Jump to content

Recommended Posts

<p>I've watched several painters paint. I'm usually struck by how the process affects the results. Like watching them work helps me see action in their paintings, helps me see touch and movement. There is an element of performance to what I see when they make their paintings, and now the paintings themselves are also very much their making.</p>

<p>I've compared photographing to dancing, especially photographing live subjects. Though we don't often have an audience (which is a considerable part of most performances), there is still a part of performance that seems involved, even the fact that the expression to an eventual audience/viewer will likely be involved. My subjects and I move each other around, respond to each other . . . it is physical. It can be graceful or clumsy. (Yes, "dance" is a bit metaphorical.)</p>

<p>How that affects me is that it makes me aware of the motions (gestures) and rhythms of a shoot as somehow being incorporated into the individual still photos. It can bring in a time element. It's more than "the moment." It's why I hesitate to think of photos as captures.</p>

<p>Something I'm unsure of is whether the viewer could or would perceive this without witnessing the making and whether that would matter. So I'm curious to hear your takes on it.</p>

<p>I lean toward yes. Especially regarding a gallery or museum show, an on-line slide show, a book. These seem very much like performances to me. I was going to ask if the performance can be distilled into one photo. Instead, I'll ask if one photo can be expanded into a performance in its viewing.</p>

<p>[To be clear, there are two aspects I'm asking about: Do you experience a sense of performance when making a photo? Do you experience a sense of performance when viewing a photo and do you think others might?]</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 98
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I have read many texts by Fred on his "dancing" metaphore, which is a very good term for what seems to be happening when he shoots portraits especially. It is indeed "performance art" but as he writes himself, without spectators. What we have as testimony, or indices, of what happened, are the shots, the photos, the still image.<br>

As such, Fred's performance art is as other "ephemer art"-forms, where nothing or very little is left behind after the performance." Performance" is a work of art that has no or little perinity. However, Fred's art has got photos, like Christo's or Andy Goldsworthy's "ephemer art". The two latter makes their living from the fact that photos can be sold, but the real artistry is the performance itself. <br>

To answer the two questions of Fred. Of course I perform when shooting and working on a photo, but I do not do "performance" (it reminds me of the dancing steps of Cartier-Bresson doing street photography). I'm not a performance artist. I would only use the term performance when the performance itself is the means of expression and communication to the viewer. When it comes to viewing a photo, I find it a very poor conveyor of a performance although surely Fred's photos might not be the same without what happened before and during the shooting.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's usually the opposite, which is why photography is so often considered voyeuristic. I'm often reminded of something that happened when I was shooting once. I was backstage in a women's dressing room taking photos. Since most of the women performed with little clothing on, there wasn't any problem with this. A (male) band came in to put on makeup and outfits, and the women yelled "No men" repeatedly. One pointed at me and said "What about him?" The response from one of the women - "He's the photographer, everyone knows they're invisible." In other words, the expectation was that my only "performing" was my ability to render myself unseen.<br>

<br />This is often the case, even when I interact with subjects, I back off when it comes to the photographing point.</p>

<p>And shows and books...well that seems to be very un-performance-like. Unless, at the show, I climb on a table with a photo in one hand and a flaming torch that I will fire-eat, it's not a performance. It's a presentation, which is quite different. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I'm pretty much the opposite to your experience, Fred. I try to "interrupt" the "flow" of the individual subject's life as little as possible. I do want some interaction: "I want a relationship for at least 1/30 of a second." But for me the act of photographing another person is an attempt to at least minimize my influence on the moment. Of course, my choices as to when to click the shutter, what angle to shoot from, what time and place I do it in is all part of my influence on the final result. Its definitely not a random thing, but done with as much awareness of "image" and emotion and "energy" as I can have. I think of it as having a "light touch" on the moment as compared to a "heavy touch." Ultimately, I think different personalities will experience the whole thing differently, of course.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>So all these years looking for stealth technology and what more at incredible cost, and all that time the answer was simple: give it a camera?</p>

<p>I'm much like Steve already described. I watch the dance of others, and then hope I can squeeze my finger at the very right time. I have no role in it, I just try to find the best seat in the house, and fingers crossed it will be a good performance today.<br>

Sensing performance while watching photos, no. In fact, there too, quite the opposite. A performance (to me) implies movement, dynamics, changes. While typically when a photo really captures me, everything seems to slow down, and all that happens is me diving into that photo. Or painting. Or piece of music. Or book.</p>

<p>Introvert versus extravert?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I think you're talking about the time component. The shoot has a time component. The presentation may have a time component (as in a slideshow). But a still photograph has no time component -- it is what it is, no matter when you look at it or for how long. (That's not to say the time of day or elapsed time has no effect on the viewer -- it certainly does -- but it's not directly a component of the still photograph itself.)</p>

