Leonard Nimoy

Many people are unaware of the extent and quality of Nimoy's photographs. I recently reviewed the photographs in his book, Shekhina, which are posted to the R. Michelson Galleries website: Shekhina ∙ Leonard Nimoy ∙ R. MICHELSON GALLERIES Judaism has many names for God, Shekhina being one of them. The name primarily refers to two aspects of God - immanence (in-dwelling) and femininity. As a result, it's no surprise that all the images in the book are of women. Most of them show women fully or partially nude, and Nimoy used primarily two devices to show them - diaphanous clothing and/or lighting. All of them are black and white.

 

My personal impression of the photographs is that they accomplish Nimoy's purpose. He uses nudity in a dramatic way to reveal spirituality in a relatively novel way. One need not be Jewish not only to see this, but also to feel it.

Its impressive body of work.

I seem to remember being here before, but then that happens a lot these days.

 

Nimoy is worth remembering.

 

Here he is in another part of his career(s):

an uncredited appearance in what is arguably the best, and certainly one of the first, "big bug" sci-fi movies of the early 1950s, Them

For some reason that I never knew, when I was in 6th grade (1970) we had a class field

trip to watch "Them!" at a movie theater. Also, the interior decoration of the Fry's store

in Burbank, CA, is based on "Them!"

 

He was also in some episodes of the "Sea Hunt" TV series, from about 1958.

Some channels now have reruns of them late at night.

Is anyone interested in his photography?

I knew he was quite serious about photography and I recall women being his primary subjects. I also recall he worked a lot in b&w. Since I heard about this in the 70’s I never saw much of his work, I would like to see it now.

 

Rick H.

Hmmm, nice work there.

It's amazing how many people who are famous for other things, are or were also accomplished photographers.

Guess we can add Mr Nimoy to that list!

 

Thanks for posting.

I keep wondering what an orthodox Jewish person would think of the juxtaposition of the arm-tefillah and nudity. Not good I would imagine. I have to assume that is part of the point of his photography. Photos are nicely done. In my experience many actors and musicians are also photographers, it goes with the territory. Of course, to state this as true one needs statistics, and I don't have any, but it is something I have noticed, particularly the musician-photographer.

I knew he was quite serious about photography and I recall women being his primary subjects. I also recall he worked a lot in b&w. Since I heard about this in the 70’s I never saw much of his work, I would like to see it now.

 

Rick H.

 

Rick, the OP contains a link to the R. Michelson Galleries website. That's where you can view the images.

The photos come off to me as trying hard to be something and carry meaning but boil down to a series of tropes. They have all the ‘signs’ of spirituality—the lighting, blurs, free-flowing clothing, etc. But these are more fantastical, almost Disney-esque hallmarks of spirituality. Known quantities yet meant to express the unknown. There’s little questioning or struggle in the photos. It seems like there’s just a passive acceptance of inherited image types and a gloss on the surface of spirituality.

 

The intro to the work suggests there’s a tension between sacred love and profane love in the pictures. Is that wishful thinking? What does the writer find that touches on the profane? Semi-dressed women? That’s profane in the 21st century?

 

I think Nimoy wanted to make art and did what he needed to make it register as art. I don’t sense, though, the hard work of internalizing and getting to the raw sense of what he was trying to show, opting instead for many of its trappings.

 

Perhaps it's controversial to an Orthodox Jewish sensibility, and I understand why that would be so. But that doesn't make it effective to my eye. I need something more.

The photos come off to me as trying hard to be something and carry meaning but boil down to a series of tropes. They have all the ‘signs’ of spirituality—the lighting, blurs, free-flowing clothing, etc. But these are more fantastical, almost Disney-esque hallmarks of spirituality. Known quantities yet meant to express the unknown. There’s little questioning or struggle in the photos. It seems like there’s just a passive acceptance of inherited image types and a gloss on the surface of spirituality.

 

The intro to the work suggests there’s a tension between sacred love and profane love in the pictures. Is that wishful thinking? What does the writer find that touches on the profane? Semi-dressed women? That’s profane in the 21st century?

 

I think Nimoy wanted to make art and did what he needed to make it register as art. I don’t sense, though, the hard work of internalizing and getting to the raw sense of what he was trying to show, opting instead for many of its trappings.

 

Perhaps it's controversial to an Orthodox Jewish sensibility, and I understand why that would be so. But that doesn't make it effective to my eye. I need something more.

 

So I take it that you disagree with the following. "My personal impression of the photographs is that they accomplish Nimoy's purpose. He uses nudity in a dramatic way to reveal spirituality in a relatively novel way. One need not be Jewish not only to see this, but also to feel it." I suspect that my expectations for these images are lower than yours. Regardless, I also feel that finding spirituality is at least partly a matter of looking for it, sometimes it may depend on my mindset on a particular day.

So I take it that you disagree with the following. "My personal impression of the photographs is that they accomplish Nimoy's purpose. He uses nudity in a dramatic way to reveal spirituality in a relatively novel way. One need not be Jewish not only to see this, but also to feel it." I suspect that my expectations for these images are lower than yours. Regardless, I also feel that finding spirituality is at least partly a matter of looking for it, sometimes it may depend on my mindset on a particular day.

