ON REALISING THE PORTRAITS

 

SECTION CONTENTS:

 

1. Why black and white?

2. Guiding participants: beyond smiling

3. Selection of participants

4. How many portraits?

5. Spontaneous reactions to the project

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. Why black and white ?

 

To my point of view, black and white enables several things:

 

- It is more essential. It emphasises on the main lines of each face, its structure. It simplifies the image and tends to make a signature out of the face

 

- It is more universal. It bounds all the subjects together, by homogenising cloths colours and lowering logos and brands impact.

 

- It is more timeless. Without its colour attributes, the picture is less datable. Thus it is difficult to differentiate from a picture made 20 years ago. It will be the same in 20 years.

 

I kept this black and white approach for the pictures in the “manjushri” section (mostly buildings, objects and statues). They are way powerful enough to have their colour removed. From a certain point of view, they’re even more powerful and meaningful with this essential-universal-timeless approach. Capable to glow and to pulse without the distraction of colour.

 

 

 

2. Guiding participants: beyond smiling

 

Once the subject said that they were willing, just before taking the pictures most the times I would repeat the principle of the project : all the portraits are made here in Manjushri, of people connected to Manjushri and happy to be here because this place and this tradition mean something to them. The idea was to have this in mind. Some people would spontaneously put on a big smile. Others, a happy but softer expression. They were feeling love and peace from inside more than they were showing it explicitly, I thought. While editing the pictures, I found that those softer expressions were as intimate and profound as the more smiley ones. Even if appearing complex or ambivalent. Some of those facial expressions can be seen as potential points of departure toward sadness as much as toward joy. But I thought it was normal. Nobody is mono-directional, either always happy or always sad.

 

Also, I suppose that if a person who never had a direct experience of the life in a centre, a person who, like anybody else, has their ups and downs, if their first contact with the tradition is online and they see only super smiley faces, this person may ask themself whether the environment is  suitable for them. In particular, if they are looking for options because their ups and downs are more turbulent than usual.

 

Thus, after the first 40 or 50 pictures, in addition to the brief described just above, I would suggest to the subjects – if they were not spontaneously doing it - to smile from inside, to feel their happiness in their heart and gut more than to express it facially.

 

Then, a 100 pictures and editing later, I would also add another piece of advice : be yourself. Deeply. The meditation face could be a good landmark, I think, for a rested face, close to our centre, close to our heart. To facilitate this, I would suggest to the subjects to close their eyes and to breathe slowly, to get deep in themselves and to visualise, to feel. Some people really did play the game and took a couple of minutes to do so.

 

But all of this isn’t an easy thing to do. A fortiori considering that 95% of the pictures are made on the go, right after the discussion, without preparation, without appointment, without possibility to look at the way you look in a mirror, for a close up portrait. Made in public.

But to be sincere, if possible all the time, to find your centre, find a balance, is in my view one of the goals of spiritual practice.

 

In my opinion, the picture situation isn’t an “artificial” one, even if it implies a lot of things:

- The lens is a mirror, the subject knows he will see itself ; meet itself in this picture. Thus there is a “self to self” relation

- The lens is the photographer

- The lens is also everyone. The community, the whole of humanity.

 

All these levels may reveal ease or difficulty, flow or knots. Possibly self grasping.

 

One might also say a picture is an artificial reality, because it is static, framed, cropped, partial. But even directly seen reality is a subjective perception. It is constructed by the mind, it depends on it. Several persons can perceive the same situation in very different ways.

 

Some people would tell me they don’t usually like to be photographed but they want to do it for this project. Great! A couple of people told me they’d let me take their picture to help me. I’d answer thank you very much but I don’t need help, I’m looking for people who WANT to be part of it. Do you want to be?

 

I see this project as an offering, not a demand. By participating and going through the picture process, each subject is making a spiritual move. Each subject accepts its own humanity, and potentially faces its fears and hopes. Each subject reach its own universality, its infinity.

 

A portrait isn’t a candid picture, as can be done remotely with a zoom lens, in a public space. I really like to take candid pictures. But this time I wanted to engage people, to offer participation in the photo instead of taking a picture. Participation through an individual picture, not a group one, because the “individual” (that cannot be divided) is the smallest social component. That individual is a key component because in itself it can enhance or impair the community – as the strength of a chain is it’s weakest link.