<p>Reminds me of a recent post on The Online Photographer -- <a href="http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2011/05/no-one-cares-how-hard-you-worked.html">No one cares how hard you worked</a>, says Ctein.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Photography is action, as in being engaged in the act of photographing. The dictionary defines performance primarily as:</p>

<p> </p>

 

1<em > a</em> <strong>:</strong> the execution of an action <em >b</em> <strong>:</strong> something accomplished

Whether it's Jeff in his cloak of socially engineered/earned access/invisibility, me moving around on a busy street, also apparently invisible, or alone, in a remote wilderness area in the desert photographing a landdscape, or directing a subject towards a portrait, in front of a crowd or by ourselves, it's a performance.

 

<br />

So what?

 

 

As someone might say, hey, it's a label, now you've tacked yet another meaningless word onto the gig. Not so. The idea of performance carries a lot with it. The sequencing, decision-making, intensity, grace, speed, duration, agility, focused/or lack of, ingenious, etc. It helps us to understand what we and others do.

 

 

 

If you think you have no role in it (that is what sells cameras!), leave your camera pointed at the stage with an intervalometer to time the shots. Also, if we had no role in it, all photographs of the same performance would look alike, save for POV.

 

 

 

I agree with Ctein to a point, but <em>you</em> care how hard you worked and about the results. He does. Everyone cares about your ability to see, intent, and the genius behind it. There's nothing unusual about Ctein's shuttle-in gantry shot. It's a ho-hum generic illustration, almost interchangeable with many others. <br />

 

<p> <strong> </strong></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I see what is meant by comparing the gestures involved in painting to a photographic shoot, but I can't agree it's very similar for me. As the painter moves their body, a physical mark is left on the medium - the mark is a direct result of the gesture. Parts of the gesture may be made without the paint touching, or there may be physical space between the brush and canvas (ala Jackson Pollock,) but for us as photographers, perhaps the closest we can get is the movement we impart to a frame while utilizing long exposures (moving the camera for effect) or allowing the world to move within the frame during a long exposure. This brings to mind the image of Picaso playing with his wife and (was it Paul Strand?) and drawing shapes with a torch to create lines on the negative. <br>

For me, when I'm really fully engaged making images, I am quite unaware of myself and how I am interacting with the environment, be it people or places. I am really fully engaged in the little world on the ground glass, but not so much the actual 3D, breathing world - that world I switch off when I raise the camera and attempt to convert it to planes and shapes and moments. That said, it may be an integral part of your creative process Fred - it may be that the act of "dancing" with your subjects enables you to see more fully, and to make a connection with you subject that pays off in less tangible ways. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Anders, regarding my own work, I was thinking of performance in the sense of <em>theatricality</em>. It's that "all the world's a stage" kind of thing. I think photographers accomplish performances even without theatricality. Yes, I don't see most photographers "perform" as I view a "performance" in real time. I see evidence of a performance, the suggestion of one.</p>

<p>Reacting to what many of you said: The performance may not center on the photographer. Many like to keep themselves out of their pictures (to whatever extent that's possible given that they are taking those pictures . . . so I would say they keep their presence to a minimum). But that doesn't mean their photographs might not read as a performance. I actually find many of Jeff's photos acting in that manner, though his presence may not be felt as much as other photographers. And, no, LOL, it doesn't require his getting up on a table with a torch, though that I would like to see! It would sure break the ice.</p>

<p>On the voyeurism front, I know the feeling of being photographically voyeuristic. Over time, I have tried to photograph differently, in a more engaged way. But I always carry a little of the voyeur along. It creates a nice tension for me.</p>

<p>By the way, voyeurs sometimes get caught in the act.</p>

<p>Steve, I see evidence of what you're saying in your work. I think there can be a performance aspect even as you try not to influence things. Not so much <em>your</em> performance, but your capturing of something like one. You may not influence your subjects but, like Luis, I would say you cannot help but influence, by your actions, the photo of those subjects.</p>

<p>Wouter, thanks for mentioning the "dance" of others. I was mostly thinking about the photographer as performer. But I think Julie is right that some performers themselves seem to disappear yet the viewer still sees a performance. Could your photos bring to mind a performance without bringing you, yourself, to mind?</p>

<p>Mark, photos often <em>suggest</em> time. Regarding the quote, I often don't care how hard you work (though it can be significant — I can actually <em>see</em> the hard work in Michelangelo's sculptures and ceiling and it becomes part of the experience for me, part of the content). I was talking about seeing HOW you work (not how hard). My experience watching painters helped me see brushstrokes and feel the movement of arms and brushes when I look at paintings, the caress of the canvas. They don't have to be stars in the work, though they can be. It can mean my being in touch with actions that were performed to create what I'm looking at.</p>

