Train your gaze - portrait photography

I bought this book shortly after starting the course, and had read a few sections which I thought might be relevant to project topics e.g. Moment and eventfulness. I decided to read this more methodically in recent months expecting that it might provide some inspiration for the Subject Unaware section of the course.
I found the book to be interesting in regard to the historical and creative aspects. In particular, I enjoyed studying the photographs. The practical guidance for taking candid photographs was however sparse. The exercises appeared interesting challenges, but I have not found time to experiment with these.

I have noted a few observations and points to remember from this book.
Concept of portraiture
I have the impression that the author is concerned only with photography whose intent is "fine art". He does not mention any such restriction, but there is virtually no reference to photographs of people whose purpose is other than purely aesthetic. For example, the book does not touch upon fashion photography, nude photography, wedding photography and so on. He includes some comments on photojournalism/reportage but I feel that there is more to be said regarding style and subjects.

On the other hand, he writes about artists who use cameras to produce art works, e.g the artificially structured tableaux by Jeff Wall. The fact that a photograph includes people does not to my mind mean that the result is necessarily a "portrait". Some of Cindy Sherman's for example are interesting artistic works, but I am not sure whether they should be considered as portraits.
Role of photographer (and viewer)
He makes the wholly valid point that a portrait is an amalgam of the subjects appearance and the thoughtful regard of the photographer. To me, the role of the viewer is equally important in interpreting a portrait (more so than other pictures).

The reason for this, I feel is that a viewer interacts with the image of the person, responding in some way as if the actual person was present. As a result, the direction of a subjects gaze has a significant effect on the character of the image. If the viewer looks directly into the subject's eyes the interaction between viewer and subject is very different to a photo where the subject is gazing at something else.

Strangers as subjects
For me, one of the mysteries of candid/street photography is what makes a stranger interesting as a subject? The photograph Stranger 1999 on the cover by Shizuka Yokomizo which is on the cover of Train Your Gaze is one where this question comes to mind. The picture is visually pleasing with white curtains framing the subject repeated in the background. At first glance, I was intrigued by the image as I could not put my finger on the facial expression of the subject. Once I had read the background to this photograph, it becomes clear that the man is just bored and fed-up. This is not surprising as he was asked to stand in his window and just wait, whilst the photographer anonymously took photographs, without any contact with the subject. Why would anyone want a picture of a stranger of no interest to them whatever? I can understand that it is good to try anonymous photography and it may occasionally be possible to capture a significant moment or expression. This photograph seems to me to be little more than decorative. Similarly, the example of Beat Streuli's work shown in the book "New York 00" passes me by.

Whilst in Tokyo, I had an opportunity to see the retrospective exhibition of Robert Doisneau's photographs which provided further food for thought on this subject. Doisneau photographed ordinary people, but the images are compelling. For some he used models, I understand, but others seemed to be taken unaware.