The “kiddie” photo and a baby’s smile

In his essay in “_The Art of the American Snapshot, 1888–1978_”:http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0691133689/octothorppres-20, Matthew S. Witkovsky says that “photographing children involves a perennial mix of guilelessness and posing.” He goes on:

bq. The hallmark “cuteness” of a good kiddie photo derives supposedly from the gap in consciousness between photographer and subject; yet it is infantile innocence combined with precocious self-awareness, or with playacting, that makes a scene photogenic, for the audience that witnesses its making and for those who flip through the resulting pictures later in albums (235).

We’ve been keenly aware of this dynamic, especially the tension between _our_ drive to catch our girls’ best moments and their own easy self-possession even with a lens right in their faces. From a surprisingly young age, Lucy seemed aware of the camera and even pleased by its presence — but without seeming to “work the camera” (or shun it, for that matter) the way most of us adults would. I think Witkovsky’s right when he talks about both innocence and self-awareness.

Many of our favorite photos and clips here at Boyds’ Nest News illustrate Lucy’s willingness to look right into the lens but without intervening self-consciousness, but let me cross-reference just a few of my favorites (which you can click for the full-size view):

“!/news/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/img_6407.thumbnail.jpg!”:/news/2007/pajama-summit/ “!/news/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/img_2500-3.thumbnail.jpg!”:/news/2006/on-the-changing-table/ “!/news/wp-content/uploads/2007/02/img_6244.thumbnail.JPG!”:/news/2007/be-mine/

Those are all shots where it was easy for Lucy to look right into the lens without somehow mugging for the camera or affecting what she was doing.

Even this very recent group portrait (at right), one of my all-time favorites, shows Lucy with a relaxed self-possession that doesn’t seem to veer toward an intervening self-consciousness.

It’s timely to write about this subject, because I think we’re starting to see Lucy more aware of posing and presenting herself to the camera than she has been. In many ways, this makes things easier for the photographer, of course: she’s starting to comply when I ask her to “go over there and hold still for a minute” (or whatever). But she is starting to learn that one smiles _for_ the camera (not just at it), and as we’ve all seen in plenty of snapshots, our intentional smiles are usually not as joyful as the unbidden ones.

I hate to do this, because I certainly don’t mean to criticize Lucy for smiling for the camera, but let me illustrate the “posed smile” I’m talking about, from a recent afternoon in the backyard (at left).

Is that a bad photo? I don’t think so! But you probably won’t see too many like it published here at BNN, because it’s a candid joy (or “displeasure”:/news/2006/displeasure-personified/, for that matter) that we’re going for in our image selection here — and in our lives.

And now, of course, we’ve got a fresh start with infant Rosie! But no matter what, here’s to lots more smiles, from all of us, that flow freely from within — whether we catch them in pixels or not.