Helen Ennis

- Welcome everybody. It's wonderful to see you here in person and online. So I would also like to acknowledge the Ngunnawal and Ngambri peoples, the traditional owners of the land, and pay my respects to the elders past, present, and emerging. I'd also like to extend that welcome to any Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples in the audience, either here or online. So, would you mind those who are here just raising your hand if you've already had a chance to look at the exhibition? Okay, so a lot of you will be familiar with the works I'm going to show. So as you may know then, the exhibition Shakespeare to Winehouse is organised according to themes. And to quote the catalogue, these themes are regarded as being intrinsic to portraiture. So they're identified as fame, identity, self, innovation, power, love, and loss. I'm gonna touch on some of these themes in passing, but I'm not going to deal with them in any depth because what I want to do today is put the photographs in the exhibition into context. I'm going to pose three questions and we'll go through them. This is the way I've structured the talk around these questions. And then there's going to be a more open section where I'm going to discuss other issues right at the end. So the first question is pretty straightforward one, and that is how do the photographs in the exhibition relate to the history and practise of portraiture? And then the second question is, well, what do the photographic portraits do that works in other media don't? So that's more about how are they different. And related to that, what's unique about some of the photographic portraits on display? So we will take our time and look at a few of them in more depth. And then in the last part, this more open ended part of my talk. I'm going to look at the interrelationship between private and public space, which can be seen in the photographs in the exhibition. But not only in the exhibition, this applies really much more to portraiture generally. So I'm going to refer to a few other examples of portraiture that are in the national photographic portrait prize, and also in the NPGs collection. Most of these works are on display. Now, what I have to tell you at the outset is that this exhibition has really strict copyright provisions. And so I'm not able to show you some of the photographs that I really want to draw your attention to. And it means what we're going to do, I'm gonna try something else instead, which is use a limited number of the photographic portraits that are in the show, but we'll keep coming back to them. So we'll repeat them, but they will be thinking about them in different contexts, because of course they relate individually to some of those questions that I'm posing. And then I'm hoping that what I'm raising for you would be transferable skills that once you've looked at this, you'll be able to go into the other exhibitions that are on display, including Shakespeare to Winehouse, and apply some of the things that we are going to be talking about. So let's begin then with this first question relating to the history of portraiture. And we're very lucky in one sense that because the exhibition isn't organised chronologically or according to media, 'cause there's different ways you can organise the show and the national photographic portraiture award, if you think about that, of course it's just photographs. It's specific to medium. Where Shakespeare to Winehouse is what we call an integrated hang. So you see paintings, you see prints, you see photographs, you've got a whole range of media in there. But as you would expect, because it is a show that's gotten historical sweep, you'll find that the dominant medium is oil painting. Shakespeare here, as an example, obviously of that. And then this, which I think is absolutely stunning. That has to be my takeaway painting. I think that is so extraordinary. The Capel family, one of the richest families in England at the time. And don't you just know it just from looking at that setup, but how beautifully executed it is. Okay, so it means then that when we are looking at Shakespeare to Winehouse, we'll see these photographs in the context of these other works, other examples of portraiture. So some things become clear straight away. And that is that the photograph centre are just in dialogue with portraiture generally, regardless of what medium, the portraits have been executed in. So there is a shared visual vocabulary and operation. And you can ask yourself, oh, what do they have in common with the other ones, You know? And then what is different? But it means that any photographer making a portrait like any painter, is engaging with well established historical conventions. You cannot get away from them 'cause we're surrounded by portraiture. We know we're carrying consciously and unconsciously with us a knowledge about how portraiture works. And so what you'll see straight off is that the photographic portraits also favour a head and shoulders view. There are very few that are full body, full pose. You'll see much more the face or down to the middle. So that's the preference, is head and shoulders view. And then of course, because they portraits attention being directed to the face, and the face is often lit in a way then that you're going to be able to concentrate on that. So you would know that Mandela was the president of South Africa. And then this young woman you would know as a activist for the education of young girls. She was shot by a member of the