 

And, by the way, the first statement in my response is tongue-in-cheek. I had another thought about the images, also, They appear in a website that belongs to a secondary source. This may account for the images' quality.

So I take it that you disagree with the following.

I was simply responding to the photos. It wasn't about agreeing or disagreeing with you.

I suspect that my expectations for these images are lower than yours.

I don’t know that it’s too much about expectations as much as it’s about attending to the substance of the photos and how we respond to them. For me, higher or lower expectations aren’t a substitute for meaningful point and counterpoint about the photos themselves. The question seems to be not so much our expectations as much as whether my analysis/criticisms had value to you or affected in any way how you see the photos. It’s less about disagreeing and hopefully more about learning and constructive dialogue and photo-vision sharing.

They appear in a website that belongs to a secondary source. This may account for the images' quality.

They look well reproduced to me. I don't think the reproduction quality of the images is a problem or accounts for my analysis.

It's amazing how many people who are famous for other things, are or were also accomplished photographers.

 

I have to wonder if being "famous for other things" does not automatically elevate one in the arts community regardless of what they do. Art being subjective it's relatively easy for galleries to promote the work of someone already famous, call him/her 'X", for their photographs of wall power outlets, or whatever, and there is an established base of purchasers who admire X for their "other things" and are happy to purchase a photograph of a wall outlet since it was taken by the 'famous' and much admired X. Or you can call me 'jealous' o_O

There is an actual scientific study that shows that how people judge the taste of wine depends on how much they believe it costs.

 

For subjective things, like art and wine taste, preconceived beliefs might affect our perception.

 

For galleries where economics is important, I suspect that a "famous for other things" artist

is an easier sell, whether or not, in the end, visitors judge it better.

I have agree that already having name recognition is no doubt helpful. In eh caesura of Kenny Rogers, who we talked about (and admired his photography) after his recent death, he "got to" work with and was mentored by a handful of famous photographers. What do you think the chances of you or I being able to get big name, well established photographers to mentor and tutor us would be?

 

And I'm not doing any sort of "sour grapes" thing her, just being realistic. Of course already having fame in your bag of tricks is going to escalate your chance of exposure

(so to speak) in other endeavors. I think that is just the way it is. No harm done and good for anyone who can exploit this aspect of their lives to further their private interests in art or whatever. I know darn well I would if I could. And I wouldn't be apologetic about it. We work with whatever "tools" we have at our disposal. For Mr Nimoy and Mr Rogers, fame just happened to be a tool each of them had at hand.

For Mr Nimoy and Mr Rogers, fame just happened to be a tool each of them had at hand.

Not familiar with Rogers's photos, but in the case of Nimoy, my conclusion is that fame was a tool to photographic recognition but not to photographic vision or meaning,

What do you think the chances of you or I being able to get big name, well established photographers to mentor and tutor us would be?

That doesn't matter to me. I was lucky enough to run into a talented photographer with great mentoring skills who wasn't well known. Talent and vision come at all levels of fame, even non fame!

I was simply responding to the photos. It wasn't about agreeing or disagreeing with you.

 

I don’t know that it’s too much about expectations as much as it’s about attending to the substance of the photos and how we respond to them. For me, higher or lower expectations aren’t a substitute for meaningful point and counterpoint about the photos themselves. The question seems to be not so much our expectations as much as whether my analysis/criticisms had value to you or affected in any way how you see the photos. It’s less about disagreeing and hopefully more about learning and constructive dialogue and photo-vision sharing.

 

They look well reproduced to me. I don't think the reproduction quality of the images is a problem or accounts for my analysis.

 

Sam, the first remark was tongue-in-cheek. I guess I should have disclosed that. Secondly, I agree about the reproduction quality,: I simply was offering a possible explanation. Thirdly, my reference to expectations was put very poorly, having reread it again several times. What I meant was that your knowledge of all aspects of photography is far superior to mine and that's what I should have said.

 

On to the images - - Indeed, they do incorporate elements that one would expect to communicate spirituality, at least to some people. And they also trade on the "fantastical," but I don't see that as a weakness. To me, spirituality involves at least a component of mysticism, i.e., "mysterious tremendous." In short, I see spirituality as experiential and thereby subjective. You may derive spirituality from X, while I derive it from Y. Consequently, I have great difficulty with your use of "Disney-esque" in discussions of spirituality. To me, the term's use in this context involves an ad hominem.

 

Finally you state the following. "Perhaps it's controversial to an Orthodox Jewish sensibility, and I understand why that would be so. But that doesn't make it effective to my eye. I need something more." Can you please elaborate on what would give you more?

Consequently, I have great difficulty with your use of "Disney-esque" in discussions of spirituality. To me, the term's use in this context involves an ad hominem.

