Performance

[pnital]

<p>Another one with my camera. Yoram Carmi the choreographer.( I call it: expressions)</p><div></div>

[Julie H]

<p>Jeff S. said, "A good performance is something people would pay for."</p>

<p>Many people find God in His performance. I don't see anybody expecting to pay money to see Him do it.</p>

<p>Many people find performance in the bird's nest, in the spider's web. There's the way your mother combed your hair; the way your barber cuts it.</p>

<p>When one of my dogs was almost killed a few years ago, in her wounds, I clearly saw the performance of the coyote that did it (though I did not see the attack). Last winter, in the half-mile blood-spattered snow-trail, I clearly saw the lousy performance of the poacher who took over an hour and four slow shots to kill a deer. In the black eye and bloody lip of an abused wife, I see the performance of her husband.</p>

<p>Wherever I honor or accuse that which is made, I think of the performer. In a photograph, where I question or admire why, what, where stuff is in that picture (or not), I think of the performer, of the acts that generated it, of the one who lived the scene and made the mark.</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>Pnina, I fully agree with you, that what you are doing in the case of shooting stage performance, as maybe what Fred is doing when shooting portraits, involves the photographer in a process of what could be called "total performance". However, at the moment you show the photos, the performance is gone, finished and with little trace in the photo.<br>

"Performance art" as concept (we can choose to use the term for something else, of course) is normally used for events where the performance itself (with or without spectators) is the act of art. In such forms of "ephemer art"s, nothing or very little is left behind after the performance.</p>

<p>Therefor, the photos you upload (as usual I love your dance shots) can only be poor indices and in some case memories of the performance in question, although the quality of the shots, in some cases, depends on what came before and during the shot.</p>

[luis_g]

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

<strong>Anders - "</strong>"Performance art" as concept (we can choose to use the term for something else, of course) is normally used for events where the performance itself (with or without spectators) is the act of art. In such forms of "ephemer art"s, nothing or very little is left behind after the performance."</p>

<p>What is usually left are photographs and videos which are conventionally put up for sale. And the stories that those who were there will tell, of course.</p>

<p>______________________________________________</p>

<p>In agreement with <strong>Julie </strong>here. The primary definition of performance has nothing in it about an audience, stage, rehearsals, curtains, tickets or viewers. I understand that too many people are never exposed to the word outside that meaning and perhaps performance of a car or other machine or athlete, thus can't conceive of it, but Fred used the word correctly.</p>

<p>It is naive to think that the entire performance can or will be encoded literally, linearly bit by bit, in one photo from a session. It's not. But as Julie's and others' posts mention, the traces left show things to those that have eyes.</p>

<p>Although I understand and appreciate from first-hand experience the question of proximity and its significance, particularly in portraits and street photography, for me the idea of performance applies regardless of photographer-subject distance, particularly because the word does not involve an audience in the way it is being used here.</p>

<p>Photographs can tell us something about dance.</p>

<p>http://hilobrow.com/2010/05/11/martha-graham/</p>

<p>http://www.iphotocentral.com/showcase/showcase_view.php/171/1/1</p>

<p>http://nymag.com/daily/entertainment/2008/03/mikhail_baryshnikov_and_merce.html</p>

<p>http://balletpony.wordpress.com/2011/05/11/alexey-brodovitch/</p>

<p>To say that a photograph is a poor index of a dance is to say that photographs are poor indices of anything and anyone. Even rocks!</p>

 

[pnital]

<p>Anders, thanks for your point of view which I appreciate much, I try my best to explain my thoughts in English( you know it...;-)) what I meant by<strong> concept </strong>I think a better word will be <strong>perception</strong> .<br />I wrote sowhere about it, and found it, it looks like maybe a better explanation, so I upload it ( will save me a lot of time....;-))<br /><strong></strong><br /><strong>Life as a dance and as an art of expression</strong><br />I like the dance (and theater ) especially because they are a transformation. First it is the idea, choreographer or director ( or playwriter), than it is the performers, dancers , actors , musician, and than the last result , which is not the last/least, when I as a viewer/photographer, transform it to a feelings, understanding, impressions and art in itself. The interaction between creators / performers/photographers is a long process that starts from an idea, transforms to creative mode, which is a long process in itself of the nascent. And some '" raisins" that complete and maybe (if well done) are the evident art of the ephemeral, that are standing on its own merite.<br />I think that creating (in every genre of art) Is looking at the world's creation/reality with new fresh eyes, as if seen for the first time .<br />I think that Fred as well , in his portraiture, is digging deapper for personality layers of his subjects.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Photography, painting, sculpture are not performance art. They are a performance, in their making.</p>

<p>Anders, the <em>photo</em> is left behind. It expands and contracts with each viewer.</p>

<p>Julie, thanks for the examples. Yes, one sees the performance in the photograph.</p>

<p>I compared photograph<em>ing</em> (verb; act) to dancing. One can see the photographing, the painting, the sculpting in the photograph, painting, sculpture. Part of this really is the connectedness that Luis and others talked about elsewhere.</p>