Taliban when she was still at school. Now she lives in England, where she was born in Pakistan. So why have this here is to show you not just the head and shoulders view, but also this other common thing to all the portraits there that we see. And it's this sense of gravity, of seriousness. There's very little in the exhibition in the photographic range that is really lighthearted. Sure there's a photograph of the grinning Beatles, early on in their career. But generally the tone is more serious than that. Now that's not surprising because of the subjects and because of the national portrait gallery in London, its brief is to collect portraits of eminent people. So, we are obviously going to expect that many imminent people are going to want to present themselves very seriously. And it means that smiles are very rare. Half a smile, perhaps from lady Diana, but generally very few smiles. So what they also have in common then is this real self-consciousness imposed they're what we call formal portraits. They're studied rather than being spontaneous. And this is a great example where the subject Aubrey Beardsley the illustrator, I mean what a profile and to present him as a gargoyle, I mean that's where photographer and subject, maybe they've come up with the idea together. But you'll know those figures of course, that are attached to buildings, especially you'll see them in England and Gothic architecture and so on. So, really self-conscious references. And then even when settings appear more informal as in a case like this, because this is a really stunning portrait, I think, of the surrealist artist, Leonora Carrington. There's actually little spontaneity even in that. But note that the photographer here, Lee Miller, her practise was as a documentary photographer. She was someone who was also influenced by surrealism. So the fact that she takes her portrait out of doors is part of her documentary background rather than her being in the studio. But the portrait itself still has a lot of formality about it, doesn't it? And a lot of gravity. So it means then yeah, even when you see these informal settings, there is this level of self-consciousness. Another portrait that's in this vein is one of the outstanding works in the exhibition, is by Richard Avedon and it's of the poet W A Jordan. And where he's standing, is in the street in New York during a snowfall. So you have a writer who is not being identified with his tools of his trade at all. But as, in one way, you might think part of the people, but then in another totally separated from them because he just looms so large in this rather documentary oriented image. So make sure you look at that carefully when you have a chance. So what we do see much more then is that regardless of medium, the portraits are planned, staged, and controlled. And the dominant setting is not outdoors at all it's indoors, and where is it? In the studio, okay? And what great examples these are. So there's two by Dorothy Wilding and this, Anna May Wong was an actress. And I just want you to notice one really important thing about her, which we're gonna come back to. And that is the averted gaze, because here we have still not the full body, it's a longer view, but just note that she isn't looking directly out at you and we'll think about the implications of that later. And then the singer and actor Harry Belafonte. What I would like to direct your attention to here in particular, is how close he is. You could almost reach out and touch him. And yet because of the formality and that in this photograph, which is wonderfully sensuous, he is still in his world and you are in yours. So, there is no direct eye contact with you as the viewer. So there is a kind of distancing going on and that relates to why this talk is titled about changing spaces. You know, think about this interplay between public and private. So the subjects generally in the exhibition, the photographs on display, they do look out of the frame, but we can't always tell if they are looking directly at us, the viewer. Be interesting in a projection where it is you think she's looking, 'cause I haven't seen this projected from that angle. But in the exhibition, I feel like she's just looking beyond me, you know? Just slightly beyond. And in that gaze of course, that address to the camera, you get all sorts of things that happen in that space too, about intimacy and distance. So when it comes to considering the works in material terms, as physical objects, you'll also see in the photographs, the persistence of certain portraiture traditions. And one that's immediately obvious relates to scale. Now this is a really large portrait. So it commands your attention from the start. It's what we would call an honorific portrait. It's made to honour the subject and the scale, the size of it is part of that. It's what's alerting you to its importance. And there's a term often used now in artistry, is called the material turn, in art historical or cultural studies. Where we're much more aware of how artworks operate as objects, what their physicality does. And scale, as I say is immediately obvious because all the photographs will be asking you to position yourself somewhere in relation to them. Do you a long way back? Do you need to come really close because it's small and it's more intimate? So as you're going around the exhibition or any exhibition, just note where the optimum viewing position is because it will affect your response, to the way that you respond to the works that sometimes it's