<p>Luis, I will simply quote you because you've said a mouthful that's significant. <em>"The sequencing, decision-making, intensity, grace, speed, duration, agility, focused/or lack of, ingenious, etc. It helps us to understand what we and others do. If you think you have no role in it . . ." </em></p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Anders, I do want to add that gallery and museum shows especially are, to me, like a live performance. The lighting, the framing, the juxtapositions, my attention to the various walls, my needing to walk around, being with other viewers, the excitement, the chatter, the liveness, all feels like a performance to me.</p>
We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Some interesting examples of performance in and through photography :<br /> http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/exhibitions/1100<br /> Ralph Gibson also did a performance piece called <em>Ich Bin die Nacht</em><br /> <em><a href="

<p>Of course, it doesn't have to be that literal and it is interesting to view the photograph - any photograph -backwards in time, prior to it becoming the culmination of all of these elements that in the photograph's image came together as a single whole. The decisions we make today could directly or indirectly affect the 'performance' of and in the photograph(s) that we may end up with next week. Like an invisible dance.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

<p >Fred -- In regard to performance during the action of photographing, I understand what you mean by likening your own work to a "dance". For portrait work that probably is not uncommon (one thinks of the faux David Bailey in "Blow Up", gyrating around, under, and with his models -- the cliche of how fashion photographers interact with their subjects -- though I know that is not what you mean in discussing your own style of "dance"). For cityscapes, events, dance rehearsals...I agree with Jeff and Steve in that I want to be invisible. I was able to attend and photograph the rehearsals of a Balkan folk ensemble back in early March. The director of the ensemble paid me the ultimate compliment when, after some 20 minutes of me photographing the dancers up close, he happened to glance down during a break and saw me crouching there. "Oh Steve...I didn't even realize you were here."</p>

<p > </p>

<p >But I suspect you don't intend performance to equate only to visibility. The act of being unobtrusive is in a way its own kind of performance. The physical movement around performers, people on a street, or a portrait subject, can be a kind of performance of movement and intent. I would venture to say that even landscape photography can be a kind of performance. Peter Lik not only photographs the scenery, he <em>chews</em> upon it.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I don't know that I see performance in a photograph (outside of the obvious and simplistic example of a photograph which is<em> of</em> a performance). Proximity and angle, the subjects relation to the photographer by look or gesture, these, perhaps can hint at a "performance" that may have taken place. Although I normally don't think of the photographer/subject relationship in terms of a performance, it's an interesting concept.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Matthew, interesting points. The kind of performance I'm thinking of doesn't demand that you be conscious of it at the time, certainly not self-conscious of it. It just is about your <em>doing</em> it. I agree with many of the differences you allude to between painting and photographing, but I do think that there are direct results of gesture, not only those that are imprinted because of long exposures, though those are significant. When you make the gesture of getting on your knees or sitting down in the middle of the street for a shot, that shows, that is imprinted. I agree it's not precisely the same as brushing paint on a canvas, nor would I want it to be. But there are similarities. I have thought of many other "brushstrokes" regarding photographs. Many of them occur in post processing (e.g. dodging and burning).</p>

<p>Phylo, I like that idea of viewing it backward in time. It makes a nice connection and way of connecting (to go back to Luis's recent thread). Yes, the photograph as a culmination describes how I experience it. And I'm glad you brought <em>decisions</em> into it. That's a part that is often overlooked . . . dare I say, even denied.</p>

<p>Steve, your second paragraph hits the nail on the head for me! Though I am most experienced in portrait photography, I think it applies across genres. As for performance as seen in a single photograph, it's a little looser an idea for me, though I am seeing performance aspects of it. Looking at it that way seems to have some potential.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It's well and good to "perform" for oneself (as Fred G describes) but it's not the same as performing for others. </p>

<p>The "for" in "performance for" is important in photography because unless one is "performing photography" just for the clicks, one is sharing it with others (though maybe at infintessimal risk and cost, as when posting obscurely "online" compared to printing one's own and showing the results to the perceptive people one most cares about).</p>

<p>"Performing" for oneself doesn't seem like acting on a stage, though playing a musical instrument for oneself, or singing in the shower, or pretending to be a person of a particular type (fine fellow, artist, tough guy etc) might qualify. I don't know if a concert pianist playing alone in her loft would call that "performance." </p>

