Performance

<blockquote>

<p>I think, at best, we are stretching the word performance to its outer limits. --Allen Herbert</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Beautifully said! The <em>outer limits</em>. Just where much imagination wants to be.</p>

<p>Performance in photography is generally something I believe to be a personal thing. It needs to be. Imagine a body of work being interpreted for the photographer's performance in making it rather than in the visual result as such. Our viewing audience wasn't there (unless as a subject of our images) and cannot partake of our state of mind, spirit and body language exercised during the shoot. Good old Alfred Hitchcock blessed his works by his presence, but his presence isn't the performance at all (not even like Skakespeare's witches in Macbeth), which instead had happened in his mind and his studio while making his films. Music, dance, opera and theatre require performances to transmit the art, but I think that novels, paintings and photographs (for example) are simply performed only in their making by the artist, a restricted personal performance not unlike that of the engineers who design your computer, get you to Berlin or land a man on the moon. Invisible, unknown in detail, although often allowing secondary or spin-off public performances, such as that of Niel Armstrong.</p>

<p>Sometimes I wake in the morning and know that it was raining during the night. I see the puddles, I may see drops still on the cars parked on the street, streaks of water may still glide down my window panes, there may be the feel of dampness in the air, and that air smells differently. I don't know all the details of how the rain came down, for just how long it rained, in just what direction the wind may have driven it. Sometimes I can tell by whether or not I get a leak in my basement which direction the wind was blowing the rain. And I can tell by how deep certain puddles are what the extent of the rain was. If the gutters are still running, I know it ended fairly recently. What I wake up to puts me in touch not just with what I see now and feel now. It puts me in touch with <em>the raining</em>, as detailed or as ambiguous as my sense of it might be.</p>

<p>The photographer (and subject, if alive) are intimate with the performance. The viewer can be in touch with it to whatever extent, as with last night's raining. The photograph may also be viewed as a performance. "Performance" can cast a wide net.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but I think that novels, paintings and photographs (for example) are simply performed only in their making by the artist</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why leave out the viewer. Especially when reading a good novel, the characters in it vividly come to live and perform in front of my minds eye, stirred by the author's. The words are the writer's but it often feels like the performance aspect of what the words and sentences convey and describe solely comes down to me - the reader - who's left with filling in the blanks and with letting the characters and things described in the story literally perform through it.</p>

The photographer/writer creates. The photograph or narrative performs for the audience.

 

 

Playing with words and waxing lyrical is good fun though.

<blockquote>

<p>The photograph or narrative performs for the audience</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And the audience conducts the performance. </p>

<p>Only within the given parameters already set.</p>

<p > </p>

<blockquote>

<p>"but I think that novels, paintings and photographs (for example) are simply performed only in their making by the artist."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why leave out the viewer(?)</p>

<p>Precisely, Phylo.</p>

<p>The disconnect between the photographers's performance and the viewer's performance, even as in the example you give of a novel, is by its nature absolute, the viewer not being part of the photographer's performance. Without knowing the viewer (excluding here the human subject of the photographer), how can the photographer's performance, in that unattended spectacle of the photographer enacting his craft or art, be communicated? What is communicated, of course, is not the photographer's performance, but his statement, and a visual distillation of what the photographer has felt committed to put on paper or screen, or the written text of the writer, to which the viewer adds his own interpretation and imagination. The fact that the text or the photo directs the reader to certain thought processes is part of the art of the photographer or writer, but it is the viewer or reader that performs, not the artist/writer. The latter has little or no control of how the receiver receives, although some simple emotional messages can be somewhat predicted. Is it not plausible to think that such reactions are different from the performance of the photographer (assuming even that his approach is a performance)?</p>

<p>Some like like to think of some sort of emotional, physical or intellectual dance in which the writer or photographer is there (performing) with the receiver (viewer, reader). It is I think simply the creator's product that is there and to which an interaction can be created between it and the viewer, but the actual performance of the photographer, if indeed there was a performance to accompany his act of creation, is long gone. I am a book, or I am a photo. Now. Independent of my creator.</p>

<p>Not sure my Niel Armstrong example was relevant, but to carry it further I think that the sense of occasion and the creation by Armstrong of a memorable and convincing performance has little to do with what put him and his co-astronaut on the Moon. The multiple and systematic creations of a line of engineers and scientists who envisaged and computed the equations, designs, material compositions and the like are what made that moment possible and their performance had little relation to, was disconnected from, the courage and boldness of the space pilots.</p>