unconscious, you'll just move forward, other times you'll move back. But of course the photographer will have taken all that into account. They have an idea of where you might be. So ones like this, actually they just rival the scale of some of the paintings. And then also in the exhibition, a really outstanding work, it's a black and white portrait of the model, Kate Moss by Mario Sorrenti. She's nude and of there are references to billboard and advertising imagery in these large scale works too. So the next shared factor is patronage. So as with the paintings and works in other media, most of the photographs that you'll see are the result of a commission, they've been taken for a reason. And again, it's usually indicative of the subject's standing in society, their eminence. And you'll also see across the board, famous sitters being paired with famous artists as well. In the photographic term, I can't show you this image, but it's David Bowie is photographed by Lord Snowdon. So you have two people who are very obviously high profile in British society. But the Royal patronage examples, I just wanted to show you then, okay, here's an example from look at the date 1575, quite extraordinary. And then a contemporary example of Royal patronage right? 'cause Terence Donovan is another extremely well known photograph. And this is of Diana princess of Wales. Now these subjects then by virtue of being royalty, have a lot of power themselves. They have power in the sense they can also say what they do and don't want, what they will and what will not do. And sometimes they will go further than that, where they'll become active collaborators with their photographer. Especially those celebrities used to performing to the camera. This is an early work of Diana. So you might say it's more naive or more low key than perhaps some of the other ones where she'd be more actively playing with a look that she wants. And yet we must remember at the same time that the subject has power. That it's not only the photographer then that is in this relationship with the subject because really as an R-A-R-E-L-Y, is it a one-on-one interaction? Behind the scenes, there'll be all sorts of discussions going on about the image concept, about styling, involving hair, dress, jewels and so on. We know for example, that Margaret Thatcher she's in the exhibition photographed by Norman Parkinson, is wearing an outfit that she didn't choose herself. He chose it for her and that's a power suit because clearly he wanted to make it obvious that she had status in standing as the prime minister in England. So he said he selected the tailored suit to suggest the order and deficiency associated with her public image. And you'll see this in the painting too. This is where John Millais, he actually discussed with his subject what she should wear. He wanted a dress that would bring out all his skills as a painter, that he could really go to town on, and he has beautifully. So as for the photographers themselves, they would've been fully aware of other photographs taken of their famous subjects. They're already there in their image bank. And they would've been determined to differentiate their work from their competitors because everyone has a particular look as a photographer. You know, David Bailey does work like this, Lord Snowdon does work like that. So you want your competitive edge 'cause it's a very tight market. And yeah, there's a way of perpetuating the look that they become famous for. And this is going to be a photograph I'm using now as our light motif. It's something that we'll keep coming back to. So, this leads me in fact to the second question that I posed, and that is what do photographic portraits do differently? We've looked already at how they are similar in a way, the dialogue they enter into with the traditions of portraiture more generally. So crucially, and this is different to a lot of the other works that are on display. The photographs were made predominantly for reproduction and especially in magazines because in this period that photography's coming into its own in portraiture in the 20th century. But especially in the second half of the 20th century, magazines are booming. So you have all the popular magazines like Vogue, and Harper's Bazaar, and so on. But you also have those niche magazines in England, like ID, The Face, and so on. And that means that these magazines have been absolutely central to this whole consolidation and perpetuation, what we call celebrity culture. They promoted the celebrities are promoted through articles in the magazines, but also through their advertisements for fashion, for products, and so on. But it will help explain when you look at a photograph like this, the strong graphic qualities. Because if you have a photograph that has a whole lot of background stuff going on, it might not have the same visual appeal, the same sort of clarity of emphasis. So you will often find that these celebrity portraits are paired right back. There is not a lot of detail around them. So this brings me to my second point about these. And that is that what you see happening in the second half of the 20th century, is that the face and fame become conflated. All you need for these famous people is their face. And maybe sometimes the body, especially if they're models, but you don't need a whole lot of other detail. And it means then in the exhibition Shakespeare to Winehouse you will find very few portraits of the genre that we call environmental portraits. And what I mean by that is that