 

The Kadampas have their states of mind and I learnt to love them. Whatever the facial expression is, their willingness to be part of the project is a sign in itself, a message, and a significant intention. I love all these pictures and all these individuals. The beauty of these pictures is the beauty of the subjects. Their sincerity. And this sincerity comes from what they are feeling for this tradition.

 

 

 

3. Selection of participants

 

IIt would be nearing impossible to obtain portraits of all the thousands of people who were in Manjushri during this 2015 summer. So I tried to :

- Meet new people everyday, but also offering portraits to the people I had already met

- Vary citizenships, age and gender

- Look for ordained and non ordained subjects

- Non ordained teachers and non teachers

- Residents and non residents of Manjushri

- People with various levels of seniority in the tradition. From a few days (only two subjects, as far as I know) to one or more decades (probably half of the subjects).

 

I tried to practice equanimity. Notably, sometimes, by choosing people randomly or by engaging people I wouldn’t have spontaneously talked to.

 

Among the subjects, to my knowledge, there aren’t daily visitors. The project was essentially to make portraits of people who have a personal relation with the tradition. And I didn’t want to risk annoying visitors, even more so for the sake of a personal project.

 

 

 

4. How many portraits?

 

At first I wasn’t targeting a specific amount of portraits. I wanted to see if people would find the idea appealing.  As the vast majority were willing to participate, I decided to continue, and made 70 portraits during the 3 weeks prior to the festival followed by 130 portraits during the 2 weeks of the festival. I then captured around 50 portraits over the next 3 weeks, while I was beginning to focus on the content of the website.

 

Nevertheless it was hard to stop making portraits. I didn’t want to miss a discreet person who was very connected to Manjushri, who would be happy to be part of it. But most of all, new experienced Kadampas are continually arriving!

Ideally, everyone would be given the opportunity to participate. In Manjushri and all over the world.

If someone or a group realises a similar project in the tradition I would be delighted.

 

 

 

5. Spontaneous reactions to the project
 

Festival goers, coming from far away for a brief stay, often themselves taking pictures, were particularly willing and enthusiastic. All the more I could show them the already made portraits on my cell phone. Working visitors reacted in the same way.

 

With Manjushri residents I sometimes had to go into more detail about what I was doing, my intentions, which I totally understand. My relation with the tradition is recent compared to most of the people and my face isn’t familiar. Moreover, a portrait is personal ; it takes a couple of minutes to be made, we need to move outside if inside and to receive some instructions. I take the picture with a “big” camera, ask for the first name, the country, the email. Above all, the result will be published online, thus very public.

If I had been living in Manjushri for some time, I would definitely check who I’m talking to and who this is offering to make my portrait.

Actually, I was astonished by how spontaneously some  of the “Yes”s came. Nonetheless, 7 or 8 people declined my offer, invoking disliking being portrayed. When people were hesitating for this reason I used to joke : “meditate more”! Some people avoid web exposure, which I completely understand.

A dozen people accepted but we didn’t find the right moment. Maybe the motivation wasn’t strong enough. Which I would completely understand as I myself don’t enjoy being portrayed. A couple of people also asked if I would also be part of concept and display my face too. You can find my portrait in the “who” section of this website.

 

For each and every portrait I had to present the project and myself, which is relatively intimate, as people were trying to get a feel of me. Often, it was an opportunity to discuss and stay connected. Less so during the festival though as I was doing 3 times more portraits per day.

 

Also, for each new person I would engage, I thought I was taking the risk of bothering them, even if my intention was good. Or worse, the risk to trigger a “community alarm”, if the project would be perceived as intrusive. Thus I felt exposed myself by the project : reaching completion would probably be a source of joy for a lot of people. But if it were denied, it would be a dolorous – if not lethal – incomprehension. Hence my feverishness.

 

To engage that many people individually was a journey, a spiritual practice, a challenge, a teaching. An exploration on the theme of encounter, of the presentation of the self, of listening and understanding each other. Equally for me and for the person I engage, it is about sincerity, trust. It is about the subtle balance between openness and protection, between conservatism and innovation.