We Can’t Paint

(Mavericks and Daydreamers Series)© Boru O’Brien O’Connell

Boru O’Brien O’Connell is a photographer based in France. I was impressed with his “Mavericks & Daydreamers” series, portraits that confront the historical depiction of man and the complications that go along with its representation. While in Italy, Boru was kind enough to discuss how he came to produce this series as well as his thoughts on photographic portraiture amongst other things.

How did you initially come up with the concept for “Mavericks & Daydreamers”?

It was an attempt to recreate certain pictures that I had collected over time. These were historically obscure depictions of men, more often than not in groups that I thought were something of an unrecognized collective social memory, of masculinity or its portrayed disposition. Mostly they were old press photos and portraits that at first conveyed to me the simple idea of “how things used to be”, and evolved into something much more layered.

My idea was to somehow elucidate certain themes or subtleties I saw as recurrent, strange or funny and worth re-examining from an artistic point of view. This was usually how the men were posed, how they were interacting, how they were photographed, etc. They also appeared historically interchangeable to me for some reason, I’m not sure why exactly, so I wanted to make historically confused or ambiguous images. This had become such an unrealistic undertaking for such an incredibly limited budget and narrow vision that I decided to loosen the control a bit, (it also dawned on me that I had just wished I had taken them myself) but I continued to pursue the male portrait.

I started seeking out models, as individuals, and shooting them with direction, but not the neurotic direction required for something like recreating an old photo. Once I got the momentum going from what was nearly just an exercise with these simplified portraits, I loved the project more and more. I’m still working on it and I feel like I could keep working on it forever.

Within most of these portraits there is something inexplicitly sweet and almost comical. The men seem at once incredibly mysterious and at the same time very approachable. Was there a conscious decision to depict these men in this manner?

With the beginning that I mentioned, no. I had wanted it all in black and white, and that seemed to lend a colder portrayal. When I switched to color, it became sweeter, more comical. Since that was pretty quickly apparent, and for me a success, it made me want to push the whole thing further. At that point it did become a conscious act.

(Mavericks and Daydreamers Series)© Boru O’Brien O’Connell

There are guys that I shot and haven’t used because there was something lacking in those areas. I want a sense of playful mediocrity to be present, I think that makes them approachable. The basis being a sort of historical precedent of the quotidian man, but not specific photos, per se. Of course they are also blank to some extent, statue like, as in they’ve been in that pose for ages. I like the “serious” stoic side of this, an enduring symbol of man, maybe that’s where they seem mysterious.

You seem to forgo a clichéd representation of men as inhabiting an undertone of sensitivity, instead you focus on the idea of man as an explorer, be it a concept, or as a reference to the mind. This is something historically tied to masculinity. How does the traditional role of man as explorer fit into your presentation of these men?

I guess that the Emersonian (among others) idea of man as a sort of lightning rod for truth is something that I find both fascinating and silly. Man, is truth seeker, a philosopher, while the regular old man is just a little “dude”. The gravity of philosophical self-searching thrust upon the little “dudes”, through high and lo, is innately ridiculous and funny to me, but of course who can’t feel empathy for it; the idea of finding some kind of answer or “truth” that always seems to elude. Even if you believe it doesn’t exist, it can still feel as though it eludes you. This whole thing seems like the prototypical image of Man to me.

So, Man still takes on this image, he is an explorer, exploring the god of nature, exploring the land for truth, for answers! It’s funny, because even when you set aside something like transcendentalism and look at something like stock photography you see the same archetype, Man, standing on a mountaintop, in union with something powerful. The Marlboro man, there’s something there. The mavericks (a term I always associate with business lingo), the business men who climbed to the top, we’re supposed to look at them as soul searches for some strange reason.

(Mavericks and Daydreamers Series)© Boru O’Brien O’Connell

Most people associate gender issues and gender representation with socially identified minorities and femininity. In your opinion why are issues concerning male identity, both in terms of gender and gender as social construct, important to tackle in the 21st century?  

I won’t say it’s not a self-reflective or self-indulgent undertaking. I don’t know how important it is to tackle any of this to be honest. I think that I have a lot more territory to cover with this subject matter, and I think that it is a relatively fresh area, either that, or one that not too many people are interested in. Despite everything I’ve said, much of it for me is about the investigation of portraiture, rather than simply gender issues. But, I suppose for the very reason that people do associate those issues with identified minorities and women is an interesting and important one in and of itself.

I like to photograph a somewhat ignored and even bland demographic; as a reflection of the medium’s history, as a reflection of the culture’s visual choices, and as a reflection of what I’m interested in. I like to imbue humor into photography, albeit sometimes in a very subtle manner, I think that is important. This is not to say that there isn’t an abundance of social and artistic criticism, or even humor, surrounding this same demographic I shoot, but for me masculinity lends itself to something less obvious than what I’ve seen; a silliness, a strangeness, but all this lies just under a layer of how serious or straight it wants to be taken. I think there is a lot that is just assumed about male identity, especially given the stereotypical reticence of straight men. But this trait provides a wealth of material and questioning, unopened doors of weirdness. Maybe there’s still a fear of some kind regarding straight, platonic male relationships, but I see a lot to be gleaned from that pursuit, both in undermining its exterior, and maybe relating a bizarre anecdote.

You say that this series is more of an investigation of portraiture for you, I want to focus a little on that. There has been some discussion lately in blogosphere about portraits; specifically what makes a good or great portrait. What are the elements you utilize and look for when producing a great portrait?  