the, where the subject, instead of just being with a blank background in a studio, is in a carefully curated setting with props around them, accessories that help establish their occupation and their standing in society. Because if you look at a painting for example, now this is extraordinary that we get to see this in Australia. It's so important in the history of portraiture but in the history of women's art too. We know straight away, oh, she's a painter because all the tools of her trade are there, the chalks, the crayons, the leather bound book. Or something like this, we can tell the painter is giving us all the clues that his subject is an Explorer. One of the most obvious ones in the exhibition, Shakespeare to Winehouse of a boxer. And this is taken by Don McCullen of the boxer, Frank Bruno, because he sits on chair, but next to him is a training ring and his hands are all bandaged, but they look like boxing gloves. They make that reference of course, to the hands and the punching. So this is an example where detail is all important. We can tell immediately what the occupation of a subject like that is. And stepping away from the exhibition into the NPGs collection, this kind of portrait by Greg Weight of the painter Suzie Petyarre, so you know straight away she's a painter. Everything is in there to tell you about that. But in fact, what is much more typical in the exhibition are these kinds of portraits for reasons that I've already explained. We know David Beckham is a footballer, but he's also described as a model. But we don't, all we need is the face in the body. There are no props, none of his commercial products in the image there. And Jagger, Mick Jagger and David Bowie, likewise in the exhibition, there's no instruments in sight. They're not needed. And then a great example, you'll be able to go and see this in the first introductory room in the portrait gallery is Robin Sellick portrait of the late Shane Warne. Now, if you came from outer space and you came across this image, you are not going to know he's a cricketer, right? There is just nothing in there that gives you that information. If you come from Australia, you already know from that face, that's been in the news countless times, that was advertising hair product and so on that, that is Warnie. And notice the halo like effect that he has created around there. So that helps you understand that this is an important subject. I mean, he's just booming out of that image through the light, the kind of propulsion that is coming through it. So, compared to the old days, if you think of something like this, where there is so much information and detail to make it clear to you that this is a person of status. This is a person has the reputation. And it's interesting to contrast it with something like this now, where it's so much more paired down. Certainly I think those earrings to me, they have the sense of expense. Like they look valuable to me and I'm sure they're precious stones. And I couldn't resist bringing this one in, because think of that in relation to the first princess, I mean, first queen Elizabeth, and now we have queen Elizabeth here. I think that is quite an extraordinary portrait. And I also think it's quite subversive because no crown, not even any fancy jewels, we just have her in, it looks like a suit that okay, it's well made, but it doesn't scream wealth at you in the way that some other things might. And the handbag is there too. So this is a portrait I think that is engaging with traditions of portraiture and then playing with them, you know? Actually extending them into more contemporary ways. Also before we part from it, 'cause we will come back to it in a different context. The queen is smiling. So of all those other subjects that we've been looking at, who, you know, you talk about the gravity and the seriousness and then what it is to break into a smile that gives it maybe playing here with candidness or, but you know of course, that is totally contrived too. Okay, so more specifically then what are some of the unique qualities of some of the photographic portraits on show? And I'm not going doing this in any order of priority. But let's start with the idea of an inner life. Now, if you go back to the 19th century and to someone like Julia Margaret Cameron, there was the idea that you could try and get the essence of an individual in a photograph. So you had to do two things, one is you had to give them the likeness, what we call the physiognomic look, that had to be accurate. But something about the person about the character had to be conveyed and portraitist strived to achieve that through the 19th century. In the modernist period, especially, less so now, because we've had post-modernism and all sorts of other things that have happened since. But it means that in the exhibition, there's actually not a lot of engagement with the inner life, which I think is quite fascinating. Except I think for this portrait of Mandela and also of Malala Yousafzai, which we'll have a look at in a minute. So, the inner life then now, how is that conveyed? What is our evidence here? See how inscrutable his expression is, that face. He's not looking directly, I don't think at you, there's just a slightly down thing as if he is preoccupied, but I would suggest that that gaze suggests a kind of suffering and a kind of conviction. And as mentioned earlier with this one that, okay, size alone tells us that it's an honorific portrait and we've got the formality and the gravity. But then it's