Recently, photographer David Bailey commented that he would have difficulty photographing Julian Assange because "there's nothing in his eyes". I imagine that by this Mr. Bailey means to suggest that there is nothing behind his eyes: no soul, as it were.
My Comments: How clever. I wish Mr. Bailey were a writer, and not wasting his considerable talent in metaphor and subtlety of expression with this photography hobby of his.
In addition to recommending that he hang onto his day job, I have a few other comments for Mr Bailey. First, it would seem to me that a photographer who is unable to bring his subject to life lacks some of the skills that are essential to being a portrait photographer. I suppose that he's covered this off by placing the blame on Assange for being a subject with nothing to offer but empty eye sockets, but that seems a little too simple to me. Second, it may be the case that if the subject is not responsive enough, that the photographer has failed to inspire or charm the subject. If the subject is bored, it won't result in a good portrait. In other words, maybe he thinks you're a stupid twat, and maybe that's why he's looking right through you. Finally , of course there's something in his eyes. It's blinding brilliance. Bow to it if you recognize it, Otherwise, move along.
By way of comparison, let me offer an example of someone who really does have nothing in his eyes, save for the reflection of fish scales:
Note that people have actually taken on the challenge of making Lamo look human. The below is the best they could do:
When your only option is to have this fool look out the window and pretend that he's staring wistfully out at the clouds in order to hide the fact that he's mentally MIA, you're doing yourself and everybody else a great disservice.
Time for some cornea cleansing..