<p>I do think of gallery and museum shows, slide shows and books, as performances <em>per se. </em>Some shows -- intentionally curated, with live audiences, an experience beyond just the sum of all the photos and paintings in those shows -- do become <em>performance art</em>. They are taking place . . . and I am taking part . . . in something as it happens.</p>

<p>Pnina, yes. I see it clearly in your painting. Since your photograph is a photo of a performance (or a practice of a performance?), I think that is a special and unique case, as Steve Gubin said above. But, yes, in the sense that any photo can be a performance, that one is as well. Yes, one uses their body to photograph. Nicely said. It can be very much of the flesh. I can relate to your idea of a photograph being a co-production.</p>

<p>Phylo says:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"becoming the culmination"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Culmination suggests the whole of the parts. Becoming suggests the process: built-in possibility.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>I was writing while Luis and Pnina posted. </p>

[jtk]

<p>Some photographers, anxious about identity, need to consider themselves something other than what's apparent, want confirmation...<br>

A sports photographer like that might call herself a coach, a wedding photographer like that might call himself a preacher...but viewers might chuckle kindly, out of respect for the work. Isn't it the work's job, when it comes up to bat, to score the run?<br>

<br />It's true that "performance art" is still common (was big decades ago in NYC), but some may think it like "military intelligence" ...maybe it's very existence is questionable (explaining its total reliance on "statements" and "critics").<br>

<br />There also seems to be an age factor.<br>

<br />My impression is that its older photographers who more consistently insist that they're "artists" and younger photographers more often think of themselves in other terms, often avoiding labels...I was at a show last weekend that featured no photographers but many young people (20s) who identified as busboys, retail clerks, students, skaters...<br>

Many young photographers make subjective essays about friends or they combine photography and audio or video with enthusiasms and personal dedications centered on activities like environmental politics or teaching or ...</p>

<p> </p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I fell on this small article from <a href="http://www.artinfo.com/news/story/33138/performance-art-enters-the-museum/">artinfo</a> on the decay of "performance art" now that it enters into museums. Especially the last sentence might be relevant for what is discussed here:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>“If you don’t photograph it, it didn’t happen.”</p>

</blockquote>

[luis_g]

<p>I fail to see where what Fred is talking about has anything to do with what is normally thought of as performance art. It does not.</p>

<p>Many here still cannot fathom that the word performance as used by Fred does not equate with stages, curtains, rehearsals, audiences, etc. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with art or its opposites. No, it's <em>nothing</em> like when you played a sheep at the 2nd grade Christmas play (I was a shepherd!).</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>I had understood that all had "fathomed" what Fred is speaking about. The thread is titled "performance" so i find relevant not only to make reference to "performance arts" but also to "performance" and "art". Dick Higgens (Fluxus) actually invented the term "art as performance" (reference interpretations of music) which could come very near to what Fred, but also Pnina, is actually talking about. <br>

What is most important when we use terms like "performance art" is to agree on what we use them for, and not what they mean in objective terms. </p>

[dan_south]

Dance isn't always choreographed. It can be improvised even in a performance setting. It's like the difference between posing a person for a carefully crafted portrait

and photographing that person in action. In the latter case the photographer is improvising compositions of a moving subject in real time. These images can be as moving and as well constructed as anything that we could plan in advance. I would argue that most sports photography is improvised, because most movements in sports are improvised as well.

[luis_g]

<p>All that is fine, legitimate and great topics for other threads and discussions, Anders. I am not trying to be obstinate in any way, but in this sense it has little, if anything, to do with what Fred is talking about. And it has nothing to do with engine performance, the performance of countries economically, or street performers, theater, movies, etc. Nothing to do with Fluxus in that regard, either (and the Fluxus story and philosophy are very interesting, I agree. Now if PN only had an Art forum....but I digress...).</p>

<p>It is the #1 meaning of the word. I could see this coming, which is why I lifted the definition from Webster's and put it in my first post in the thread: </p>

<p>''1<em> a</em> <strong>:</strong> the execution of an action<br>

<em> b</em> <strong>:</strong> something accomplished''</p>

<p>In this usage, it is the photographer's performance in the execution of his actions involved in the act of photography. Whether you're photographing your cat on the terrace, Putin fishing in his weird outfits, or anything else. It can be used to describe what the people who think they're making themselves invisible are doing, too. It is a narrow and strict meaning of the word, specialized in this use.</p>

<p>It's like when we talk about 'film', we know we're not talking about oil or soap films on water, etc. 'subjects' are not the underlings of Kings, 'exposure' is not something you do by doffing clothes, 'sensors' are not the same IR sensors used in burglar alarms, types of 'mounts' are not a sexual typology or saddle catalog, 'tweaking' has nothing to do with nipples, 'focusing' is not delving harder into an idea or topic. Is it clearer now?</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Dan, yes, I agree, good point. Some of my shooting is more choreographed than others. And, of course, there is always spontaneity in anything choreographed. The beauty of performances, like theater and dance, is that they are living. I've seen enough operas on several nights in a row as well as repeated performances of stage plays to know how much is a matter of responding to things in the moment, even within a very rehearsed scheme. Each night has a sameness and a difference that are palpable. And, as you say, sometimes theater and dance are simply improvised, which often still has a form of its own.</p>