overlaid with the text, which also gives another level of complexity, but of importance because the photographer here, `Shirin Neshat has written directly onto the photographic print and the poem comes from a Pashto poet, Rahmat Shah Sayel. Which as extended label tells us, addresses the legendary Pashton heroin, Malala of Maiwand and praises her contemporary namesake. Now why I'm just giving you that detail is you've got the past, then you've got history, you've got legend, you've got the present. And so by merging the two together in this vocabulary, it means that for you, as a viewer, you'll understand she is someone of importance. And for the photographer, there is a sense then of her inner relevance. What Neshat described was Malala's humility, wisdom, and a rare sense, sense of inner beauty. That's what I mean by something inside her that is she is trying to communicate. But more often in the exhibition, the orientation is towards the outer, towards appearances, the outer look. And that's why I keep using this photograph because I think it is such a perfect example of that artfulness. You'll see in the show that some of the subjects appear androgynous, especially David Bowie, Mick Jagger too, 'cause he's in a jacket that's got a fur around here, but his face in some ways is feminised. And so this one not only speaks to that, but to these strategies that I'm calling strategies of obfuscation. So what I mean by that is that the subject's face is only partially revealed. Naomi Campbell, the famous, so famous as a model, her face known instantly, in the show she's wearing sunglasses so that the face is partially obscured. Maybe that's to slow down the reading, our instant recognition of her. Margaret that's face is modified by this bright beam of light, so it's sort of broken by that. And then here in David Beckham's case, see how the hair is falling across his eye and then the other eye is in shadow. So what do these strategies, what's the point of that? You need to ask why your reading is being slowed down. Excuse me. So, we might just stay here just for one more second then. So, because what I'm going to do in this last section of my talk, is touch on this inter-relationship between private and public space, which we've been flirting with all the way through. Because it really struck me as an issue when I was looking at Shakespeare to Winehouse. But it extends to images beyond the show, including in the national photographic portraiture prize and in the NPG in national portrait gallery here its own collection. So my specific point is about the construction of intimacy and a false intimacy. And this is why David Beckham work works so well because you might think that the close up is going to give you maximum information. And if you look around the exhibition, that's where you'll see that the dominant vantage point is this close up. As we've already said, okay, head and shoulders view. So usually then you would expect that close up, by giving you this information, assuming it's not to do with scrutiny and surveillance, in anthropology, but in a more benign mode, that it will imply intimacy. Because you have to get close to somebody. The person has to agree, yes, you can photograph me, come close, I trust you or whatever. So, in photographs of lovers, this is where you see especially really interesting things happen where the space and I can't show you the actual photographs. It's a series, you'll be able to look at it online. But Alfred Stieglitz, his photographs of his partner, Georgia O'Keeffe the American painter. He did a whole series of her because he said, there's no point taking one portrait. You never get the sum of a person in one portrait. I need to take a series to try to know her, try to represent her. So he photographs, her hands, her hair and so on. But the space that he creates is so intimate that she begins to fall away as a subject. You know, there's a whole lot of blur and in distinctness in there, because he's practically so far into her physical space, what we think of as the personal space. So that space of intimacy is used to great effect. It's quite a common trope in photographs of lovers or intimate others. But when we are seeing close up in the exhibition, Shakespeare to Winehouse, it's operating in a different way because our subjects don't become indeterminate. You know, the boundaries don't don't collapse. We're still reminded I think, that we are other to the subject there. So there's toying then with conventions of intimacy by this personal space, like how close you are to the subject in this agreement, is also apparent in the calculated use of nudity and or a state of undress. So in the show, there are a few cases where nudity is implied. Naomi Campbell I've mentioned already, so from here up, but you think, okay, maybe she's fully nude. You just can't know. David Bowie, there's a very lovely portrait, just the head and shoulders, but again, maybe he has no top on. Kate Moss being an example. And then Vivienne Westwood. That's why we can't look at this in reality, but I do want to discuss it because I think it's the most subversive image in the exhibition. And it's by the documentary photographer, Martin Parr, who has a great reputation, not as a photographer of celebrities necessarily, but through his colour documentary practise. And as I know that some of you, hopefully online as well as in person have seen the exhibition, you'll know that Vivienne Westwood, Dame Vivian Westwood, the very famous fashion designer, and one of the pioneers of