Part 6: Posing

Once I feel myself observed by the lens, everything changes; I constitute myself in the process of “posing”. (Barthes, 1980)

Moments of inspiration can come from a wide and sometimes random range of sources and it is unclear what bought this behaviour to Barthes’s attention, though I suspect it was the act of having to pose for a photograph.  There is nothing unusual in this act that virtually everyone performs when the camera is turned towards them, that they break into a smile or a grin, even though it is blatantly false.  They try to make themselves look a certain way, to appear more presentable because they know that the photograph, and by association, themselves, will be looked at.  

Photograph albums, magazines, books and websites are literally stuffed full of people posing and so can seem to be inseparable from portraiture.  It is even arguable that the practice could stretch back to ancient times, such as in a bust of the Roman Emperor Caligula.  Even though it is possible to imagine the statue being created without needing to view the sitter, it seems more likely that a series of sittings would have been needed to ensure accuracy in the reproductions, something that the Romans and Greeks of Antiquity pride themselves on.  When it is also considered that it is common practice to pose for a portrait to be painted or for a photograph to be taken, only emphasises the strength of the connection between the two. 

With portraiture and posing being so intimately connected for thousands of years, it can lead to the conclusion that they are inseparable.  This is something that Cynthia Freeland has asserted in Portraits and Persons.  Freeland constructs an argument which includes posing as being indispensable to portraiture and that a portrait can’t exist without having the person striking a pose.  This is not to say that images do not exist of people that are unposed, but instead those are images of a person instead of being a portrait of the person.  To explore this argument Freeland examines the concept of animal portraiture and concludes that a portrait of an animal cannot be achieved because it is unable to strike a pose.  Freeland claims:

I have argued that there can be portraits of animals in a limited sense, since there are pictures of them that meet my first two criteria for portraits, representing a recognizable living subject in an image that also expresses consciousness and inner states… I am also skeptical about the chance that animals can fulfil the third criterion required for portraits in the fullest sense, which can be met in adult humans, the factor of posing or of self-presentation.  (Freeland, 2010)

Consequently, it can seem that a portrait will always need a pose.  But this immediately raises the question, what about candid portraits?  Have they now been suddenly relegated to being photographs of people instead of portraits of people?  The answer to this question is not part of this discussion, but instead the question that is being asked is why?  Why do people strike a pose when having their picture taken?  If it’s a case that a person strikes a pose because it is what has always happened begs the question, why has it always happened?  To say that we strike a pose because we always strike a pose is just circular reasoning.  If the purpose of a portrait is to capture a physical depiction of a person combined with an expression of their identity, then why pose?  It can seem counter-intuitive to produce an image of where the person is pretending to present an identity instead of revealing their own and, in the words of Barthes, “I transform myself into an image.” (Barthes, 1980)

Further on in Camera Lucida, Barthes offers a hint of an explanation as to why a person poses.  He begins by discussing how he wishes to appear, a moment of anxiety when “I experience it with the anguish of an uncertain filiation: an image – my image – will be generated: will I be born from an antipathetic individual of from a “good sort”? If only I could “come out” on paper as on a classical canvas, endowed with a noble expression – thoughtful, intelligent, etc!” (ibid). Consequently, it can be surmised that Barthes wishes to be presented a certain way, to generate an image that will emphasise particular qualities that he wishes to promote as being part of his identity.  He wishes to be seen as being thoughtful and intelligent, to procure a collection of qualities to present from the photograph. 

Further on Barthes explains how he has performed this metamorphosis.  He explains how “I lend myself to the social game, I pose, I know I am posing, I want you to know that I am posing, but… this additional message must in no way alter the precious essence of my individuality.” (ibid). It can seem that Barthes has managed to identify something important, something fundamental when it comes to striking a pose, that when presenting a pose it must not infringe or change his sense of individuality.  He is transforming himself to appear a certain way that is separate to his true sense of individuality, so he can present a sense of character or personality that is divorced from the essence of his individuality and that the viewer understands the difference. 

This seems to encapsulate the act of posing, of presenting a front that doesn’t inhibit the sense of individuality.  So, a person can smile, hold their back straight and try to make themselves look approachable, witty, friendly and welcoming, or whatever state of mind or character they want to project, without revealing or inhibiting their own sense of individuality.  The issue can be seen in the image above, a generic selfie image procured from the internet.  There is nothing particularly special about the image, but it is a good example of striking a pose, of presenting yourself in a certain way.  The gentleman looks happy and friendly, with a broad grin and seems to be at ease, though this is performed in a way that the viewer knows it is just a pose, a front to display to the world.  However, even though the pose is rather generic and lacks any sense of originality, it does not inhibit or restrict the sense that this is still an individual person.  The person themselves are not fake, just the expression and the pose.

So, is this the social game that Barthes is mentioning above?  Is the game a case of pretending to be something other than what we are?  If it’s a game, what are the rules and what happens when those rules are broken, or even just bent?   The answer to these questions lies within the field of sociology and can be structured around two theories and the work of Irving Goffman.  The principle theories are The Looking Glass Self Theory and Symbolic Interactionism, which is connected to Goffman’s work, particularly his book The Presentation of Self in Every day life.  The two theories explain why people produce a front and act a certain way when posing , With Goffman explaining how people achieve the goals of presenting a front.