Disney-esque is a description of the visual tropes of the photos. It is not ad hominem. Ad hominem means a personal attack on the photographer, like if I were to say "his photos are bad because he's a dimwit" (which I don't think and wouldn't say). But relating photos to Disney imagery is descriptive and fair game in a critique and, again, not ad hominem.

Can you please elaborate on what would give you more?

I already did in my original critique. Here's what I said:

 

"There’s little questioning or struggle in the photos. It seems like there’s just a passive acceptance of inherited image types and a gloss on the surface of spirituality.

The intro to the work suggests there’s a tension between sacred love and profane love in the pictures. Is that wishful thinking? What does the writer find that touches on the profane? Semi-dressed women? That’s profane in the 21st century?"

So, what would give me more would be a sense of struggle, tension, or questioning, as opposed to the more passive accepted notions of traditionally-rendered spirituality. I would have appreciated seeing what the author's intro to the work stated ... a tension between the sacred and profane. I don't find the semi-nudity in any way profane nor the women's wearing of tefillin, and some tension by including a more true rendering of the profane would have given these photos more.

 

I think one can show spirituality in expressions, which this photographer has mostly avoided, preferring to use the women his way rather than let them speak their way. It's as if they're his dress-up dolls. I don't think he's allowed them much influence.

 

Spirituality has many aspects to it. Lange's Migrant Mother, for example, has a poignant kind of spirituality. It's in the wonder of her gaze, the hardship written on her face. I'm not saying Nimoy's photos have to be anything like Lange's, I'm just offering the bigger picture of portrayals of spirituality in an attempt to clarify how one-dimensional Nimoy's photos are.

 

Look at Classical or Renaissance paintings of Jesus and religious scenes. Notice how much spirituality is conveyed through suffering, trial, earthly struggle. It's not all light and blur.

As an example, if you're wanting to show tension between the spiritual and profane while making a more profound statement about spirituality and Orthodox Judaism, when you show me a woman wearing tefillin as transgressive, don't show her in a beautiful, obvious flowing pretty garment with a lovely breast showing through. That is really just prettifying the profane, making it consumable. If you're showing me a transgressive act, dare to back it up with a transgressive photographic style, not a luxurious or titillating one. Where's the threat of danger? Where's the dark side of any of this?

Think of how difficult true spirituality can be to attain, how many conflicting earthly and material pleasures pull at one trying to achieve spirituality. Now compare how easy it was to look at and digest these photos.

Think of how difficult true spirituality can be to attain, how many conflicting earthly and material pleasures pull at one trying to achieve spirituality. Now compare how easy it was to look at and digest these photos.

 

Sam, I'm responding to this piece now, since it will take me much longer to digest your other responses so that I can ascertain the approach I want to take in replying in good faith. Your suggestion about taking another look at the photos would be a valid one, except for the fact that the previous suggestion you made is something I can't buy into.

 

You need to know that between ages 18 and 37 I had abandoned my belief in and practice of Judaism. My reasons for this are unimportant , so I'll just note that prior to age 18, I was immersed in Conservative Judaism. When my son was near 10, my wife and I agreed that he should at least have a bar mitzvah. So we joined a Reform temple and enrolled him in religious school. Within approximately two years, thanks to this temple, I felt quite spiritually engaged.

 

One difference between Reform and both Orthodox an Conservative is the manner by which Reform treats obligations mentioned in the Torah. The latter two streams impose an ascetics model of sorts since practitioners really can't choose to comply with them. Reform treats them in terms of choice. In summary, I sincerely believe that I have experienced Jewish spirituality without going through the sort of angst you suggest.

I sincerely believe that I have experienced Jewish spirituality without going through the sort of angst you suggest.

Reform, Conservative, and Orthodox Judaism are all steeped in a tradition of Jewish suffering, from the hands of the Pharaohs to those of the Nazis. A Jew cannot sit through a service without remembering the trials and tribulations of the Israelites throughout history, ancient and modern. And, on a more personal level, a Jew cannot sit through a service without remembering the dead through the Mourner's Kaddish. This is all part of Jewish spirituality, as are charitable works toward those who may presently be suffering.

 

There are two points to keep in mind.

 

1. Were I trying to show something about Jewish spirituality, I would dig deep, even if it was hard, to find and to express the darker sides of how spirituality has and continues to function in a Jewish life and how the light of spirituality spreads itself over life's darkness.
   
2. I was critiquing Leonard Nimoy's photos, which were introduced (and he, himself has laid claim to this as well) as showing the tension between the sacred and profane. No matter what any individual thinks about spirituality, I don't believe Nimoy achieved his goal since I don't see that tension revealed authentically or truthfully in his photos.
   

The Only Flowers of Her Youth, Roman Vishniac, Warsaw 1938

The Only Flowers of Her Youth, Roman Vishniac, Warsaw 1938

 

Sam, the 1,000 words the Vishniac image spoke made me see your previous comments much more clearly. The boy looking with anxious eyes did it for me. Although I'm still not sure about the role of Jewish suffering, I'm not at all prepared to counter your position. And, finally, although I now agree about the lack of tension in Nimoy's photos, there's still something that I can't describe or explain about them that I find spiritually uplifting.