<p>fwiw, I don't think of my own photography/prints as performances (they're labor and gifts substantially for myself) but for a long time I've understood that my whole life might reasonably be a novel. I've never heard of a novelist who called the work a performance, but...</p>

<p>I've enjoyed too much live theatre and jazz to call myself a performer. It'd be bad enough to insist that I'm an "artist," worse to call myself a "performer." Why not be happy with "photographer?"</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I figure that "performance" means something that at least one person would like to come and watch. I don't think anyone has ever asked to watch me photograph except students. A good performance is something people would pay for. Other than Richard Avedon and Joel Peter-Witkin, there are no photographers I would ever pay to watch. A great performance is something people would pay for over and over. There's not a photographer I would ever do that for.<br>

<br />Photographers are voyeurs. That's very simple. They take photos of people doing interesting stuff. If they get them to do interesting stuff, then they helped a photograph, or maybe a performance. But even when I've been pulled onstage by bands, I don't see it as performance. </p>

<p>I did photograph an incredible performance artist last year. I didn't even realize it until it was over. I've never seen a cello tossed thirty feet, or a guy in so much pain singing that I felt like crying. But it sure wasn't me. I was just the invisible guy up front with the camera. We're friends now, but I don't think he or anyone else would see what I did with him as a "performance." It's time to think about it realistically - a photographer is a person with a camera.</p>

<p><center><img src="http://spirer.com/images/karmabomb1.jpg" alt="" width="700" height="525" /><br>

<em>Karma Bomb, Incredible Performance Artist</em></center></p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Jeff, it's not that simple for me. I do think there is a voyeuristic aspect to photographing, and I think some photographers are much more voyeurs than others. I see it in your work. I see it in mine. As I said, I have experienced a change about that over time with my own work, as I've moved toward engaging my subjects differently than I used to.</p>

<p>For me, it's not a matter of being realistic to think of a photographer as a person with a camera. I see that kind of statement as just keeping it simple, though a photographer often also has a darkroom or a computer. Photographers are more than that and they have different ways of working and of seeing. I'm attempting to explore that. And I appreciate hearing your take on the matter.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It depends on how close you are to the subject. If, for instance, you were photographing from the middle of a barroom brawl, a floor full of square dancers, or a street full of marathoners, the viewer is going to perceive your physical location and what was going on in the immediate vicinity. If you are standing on a high overlook and your photo is of a vast panorama, your position and what is happening there is less important to the final image.</p>

<p>Speaking of painters, I feel a very tactile response to the paintings of Van Gogh. His thick, three-dimensional globs of paint mesmerize me every time I see one of his works up close. It's intoxicating. I don't believe that photographs has an analogue to the surface texture of paintings. Canvas prints don't come close IMHO.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Dan, proximity is something I hadn't considered. Thanks for adding it. That makes sense to me, as I read it.</p>

<p>I agree with you about Van Gogh. I don't know yet whether I have found an analogue to that kind of specific texture in photographs, but I think it's worth considering what might be something close to a brushstroke in a photograph. I don't expect it will be the same, however. I do think photographs are textural, but more in the sense that we can say we experience the texture of an orchestra, how the instruments work together, what voice is given the flute and what voice is given the cello. In a photograph, there may be individual textures of walls and rocks and human skin but those don't get created the way they would in a painting, though they can certainly be enhanced by acts of the photographer, most especially in the darkroom (traditional or digital). But there is also a texture like that of an orchestra . . . what elements carry what light, how various elements and qualities harmonize or syncopate. That sense of texture is a matter of integration.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><br />Fred , it is an intresting topic, reading the answers I know that some will not see it as a photographer/performer, but coming from the painting world I do see it as a conceptual perfornance and even a physical one.<br />Using an instrument of any kind , like a brash and paint, music instruments, body in a dance, and a camera as well ,dismantling it to its different parts ( like going back) will get the feeling of a "dance" of the brain, hands, body, finger- camera. <br />I worked and still do with the performing arts, your question stirred my thoughts why I concentrate especially at them( even though with other topics as well, and I don't see a difference) my feeling is that being a part of a devloping creation ( others and mine,, co -production even with the stree...)), I dance with them, I play with them. What I want to express is that even though I'm not a stage performer, and at the moment have not an audience the time of my" dance'" will be twice, creating it and observing its different parts ,and if I will exhibit my work.<br />"<em>The act of being unobtrusive is in a way its own kind of performance. The physical movement around performers, people on a street, or a portrait subject, can be a kind of performance of movement and intent</em>. " I agree with steve.( better expressed than me...;))<br />I will upload two examples and I would like to know if my thoughts fit them.</p><div>00Yr40-367105584.jpg.2b2b6809ab5f578375f93c1adb3eaad2.jpg</div>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...