<p>Arthur makes a good point about the disconnect, which is what gives viewers their liberty and necessitates some letting go of the result on the part of the photographer once his photo gets into the public eye. I don't think the disconnect is absolute and probably wouldn't even call it a disconnect since, for me, it's not. It's just one of many different kinds of connection/relationships. The performance is not just the set of original actions in isolation. It's also the photo and the viewing. What's communicated is more than a statement or a message and more, even, than a showing or something strictly visual.</p>

<p>A very plain example: There are certain photos where I can see and feel that the photographer panned his camera to get motion blur. In that same photo, the perspective may well tell me that the photographer was looking upward and had the camera slightly skewed in order to take the shot. Performance. I can often just feel the photographer's movements and actions, to SOME extent, varying with different photos. It's a dynamic and sensual experience. It's different from the visual descriptions I see or the messages I may get. I will likely not know what was in the photographer's mind any more than I know what might be in an actor's mind when he's reciting his lines.</p>

<p>Do I think Van Gogh moved his arm and fingers just as I imagine them? Doubtful. This is not a matter of accuracy. It is a matter of being in touch. I can feel Van Gogh making the brushstrokes without visualizing exactly how he did so and without knowing intimately precisely what movements he made. What seems to be a static photograph or painting comes alive with that sense of and connection to movement and gesture.</p>

<p>Van Gogh didn't "perform" IMO. He painted. I think it takes away from Van Gogh's work to interpret it as performance, just as all interpretation tends to (is often egotistically intended-to) take away someone else's works. </p>

<p>It is paint, color, image...beyond that it is each viewer's personal experience.  If we experience Van Gogh's work physically, as Fred did partially, well and good. We may then have done what Van Gogh intended.</p>

<p> It goes beyond personal experience into active distortion to then interpret the work as "performance." If we must do what Van Gogh did not try to do, we should (IMO) at least honor the painter by respecting his labor. If Van Gogh referred to his work as performance I'll withdraw that, but I don't think he did. Similarly, I don't think it helps to know about Van Gogh's suffering and poverty in order to appreciate his works. Academics and critics do find that necessary, people with eyes do not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I think it takes away from Van Gogh's work to interpret it as performance</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Then by all means don't. I think it would take away from those I engage with and from myself to summarily reject the imaginations of those who wander beyond narrowly imposed limits to understanding and experience and the exploration of ideas. Click on the names.</p>

<p>Thinking outside the box helps me to see outside the box. Others may be more disconnected from their work, values, and goals. Talk is cheap. Click on the names.</p>

<p>Fred, think any way you want. You need not defend yourself. "Thinking outside the box" is a specifically corporate expression. Your work is too good to reduce yourself to a corporate frame of reference.</p>

<p>I don't believe for an instant that you need help to "see outside the box"...you may be boxing yourself in with eccentrically defined words. I notice that you rarely talk about "performance" of other people, and I don't recall you mentioning that your own piano playing is performance. If there's something to that, why would you insist that your photography is performance? I don't think you've made the case for anybody's photography as performance.</p>

<p>Ideas and goals are not words unless you need to use words to remember them. I doubt you need memory aids. If you do need to rely on words for memory it might be better to use the words with precision.</p>

<p>I mentioned Albee earlier. Who performs Tiny Alice or Virginia Woolf? Is it Albee, the audience, or the actors?</p>

<p>John, you might read Albee's own thoughts on the matter. He actually thinks the director is like a conductor. And he thinks of himself when writing a play as composing a string quartet. He's obviously avoiding being a <strong>writer</strong> (bold type as homage to John himself) by thinking that way, claiming to be something else. I doubt he's "made the case" for it either. He doesn't feel the need. He's describing what he feels, not entering an intellectual competition.</p>

<p>I knew you were going to <em>get anxious</em> (another homage to John) about the "think outside the box" comment. As a matter of fact, I almost added a sentence trying to forestall your predictable reaction, but decided against it. It's a perfect gotcha moment for you to dwell on, all about the <strong>words</strong> I chose. Some critique others words and ideas in order to avoid taking responsibility for their own. They live in a responsive mode, hoping others will take the risk of putting controversial or even just imaginative ideas forward so they can pounce and feel secure in their own pre-determined comfort zone where precision matters more than metaphor or substance. </p>

<p>Albee seems to understand the similarities in the processes and rhythms among various beeps.* You, on the other hand, freak out when a photographer dares to refer to his working with a subject as a dance. Albee, I'd wager, would laugh in your face.</p>

<p>_____________________________________</p>

<p>*I would use "arts" here but someone would likely pounce. I would use "media", but someone would pounce. I would use "modes of expression" but . . . well . . . you get the picture.)</p>

