Platon's plaudit for Putin portrait

[image source]

The head shot of Vladimir Putin looking ice-cold that graced the cover of Time's "Man of the Year" issue last year - not to mention the photo inside that had Putin looking like a cross between a tsar' and a godfather - caused quite a stir (earlier SoM posts about the issue are here and here) and had many people wondering how the photographer was able to get such shots of the Russian president. Now that photog, who goes by the name Platon, has won a World Press Photo award for the picture. As it turns out, there is indeed a fairly interesting story surrounding the photo.

You can listen to an interview with Platon in which he tells the tale of how he got the shot on the World Press Photo award website (click on 2008 and then the thumbnail of VVP) - the tale has been noted by at least a couple of photography-focused blogs as worth a listen, and I second that impression. I haven't seen a transcript anywhere, or I'd paste in some of the more interesting bits, but again, the whole thing is worth listening to.

Sofia Kornienko of Radio Svoboda interviewed Platon (as well as Stanley Green, who is famous as a photo-chronicler of Chechnya) and also got some fairly interesting comments about the Putin photo. Her own comments about the impact of the Putin "Man of the Year" issue are also quite interesting, although some of her conclusions strike me as perhaps a bit exaggerated. I decided to translate a portion of the interview (n.b. presumably an original English-language text of this interview exists somewhere, but I couldn't find it online; there are likely to be substantial differences between the original and my somewhat stilted re-translation back into English - as always here at Scraps of Moscow, you get what you pay for):

Platon: [the first part of the interview tracks closely with the story told by Platon in the audio interview linked above - Kornienko identifies Platon as a "fan of tall tales"] Then Putin came into the room, and I think he felt sorry for me. I was all sweaty and about to lose it. Pity is the only reason he agreed to pose for me. The ability to make people feel sorry for you is the photographer's greatest weapon.

The first thing I said to him was, "Let's not stand on ceremony. What was it like to meet Paul McCartney?" Everyone in the room was shocked, because in Putin's office you're supposed to stay very serious, and no one smiles. Then, when we had finished the photo shoot and were talking about the Beatles, I thought I was able to get inside his interior world.

The picture I took was a play on the Godfather, or Scarface, or something like that. I think Putin liked that picture. After all, it's what he wants, it's his style to look like a gangster.

Sofia Kornienko: After the awards ceremony, I asked Platon why he decided to take on this assignment.

Platon: It's my job. I have very strong political views, but my job is to take people's pictures, therefore part of my work is to break down the natural barrier, the natural resistance [of the subject] upon meeting them, whether it is simple shyness, emotion or a lack of confidence, to break down that barrier and reach the internal content of their personality.

In this case, I had just eight minutes to feel out that connection with what the person had inside. Having felt out the person's internal substance, I have to capture it as I see it. As far as political views, it's not my role to come up with an angle or approach to the subject ahead of time that would intentionally depict him as an evil man, if I perhaps think that's what he is. My agreement to photograph someone [also] doesn't mean that I have agreed to idolize him or sing his praises. I simply documented his presence for history.

Sofia Kornienko: But the issue of Time which named Putin "Man of the Year," on the cover of which your photograph appeared, as well as the interview illustrated by your portrait, was perceived by many liberally oriented people in Russia and outside of Russia as a betrayal on the part of our Western colleagues whose support is so highly valued. Putin's interview with Time didn't contain a single question which could have provoked a substantive discussion and, in the eyes of many, discredited the Western ideals of the free press which have generally been considered the benchmark [for journalists everywhere].

Doesn't it seem that your photograph was used as a banner or symbol of this tendency which disappointed so many readers, and what would you like to say to people who found that issue of the magazine outrageous or insulting?

Platon: The fact of the matter is that, as I already said, it's my job to document people living today. If I had lived in the 1940s, it's quite possible that I would have photographed Stalin. That doesn't mean that I support the subjects of my photos. The main thing is to get a portrait that shows who my subject really is. I can't control what happens with the portrait after that.

As soon as a photo is published, it leaves my sphere of influence and becomes public property. I am sure that one way or another history brings the truth to the surface. It's possible that some people were outraged by that issue of Time or by the context in which [Putin] was presented - I can't change that. But I documented him. I showed that if you look deep into his eyes, you see power, strength, incredible self-discipline and cold, icy cold.

I have my own strength: a visual image is able to convey to the audience that which the written word cannot. Perhaps people felt that their ideals were betrayed by the written words, but as far as the photograph, it shows Putin as he really is. That's the way he is. And one can't not accept a precise portrait, because it is true to life and honest. I tried to be honest with myself and with Putin when I was working. That's all you can expect from a photographer.

Radio Svoboda interview via barabanch