the British punk movement. She's in her undies with her stockings on and no shoes. And she got a t-shirt, which is important because the t-shirt really does stress her involvement in the climate change movement, like climate activism. But where she's standing is in a toilet cubicle, a public toilet cubicle. So she's in the state of not her going out dress at all of undress, but in a public realm. So you have that weird incongruity between, if you're you're in that kind of outfit, you would expect you are in a more private space. Sure, a public toilet is the door is still shut, but it is playing with those boundaries between the domestic and between the public. And so I can make the point through that about revealment then, because when you see her undressed like that, you can't take it at face value. The revealment is a deliberate strategy employed not to establish authentic intimacy, but to play with its effective qualities. Like what you get out of seeing someone who looks like they are prepared to show more than you would be expecting conventionally. So in the Westwood case, viewers might be surprised that a fashion icon isn't dressed, and that she's posed in the most unglamorous setting. Squeezed into that awkward space that I have described. And this is where the colour, the fact of power working in colour is so important because the colours are not attractive. You know, the whole thing looks purposefully tacky. That's why I see it as subversive, but this is where we can use the photograph by Polly Borland from the NPGs collection to make a similar point, because we have nudity in the sense that this, you'll all know Germaine Greer is the feminist activist, pose nude in a private space, assuming that it's bathroom, but everything in this portrait is a contrivance, `it's a conceit. So she's fully aware of what she's doing just in the way that Polly Borland and the photographer is fully aware of what she's doing. They're working together to create something that hasn't occurred naturally. It's not documentary at all. So, it's where they are playing with these ideas about intimacy and the boundaries between the private and the public. And if you compare this, I think it's quite striking looking at the entries in the national photographic portraiture prize, because the idea of an authentic setting is actually key it's it's evident time and time again, where people are opposing in spaces that either belong to them inside or out. We can't always know that, of course, but we make assumptions about their them being authentic. And this can be seen in Bec Lorrimer's portrait of Emily and Effy where the backyard, the actual setting then comes to have a very active role in its ordinariness and then its familiarity. Especially as Australians, we are very aware of the backyard as part of our domestic realm. And so we then can identify these two subjects as being at home in it. It gives you a look that, as I describe as being authentic. But the incongruity of a setting can also be activated for its narrative dynamism and its visual energy. So as I said, with the Vivienne Westwood portrait, you don't expect to see a fashion icon in a toilet. There is something here in this portrait by Igvar Kenne, which I think the barmaid isn't in the bar, she's in the laundry, but she's in the laundry in presumably her work gear, what she would be wearing in the bar. So these incongruities introduce interesting narrative questions, I think. And that's why I've brought this back because that kind of incongruity applies to Polly Borland's photograph of the queen, because where is she? I mean, it looks like a Marimekko display behind her. Is she in a shop or is that a curtain? Is she at home? Is she in Borland's studio and they've used a piece of fabric as a backdrop? So that immediately, you actually get a sense of uncertainty. Now, certainly there's the colour, the complimentary colours, which make you realise once again, how contrive of this is and how worked out it probably was in advance. But why do that? What is the kind of narrative flow that comes from that sort of juxtaposition? So where I thought we would end is with this, this is Petrina Hicks's dragonflies and it's in the national photographic portraiture prize. So you'll be able to go and have a look at it because the show only opened last night. Because I wanted to make the point then, that portraiture and its traditions are not static. And we can see that through just following this idea about the changing spaces, the changing public and private spaces. So there are many contemporary portraits that ask questions of portraiture itself. Those very traditions that I started off with. And I think this image by Hicks is one example. Like so many subjects in the Shakespeare to Winehouse exhibition, the young woman is performing for the camera. She knows she's there, she knows why she's there, but in this case she isn't identified. So not only do we have no identity markers 'cause Krysia used that term just before, and I thought, oh yeah, that's a great summary in the sense that there's nothing to tell us what she does, but there's also nothing to tell us who she is because she's not identified in the title. We don't know her and we can't actually know her. So I think that the fact then to end with a portrait which is engaging with portraiture, but is making identity irrelevant, might be a most provocative place to stop. So thank you very much. So now we can see if there's anything from the chat, any questions that you would like to bring up?

