This is a BBC radio 4 interview of Arthur Edwards, the Sun newspaper’s royal photographer recorded on Nov. 30th, 2015 for Today Programme on the occasion of Kensington
Palace releasing pictures of Princess Charlotte taken by her mother,
the Duchess of Cambridge.
While
the interviewer seems to be trying to lead Mr. Edwards to say he is
now out of a job as a royal photographer, Edwards has nothing but
kind comments towards Kate Middleton and goes on to praising the
Duchess' skills.
The
end result is a small triumph of domestic photography, just a mother
sharing a picture of her baby. What could be an ordinary daily life
moment has wider connotations.
When
the journalist suggests Mr. Edwards might be out of the job, he
answers « not until she starts catching planes and taking
pictures of the royals around the globe » implying he's still
the one in charge of immortalizing that kind of events. Maybe they
won't need him indoors to take the family portraits anymore but he
still does and covers the official visits as well as the
domestic events – their births (besides their baby pics), deaths
and marriages
The journalist says « your job will be in public
places » as if he were trying to redefine his job already.
Historically
and traditionally those with direct access to the prince or the
royals in general benefit of social and political status. To
be appointed to the staff of the chamber of the King was a sign of
great privilege and assured high rank. The royal painter was
included among these valets
de chambre
and they would swear an oath to serve loyally. This closeness to the
king and the access to his intimacy was a great honor for artists and
would propel the career of a common artisan to the highest possible
step of the ladder. I can think of artists such as Jan Van Eyck,
Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, just to name a few. All held at one
point in their careers a position at court. But since it's the
picture of baby Charlotte that made the buzz, I can't help but think
of Diego Velazquez's famous painting entitled « Las Meninas » where
the Infanta Margarita or Infant Margaret is surrounded by all her
courtesans preparing her to be portrayed.
But
even without going back so much in time, in this very same interview,
Mr. Edwards talks about his relationship to Diana and how it was him
the one in charge of the intimate family portraits.
The
Brits love their royals and the media machine that surrounds the
Windsors has become as much of a British institution as the Royal
Family themselves. They went from distant beings dressed in velvet
and sitting in thrones to being celebrities. We would all recognize
any member of the family if they drove past but this was of course
not the case not that many generations ago. The Palace would have to
print portraits of the monarchs so people would know who to cheer.
Since the invention of photography it then became the norm for a
camera to accompany the King or Queen on every royal walk, especially
when they were meeting with ordinary people. I believe that showing
the public the King's daily duties helped to justify the British
monarchy at a time when most of Europe was getting rid of it.
Edwards
talks with affection of the family as if he were part of it. He saw
the princes grow in front of his camera lens and now it's the
grandchildren that get to be portrayed by someone else... their
mother, for that matter. He doesn't seem worried that his heyday as
the royal photographer is behind. He has been loyally serving for many
decades and he shouldn't be far from retirement. But his successor's
job description will certainly be modified.
Nowadays
we can all do a photo-portrait, a practice historically limited to
only a few . You no longer have to be a professional photographer to
take portraits: Everybody
is a photographer
The
camera used to be a way of conveying truth and recording a memory
while representing a symbolic appropriation or selection of the
world. Now this art has evolved drastically as to include digital
retouching, filtering and all sorts of different methods to enhance
reality.
But
as the journalist himself puts it, it's not so much the fact that the
Duchess has taken a picture -as she probably takes thousands of them-
but that she's shared it. Even the more artistic, less special
event-driven kind of photography that used to be reserved for
hobbyists is now democratized by photo-sharing apps like Instagram
or, in this case, Twitter as it was the official Kensington Palace
Twitter account the one that first published the pictures. So it's
not only the fact that we can all take any kind of picture with the
ubiquity of mobile photography, but that they can also be shared
without any further effort.
Mr
Edwards compliments Kate Middleton's photographic talent and says
that despite « SOME technical imperfections the pictures are
just brilliant « .
The
decisive moment, Cartier-Bressons' staple style, has lost relevance
as now digitally manipulated images can render almost any effect.
Composition and exposure are less of a skill as everything can be
cropped, deleted, added or in every way modified. Just by clicking on
any of the dozens of filters Instagram has to offer, we can add that
romantic vintage look that, paradoxically, analog pictures have.
What
are those « technical imperfections » Edwards talks
about ? Or is he just saying that to make the point they weren't
taken by a professional?.
The pictures seem more than acceptable
to me, have you ever tried to shoot a 6 month old baby ?. That
leaves me to question what's the difference between a professional
and an amateur shot when now we can all have access to the same
high-end cameras and post processing tools. While the answer exceeds
the limits of this presentation I can't help but wonder how this art
is changing in an online visual world. Could it be that being a
professional photographer at the present time is only about the
privilege of being in the front bench of events ?.
« Tell
her to carry on » he says. “You’ve
just got to adapt, you’ve just got to accept, and still find
something to do every day,” Mr Edwards tells presenter Justin Webb.
Aware of the changing nature of his profession.
To us foreigners the British monarchy appears as a thing from the past and its continued existence is somewhat a mystery. Despite the prestige of the institution being slightly deteriorated in the last decades and its very existence questioned, it is generally felt that the monarch and the Royal Family play an important role in society. They are regarded as role models (this is especially the case for the Queen Mother and Princess Anne, maybe less so for Charles even though Princess Diana is still massively loved) and they are the image of a perfect united family. They are actively involved in charity work, they are the image of unity and morality.
The new
generation of royals (Prince William and Harry) are seen as being
down-to-earth regular guys. The Duchess of Cambridge is supposedly
one of us. The future queen is every fashion magazine coveted
cover-girl and the girl next-door who married a prince. They are
seemingly ordinary and likable and not the unattainable semi-gods
that they once were. Equally, George and Charlotte are the babies of
the nation and everybody
feels entitled to say how much the boy looks like his father or make
a remark about the the baby girl's smile. Gone are the days of
oppression and tyranny. These babies grow up in front of our eyes as if they were art of our own family.
The
pictures of Princess Charlotte that were shared show a regular baby,
dressed in regular baby clothes (a Liberty dress and a posh little
cardie) playing with a stuffed dog. Nothing particularly fancy or
royal about the picture composition. Maybe this is also another way
of justifying the monarchy: showing us that we're not all that
different after all.