When you say an investigation of portraiture I suppose you mean portraiture as an idea, how that idea has been practiced over time (not just in photography), and what that means about people. As opposed to simply documenting a person’s immediate presence, a great portrait would be something that reflects or creates this is some way, curious about itself; of course everything depends on the model and your choices. For me, almost always, a great portrait does not mean “capturing” something, even though sometimes I might end up with a photo that looks like I’m attempting this, I’m not. If possible I’d like the discussion of portraiture to wander outside of the photo vernacular and into other areas/ideas. I’m still working on that stuff.

(Mavericks and Daydreamers Series)© Boru O’Brien O’Connell

My interactions with models are often awkward and unnatural. I want to be obtrusive. I want to create the idea of a person in an environment, but not captured in that environment. Maybe they’re acting natural and maybe not, but I don’t know them and I’m engaged with them in a bizarre way that feels inexplicable until I get the negatives back and then it is always worth it. To make a portrait I like to find the pieces myself and then put them together myself, and then maybe see what happens. Not staging per se, and definitely not waiting to see pieces fall into place from everyday life. For me, that’s what still life is about. Maybe that’s a little inverted. The more I figure out what I’m looking for the more I figure out how to get it. For me, making mistakes is painful but important. I’ve found that even though I like to implement control over what’s happening, I can only plan so much for it, otherwise I dig myself into a hole by trying too hard.

(Mavericks and Daydreamers Series)© Boru O’Brien O’Connell

It has often been said that portraits are essentially empty photographs; they cannot say anything truthful about the subject. What are your thoughts on this issue? Is portraiture a failed pursuit?

I think that’s silly and academic. Firstly, I would never say that the portrait is an empty vessel. But I also don’t see “empty” and “truthful” as antonyms. That is, I don’t see why something’s “truthfulness” would indicate its substance. I don’t know, I don’t really like semantics. I think that portraiture often fails as a pursuit along with everything else, but that doesn’t make it a failed pursuit, not to me at least. Maybe it’s ubiquity waters down its potential as an artistic endeavor more than other things like sculpture or painting. That’s why context is very important with photography, as well as the overlooked.

Personally, I couldn’t care less if I say anything “truthful” about my models. That seems like an overly “photographic” approach, and I’m sort of turned off by the hermetic tendencies of the medium. The discussion of objectivity doesn’t interest me, at least not at the moment. I prefer intervention to what a journalistic approach tends to elicit, but there are certainly far more obnoxious examples of the former that I don’t even need to name, not to mention commercial photography. Even though I really like a lot of the new generation of large format art/documentary photography, I also find something missing from it.

(Mavericks and Daydreamers Series)© Boru O’Brien O’Connell

I don’t think I’ve really succeeded yet, but I’d like to find that balance of a weirdness I see and I want to extract that from people, along with the weirdness of what a person would naturally contribute. This actually brings to mind the idea of character. People are always looking at portraits, whether they’re celebrities or pictures of “peasants”, and appreciating them based on the character of their faces, the lines, the “story” of the face. I don’t know. This is a safe place that’s easy for people to attribute soul and depth; it’s too easy. I think that’s an interesting idea to mess around with. It’s like the “Oprah-fixation” of the portrait. To quote a great interview I read with Torbjørn Rødland “if people just see a nice photograph, they don’t need me, they might as well be looking at a calendar”. It depends on the angle with which you see the world. Personally, I would be content to never see another picture of an abandoned building or empty parking lot. I’m more interested in details, the ones I trip over I guess.

Sticking with these thoughts, how do think portraiture is evolving? It’s an aspect of photography that always seems to stay somewhat the same. Can portraiture be reinvented or do you think it’s always fresh?  

I don’t really know my thoughts on this. I think there’s a limited amount of formal reinvention remaining, but at this point that would seem to be about novelty, which can wear thin. I don’t necessary consider the medium’s intrinsic “reflective” quality as some sort of vehicle for never ending freshness simply due to cultural change. I think that’s just cultural change. It’s creative quality might be different though. I guess I would like to just see a greater amount of thought and creativity put into it. I’m not saying that’s me, but I do feel disheartened and conflicted when I look at lauded photography for photography’s sake.

(New Work)© Boru O’Brien O’Connell

A portrait is just a picture of a person, maybe it’s way simpler than I’m making it out. I just think it’s somewhat stuck. I think photographers need to challenge themselves more, at least from the impression I get. I like to be made to actually wonder about the photographer’s intentions with a portrait. And a lot of the time, I feel like that’s given away too easily. I like to be confused about what I’m seeing. I think there are some interesting developments in portraiture but they’re few and far between.

What is next for you? I know you have been shooting new projects in Italy, could you describe the focus of this work?  

I’m still working on the “Mavericks & Daydreamers” stuff. I’m also working on a project about French cafeteria food. I’m shooting more and more still lifes, something that I’ve started to only appreciate recently. I’m thinking about the still life as isolated thought, and something that can be funny in an extremely dry way. I’m working on one series that is all black on yellow. This is something that I started unwittingly and then began to notice everywhere around me without even looking for it, it’s like an invasive infection, black on yellow. I’m basically focused on these two areas, along with other small things here and there. I try to not get sucked into the “series” too much. I find it to be a kind of a photo trap. I would even like to dilute the dreamer’s stuff with other work if given the chance. I’m doing a residency at the moment.

(New Work)© Boru O’Brien O’Connell

(New Work)© Boru O’Brien O’Connell

How do you think these projects will finally conclude? Also, is there any chance of a book in the future?

I can’t think of anything cooler than having a book of the Mavericks stuff, except for a show maybe. I’ve shot everything on 4×5 and haven’t been able to print a single one, so I’m waiting for the day I can do that. It’s the first time I’ve shot through and through on something with such undying interest, but I’ll know when I’ve shot enough. I would like to do a show and book of the portraits with some other stuff mixed in there. We’ll see.

(New Work)© Boru O’Brien O’Connell

Thank you for your time. 

Thanks for the interview!