*ooof*: Smug Armitage at a Party

Hello! I am back in the fold, at last and gladly, but strangely also “with reluctance”. That is no reflection on this lovely community. Quite the contrary, there is nothing better than fangirling in a medium-sized horde. I’d meet up with any of you at the drop of a hat (and I did during my hols – a big hug to the wonderful Linda60!). Heck, I’d go on group therapy with you any day, ladies, as I’ve said before. But sometimes Armitage gets a bit too close for comfort I let Armitage get to me, and I need to step back. The enforced distance due to connectivity issues was partly self-induced but did *not quite* work as well as I thought. Maybe I should’ve left the “prospective *ooof* prints” at home… But in a way I was half-glad to have missed the immediacy of the Wellington wrap-up reports. As a sentimental at heart, I would’ve been disconsolate, had I been online the way I usually am, following the twitter pictures and live-blogging attempts. I am bad at good-byes, and observing Mr A and his Hobbit mates winding down the filming of the trilogy would’ve broken my heart.

It is strange then, that I have a new current favourite image. For the first time ever I am deeply fascinated with a candid. No redeeming compositorially brilliance, excellent lighting or sexy styling. A picture that is marred by a busy, ugly background, camera shake and grainyness caused by an automatically set high ISO, and – oh blasphemy – has more than just the one subject in it. And yet it is a picture that stirs. Not as far down as they usually stir me, but higher up, and towards the left. The heart is touched by the joyous expression of Mr A in this candid, finally frollicking with his colleagues and friends, celebrating, toasting the end of an era, letting go after weeks and months of concentration and hard work. He looks exhausted and exalted at the same time, the hair ruffled, the skin shiny. The grin is not carefully posed, it seems genuinely happy. There is no thought behind the twinkling eyes that extends further than the moment, than the pure enjoyment of this instant of closeness with friends. No studio portrait can ever create that, however talented an actor the model might be. This was real, and for that reason, it is more affecting and effective than any other picture I have seen of him before. I hope, Mr A, that you are as happy even now, days afterwards, and not morosely hankering.

This intro sounds more like an epilogue. If that candid is the “ultimatest” shot of RA, is there any point in going on with *ooof*? Don’t fear, dear readers. I am fickle. I am superficial. My attention span is short. No sooner have I been touched by the real-ness of the final candid, that I need to quell my thirst for aesthetic beauty by revisiting older images. And so I turn to RARA again, my trusty travel companions, which I showed you in my last *ooof*. And to link to that, let’s stay with the blue theme that featured in the blue eyes of the previous analysis. The eyes don’t really pop in this one – but my ovaries do!

Armitage as smug man at a party? Portrait by Robert Ascroft. Source.

Photography very often is about playing with contradictions. It’s about dark vs light, or colour vs monochrome or hard vs soft. Upon first sight, this shot by Robert Ascroft does not seem to be contradictory at all. And yet, this shot that I have christened “blue steel” on account of the steel door with the blue hue, is a contradiction in itself. If you remember my little excursion into colour interpretation, blue is meant to be a calming colour. This shot is meant to be cool and calming and yet – this is really hot! On account of the sitter, of course, who is doing his best to set the viewer alight with his smouldering glower.

Contradictions often appear like a breaking of rules. But rule-breaking is needed *anywhere*, photography or not, to push the boundaries and to create new things, new styles, new genres. Ascroft here, for instance, breaks a rule that says that it makes more sense to shoot a dark(ly dressed) subject against a light background. He places the dark-suited RA against grey-blue steel that only appears bright where the light hits it full-on and otherwise looks dullish and dark. However, in order to make his subject stand out, Ascroft uses harsh lighting. This creates clear outlines where the light hits the subject, easily noticeable on Armitage’s right side, where the light from above front-left defines the subject’s head, shoulder and right arm with clear precision. Shadows in that set-up can be tricky. They not only distract but also extend the contours of the subject, obscuring where the subject ends and the shadow begins. (See Richard’s left.)

The composition of this image is particularly interesting. On first sight, the composition appears odd – the subject is placed off-centre. But not off-centre enough to create negative space, especially with the handle and lock of the steel door so plainly in view. An oversight? No, carefully planned cropped. There are six imaginary lines in the image. Can you find them?