<p>Fred, Albee is a playwright. fyi.</p>

<p>I don't think I "freak out" so much as object to pretending that quirky word usage can constitute an idea. </p>

<p>As I've said repeatedly, you're a fine photographer. It's fully understandable that you would say "working with a subject is dance" ...I'm sure you do exactly that. It's far-fetched to say that the photograph itself is a performance. Comprende?</p>

<p>I've cited Avedon repeately because I find his approach to portraiture distinctive and effective for a particular purpose. His work isn't a dance. Is that a problem?</p>

<p>Not a problem at all. The problem is that you waited to read that Avedon and Tharp used the word "performance" to even consider it. Before you had read THEM, your experts, you rejected the notion out of hand, for any aspect of photography. Had you freed your imagination a bit, you might not have needed their approval to consider a twist on the usage of the word, which you now at least partially accept: the part they have approved of. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>The rest discussed is just an emotional introspective arse grazing encore.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's a bit strong calling people arse-grazers (perhaps you didn't think we'd realize that arse is a not-very-disguised way of saying a**), Allen. We all have differing opinions.</p>

<p>Chill out Allen, no need for name-calling.</p>

 

<p>"It has something to do with cowardice." Fred G</p>

<p>Fred, calling or implying someone is a coward is probably the most offensive personal remark you can make to another human being. I'm sure you understand.</p>

<p>I'm would like to, and believe, it was an out of character remark. And I believe you regret it.</p>

<p>The end.</p>

<p>I've chosen to answer Allen via instant message rather than disrupt the thread with it, which seems to be pretty much over anyway.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Fred, calling or implying someone is a coward is probably the most offensive personal remark you can make to another human being. I'm sure you understand.<br /> I'm would like to, and believe, it was an out of character remark. And I believe you regret it.<br /> The end. - Allen</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm allergic to BS, so I kinda have to respond.<br /> Anyone who follows the PoP forum ( which you of course don't do because you're not interested in all that arse-grazing, right ? ) knows that what you're accusing Fred of doing is what John <em>continuously</em> does here, in subtle ( talking "generically" ) but very transparant ways. And Fred was just talking a la John, a point you seemed to have missed. If anything, you should direct your accusations of 'implying' to John but it seems that he did sucked up on ya quite effective, didn't he ?</p>

<p>Jeez, Sir Lancelot has arrived,or, a parody of Bruce Lee. Or, a bunny rabbit.</p>

<p>I suspect a bunny rabbit.</p>

<p>As usual, perfectly sensitive and rigorously considered topics on the PofP forum get sidetracked by the antics of a few who often have little to say except to hassle or bait others (Easy to do when one is not face to face). I guess we cannot really expect a moderator to get involved as he or she might otherwise be in that role within a debating society or in other more formal philosophical discussion panels, but perhaps Photo.Net might do well to consider having some automatic scanning involved that might sense and question attacks or replies of dubious respectability, or at least dubious or unnnecessarily sarcastic quality.</p>

<p>Photo.Net recently scored last or next to last in the "Black + White Photography" magazine (out of the UK) review of a half dozen Internet photo exhibition sites, but did receive compliments for its quite keen and useful discussion forums. However, their analysis may be a bit out of date....</p>

<p>Arthur Plumpton</p>

<p>An old mucker from the halcyon days of Photo net. Today it's about being prime and proper.</p>

<p>There used to be some very gifted photographers but unfortunately they did not conform to the commercial aspects of this site. They were banned. Very sad.</p>

<p>"to hassle or bait others (Easy to do when one is not face to face). I guess we cannot really expect a moderator to get involved as he or she might otherwise be in that role within a debating society"</p>

<p>Arthur, are you a fighting man. Hard fists and all that. I think it is a very sad reflection on society, and this forum, that we burst into tears at the slightest slight.</p>

<p>"but perhaps Photo.Net might do well to consider having some automatic scanning involved that might sense and question attacks or replies of dubious respectability, or at least dubious or unnnecessarily sarcastic quality."</p>

<p>Artthur, it is a problem, and I've noticed some err... foreigner hanging around the forum. Keep that to yourself we don't want to cause panic.<br>

Anyway, things are going to change, We can the err remove bad elements out soon by ....<br>

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/special_report/1999/12/99/back_to_the_future/kevin_warwick.stm<br>

Okay, we might all end up in a zoo...but, we can still have handbags at dawn contests</p>

<p>Hey, Sir bunny rabbit, I hope we can still be friends...words are just words.</p>

 

<p>I think we're at the end of this one.</p>