- Thanks, Helen. That was a really fantastic talk and gave us a lot to think about. There hasn't been a lot of questions from the online audience, but there was one from a regular of ours, Nita who lives in Sweden, and joins in just about every single programme that we have on, even though the time differences horrendous for her. She did make an observation that she thought it was interesting that at times there's an assumption that there's no Photoshop changes made and that we assume that photos are of a total scene and there's no after fix.

- Yeah.

- Do you have anything that you'd like, any observations about that?

- No, i think that is that's another really important point. And if you think about the evolution of portraiture, especially in photography. In the 19th century, we can't even assume that things were naturalistic because you could use collage and there were a whole lot of things you could do to manipulate the final photograph. So, we have long worked with this assumption that the historical portraits may be more accurate than contemporary ones. When sure you could manipulate in the dark room, you could manipulate the print. Now you can manipulate digitally. But my point there would be that, yes, everything is up for grabs. There are so many people working historically who were so active as manipulators. But why I like that question is it's just bringing the, or the comment, it's just reminding you to always be working with a critical mind, you know? Don't take things at face value. Think about the decisions that a photographer is making when he or she takes the portrait. But also the decisions about what the subject, how do you want to appear? And as I said, the styling and everything else that might be involved if it's of someone very famous. Thank you.

- Thank you, Helen. That's all the questions from the online audience, apart from the fact that you may like to receive a compliment from Gale Newton, who has said that it's been a very insightful talk.

- Oh, thank you.

- We all know Gale. So that's lovely that she's zoomed in today. We probably have time to take maybe one or two questions from the onsite audience. If anybody would like to ask a question off Helen before we finish? No one's gonna be brave enough.

- Or, you can tell me what your favourite portrait is in the exhibition and suggest why.

- We've got one question at the front. I'll just pass the microphone over. Sorry to run under.

- I was interested to see the Naomi Campbell portrait that you mentioned. To my eye was somewhat out of focus. Is there a reason? If that were my photo, I wouldn't obviously put it up.

- Yeah.

- Because I think, oh, that's out of focus so I won't display that.

- Yeah.

- Is there something behind that? Why somebody would do that?

- Yeah, now that's a really interesting point because I agree and I think it is out of focus. So yeah, you have to ask, why would that be the case? And I think, I use that word obfuscation that why is it in the exhibition that there's quite a number of photographers doing things that just block that access, that real specificity of the subject? The directness between them and you. And I think it's probably another example of that. If you look in the glasses, you can see that the photographer is there. So you're being reminded of the whole transactional nature of the process, but the fact that she does appear nude and she is so famous that she is so kind of overexposed, I guess you'd say normally in the public realm, it's just a way of softening perhaps then and taking it down a bit. Yeah, so I think it would all be very purposeful. I think Mike's got a question too up there.

- I'll just repeat that for the online audience. So Mark's observation was that the Margaret Thatcher image is also outta focus, but that was intentional to sort of soften the look.

- Yeah, well, what's great that Mark just gave us then was, okay, it's outta focus, but why? Because it's softens her look and I think that's right. And because that portrait is so dominated by the light that the light of course is a thing of power of illumination. You know, you could read as having a symbolic role, but I know Parkinson talks about the need to glamorise or make his subjects look good. So in that case, perhaps the light is also doing that too. Maybe their soft focus is part of enhancing her, making her look better. And who doesn't wanna photograph where you look better than you think you're doing real life?

- Thanks, Helen. We do have one more question coming through from the online audience from John, John Swainston, who asks, has technology now advanced so much that in the intent of the subject in the photographer can now be without technical limit, unlike the 1840s?

- Well, I think that's a really open question and technology, I guess I've always, in the way that I approach photographs as images and not objects is not to be too swayed by what technology has made possible. Sure, you've gotta establish its role. But I can tell you something that Max DuPain said about this, because yesterday I was reading some newspaper reviews that he had written in the 1980s. Now, Max DuPain, one of our very well known photographers. And his own style kind of cool. A lot of his portraits you might think were, they are certainly set up. But what he said is optics and techniques are never enough. What do you want is warm humanity? And I thought now that's actually really interesting for someone who we do think of as having a cool style, still wanting in his photographs and the photographs of others. He uses words like compassion, tenderness, a whole lot of words that I wasn't expecting, but that's what he was saying. He wanted human feeling and that. So sure, technologically, yeah, the sky's the limit. We don't know what's gonna happen or what will be possible in portraiture in the future. But that's why the Petrina Hicks, I think, is a provocation. Like how much do you wanna know about a person? What is it even possible for us to know about a person?

- Thank you, Helen.

- Thank you.

- On that note, I'll pass back to Krysia. Thank you.

- Thanks.