Check the distances between the line of the door on the left to the edge of the image and of the imaginary line along Richard’s body (his left) to the right edge of the image. They are identical. Similarly, the distance between the horizon line where the door hits the floor to the bottom edge of the image, and the imaginary line along Richard’s shoulders to the top edge are equidistant. Two secondary lines along the top of the subject’s head and the tips of his shoes are also equidistant to the corresponding edges of the image. Even though the rule of thirds does not apply here, the image is composed in a way that is pleasing to the eye – and possibly a case in point when it comes to the breaking of rules that I mentioned earlier.

Talk about pleasing to the eye – so is also the pose. Armitage is standing, leaning casually against the steel door. The way he has his left hand in his trouser pocket and his legs crossed looks very fashion photography to me. It is hard to pin down. It may have to do with the fact that we have a full-length portrait here. In photographic portraiture, full-length images have become slightly rare. As humans, we tend to concentrate on the face/eyes of the sitter. Well, as humans of the female persuasion… Subsequently, a head-and-shoulders portrait suffices. It may also be the ubiquity of avatar images in today’s Social Media-fuelled world that we see relatively less full-length portraits. Even in terms of picture format, the avatar-typical square format may have had an impact on that – the square format is not conducive to showing an oblong human shape. My fashion photography association certainly has also got to do with the pose. Holding his hand in his pocket appears as a gesture of deliberate exposure of the trouser waist. Hugo Boss is calling. Moreover, there is the incongruous location which does not quite match the smart clothes. What does Mr. Sex-in-a-Suit do in a slaughterhouse? Especially with *that* look on his face? Head tilted down, dark smoulder. Well, maybe he has come to slaughter someone… The overall effect on me is that of a male model, a dressman.

The incongruity of this particular image has thrown up more questions to me than I have answers to. I find it immensely interesting that Ascroft interprets Armitage in this way. For all we know from our intense study of his interviews, the man Armitage does not really come across like this at all: slightly provocative, direct, smouldering, overly confident, assertive, smug, contemptuous, ready to pounce, ready to shout, ready to eat you up. This is so clearly an act, and a well-acted one by our master-actor, of course. But why? What for? *Who* for? *Is* this a facet of Mr A? An unseen one? Or simply fashion photography with an incidental and replaceable model in the frame?

And what about the facial expression that is strongly characterised by the under-brow tilt of the head. While the press call photography mostly shows a friendly, cooperative, benignly-pleasant, amicable man, the studio portraiture all too often veers towards more heated, sexy interpretations of strongly dominant masculinity. Normally, people put on a smile for a photograph, but the under-brow tilt constricts the view both of sitter and of viewer, it communicates guardedness, aggression and defensiveness. Is Armitage less good at portraits where he has to look at the camera? Is the forward-tilted head a gesture of self-consciousness or a case of “attack is the best self-defense”? Or is it a reflection on the photographer? There are plenty of images by other photographers with RA dead-pan and he pulls an amiable face. Can we assume then, that Ascroft gave the instruction to smoulder? Or was it a grumpy day for Mr A, and that shows in his mien?

If the measure of a good portrait photographer is his ability to represent and/or interpret a facet of his sitter, then what purpose has this shot got? Or, if Ascroft is not attempting to show a facet of his subject’s personality, then is this art? Why, I wonder, does RA become complicit in this sham? Does he enjoy playing the act? Does he wish he were like this for real? *Is* he like this, at 3 am in the morning, on a Sunday, in his basement? Maybe this is where the image was taken, and it is not a full-length portrait of the artist as a hot man but a full-length portrait of a steel door?

I jest. Of course not. No one has such large doors in the cellar. But I am back in the grip of the familiar intrigue. Why these sexy smoulder images? Who interprets Armitage? His agent, his photographer, his fans, he himself? How *does* he see himself? A question that is utterly fascinating to all of us because we deal with that on a daily basis in our own life, women especially. And to photographers in particular. Those are the questions I would ask him. And then I would lock him in my studio, with my camera, and let him shoot a self-portrait. Now, that would be telling!

EDIT: As a reaction to this photo and some of my musings/questions, Judiang has written a fantastic story about the photo shoot that resulted in this image. It accompanies the photo perfectly. Do yourself the favour and read HERE.

(NB: Interestingly, I did my research and notes for this *ooof* a couple of weeks ago. In the meantime, Servetus has started on her exploration of “gender trouble”. Inadvertantly, and without coordinating it, we seem to have launched into a similar theme at the same time.)

All text © Guylty at me + richard armitage, 2013. Please credit when using excerpts and links. Images and video copyrights accrue to their owners.

~ by Guylty on July 30, 2013.