover of Various Positions.

But my current fave if from 1970, by Marie-Laure de Decker. The ‘bathroom’ one. Her darker one, the “autoportrait” from 1968, with the camera in shadow, is coming in second.

Peace,
Dean

Mike: If most of the pictures you take are selfies . . . then the opposite might become a whole new category; a reverse selfie is . . . when you "aim the camera AWAY from yourself." What a concept—a picture in which [I do] not appear?

But typically your family or friends are the subjects of these images, all smirking into the lens with exactly the same expressions they self-consciously have adopted in every other photo you have ever snapped of them except for the change in background. I’ve been calling them “smirks,” but I wonder now whether “reverse selfies” might actually be a more descriptive term.

I took a photo of an interesting wall in Barcelona that had a sign saying:
“All Selfies are a Cry for Help.”
Never heard of such a thing, but it is a thing. Search.

Funny and thoughtful! I loved the idea of “reverse selfies” as it shows how much photography and culture have changed over time. I always enjoy reading these Sunday reflections.

Re gold chains and white Corvette: The latest Corvette is downright amazing in so many ways, and I'm sure I would enjoy driving one, but the "gold chain" stigma is too much. Corvette owners seem to spend way more time washing their cars, or just yakking about them, than driving them.

And my Polestar-tuned station wagon (with a canoe on top!) can almost keep up.

That "handheld tripod" term is strange. "Selfie stick" rolls off the tongue much more easily and is generally known. The two "d"s in handheld just make it seem like the term is much longer than the extra syllable would indicate.

2D printing: like the line from Archer, in which a character refers to NYC as New York, New York. Archer tells him New York is sufficient. Just call it printing if it's on a flat surface. (Maybe someone thought there had to be a placeholder term to refer to non-3D printing.)

Don't get me started on "Reverse selfie"! :>)

Pictorial bio-


https://hermankrieger.com/bio.htm

For me, the self portraits and even selfies are far and few between. I do have the occasional mirror snap, like this one:

There is “Bladerunner 2049”. Does that count?

Selfie sticks are also called wands of narcissism.

I'd like to read Luke's comment from a day or two ago, but I don't know where to find it. Please tell your readers where it can be found.

I think you would find Stephen Leslie's, YouTube series 'Show and Tell' very interesting.
He has produced a number of episodes about well known photographers or genres of photography in a very unique and humorous style.
His latest is about Walker Evans and actually finishes the video with a montage of Evans's own self portraits

Mike, I've come to the conclusion that selfies are a matter of technical ease, rather than any greater self-centeredness in the smartphone generations. The standard 35mm film camera with a normal lens would focus no closer than about 3.5 feet, which is too far for a selfie. A closer focus would require a longer back-focus, and thus a bigger camera, or a special lens; they existed but were not common. When it became possible to hold a camera at arm's length and get a picture, selfies happened. Pictures of onself and/or others at famous places were always common. I note that my ancient fixed-lens Brownie has a good focus from about 8-40 feet, which gets Aunt Eloise and the kids in front of the Dodge Rambler nice and clear, but Mount Rushmore in the background is a little fuzzy.

Reverse Selfie: www.reverseselfie.com

The comments to this entry are closed.

Portals




Stats


Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007