<p>How do you* see your own shooting and processing in these terms . . . the balance between choreography and improvisation?</p>

<p>*This you and this question goes out to all of you.</p>

<p>Two descriptions of adopted roles stand out to me from this thread. Dance (choreography) and voyeurism. Are there any other descriptions or metaphors that apply to different people's actions and processes? (This might also include post processing.) Is there something comparable to the action of a brush stroke in photography? (It might not result in the same obvious textural realization, but it would be some sort of photographic gesture that you employ the results of which could then be seen or felt in the photo.) Do you see any of your actions? Or, how do you see the results of your actions as related to those actions?</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>As Luis said, this thread isn't about "performance art" except tangentially. It is about our performance as photographers, however we see that.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>It is the #1 meaning of the word. I could see this coming, which is why I lifted the definition from Webster's and put it in my first post in the thread:</p>

</blockquote>

<p>By this definition, going to the bathroom is a performance. Taking the stairs down to the subway is a performance. Driving a car is a performance.<br>

<br />But that obviously wasn't what Fred was talking about, because references to "dance" make that clear. And I still disagree that photographers are performing. Except maybe Witkin.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>One of the reasons I want to talk about the performance aspect of making a photograph is for us to share things about our process and see how that process matters to the photographs that result. Whether Jeff thinks what he does with a camera is a performance or not is mostly irrelevant to me. But that he shared his desire to be invisible and unobtrusive, and how he might go about doing that, is significant. Especially when I look at the kind of work he accomplishes with that methodology.</p>

<p>We can get hung up on the words, or we can be constructive about the spirit. That spirit is about the tone of vision that results from a photographer's way of acting when photographing and processing and the kind of role(s) s/he adopts.</p>

<p>I appreciate Jeff's constructive contributions about just how he works. That he and I might call that something different won't keep me up at night.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Jeff - "</strong>But that obviously wasn't what Fred was talking about, because references to "dance" make that clear. And I still disagree that photographers are performing. Except maybe Witkin."\</p>

<p>Not so obvious, because Fred doesn't seem to agree with you. I think we all know by now exactly where you stand: You do not think performance describes what photographers do. Ok, cool. Some of us find it a useful construct for discussing the act of photography. May we proceed?</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>How do you* see your own shooting and processing in these terms . . . the balance between choreography and improvisation?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>My approach to photography ia much more improvised than choreographed. Even when I'm using my view camera on a tripod and it takes me ten minutes to focus and meter a single shot, I'm reacting to the subjects and light in real time. Granted, with the view camera, it's real time plus a four to ten minute delay, but I'm still reacting with a time delay factored in. (Where is that cloud going to be in five minutes?)</p>

<p>With a small format camera, I'm reacting much more quickly. See the subjects. See the light. Make a composition. Reframe. Rework. Refine. Even if I'm patiently setting up the shots on a tripod, it's still highly improvised.</p>

<p>That said, I would NOT call my photography dancing. This is perhaps because I AM a dancer. I dance the Argentine tango, a structured but highly improvisational partners dance which is "choreographed" in real time just as jazz is "composed" in real time using underlying musical structures (scales, chords, subdivisions of beats). Imagine photographing a model who changes poses, not on his/her own, but in reaction to the photographer's movement. He/she watches the photographer intently and reacts to his every movement, not matter how subtle or forceful. That's a reasonable approximation of what it's like to improvise a tango - except you get to hold the follower in your arms when you dance. ;-)</p>

<p>To me - and this is only my perception of myself - my photography would be classified as dancing ONLY if I were moving in such a way as to purposely capture the interest of onlookers as I'm in the process of making images. Now that I think of it it sounds kind of fun, and I'll have to brainstorm situations where I could make worthwhile photographs while simultaneously making interesting and purposeful movements (and not falling into an open manhole). I'm not sure that my brain could handle both things at once, but it might be fun to attempt it.</p>

<p>When I'm taking photographs I'm not aware of my appearance to onlookers. I bend and twist into uncomfortable positions and then later wonder why my back hurts. It's not much of a dance, that's for sure! I give my full concentration to the photographic process. When I finish shooting, I'm often surprised to find that I'm famished or sore or freezing cold. I shut our all self-awareness when I have a camera in my hands.</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Not so obvious, because Fred doesn't seem to agree with you. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well he can't talk about "dance" and then use your definition in reference to "performance." There are some expectations of semantic consistency.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Thanks, Dan. I loved reading your description.</p>

<p>I hope I didn't come across as saying all photographers perform like dancers. That was a description I was giving about the way I sometimes photograph. It was meant to elicit descriptions different to my own, like yours and Jeff's. I do think all photographers perform, not for an audience or onlookers. What you described, to me, is the way you perform. I'm not sure you see it that way but, as I said, the important thing is your description, not how we label it.</p>

<p>As for awareness, I see it in various levels. There's losing all self-awareness. There's maintaining self awareness. And there's self-consciousness.* I am open to all three when I photograph and find playing with the different balances keeps me inspired and moving.</p>

<p>As I understand them, self-awareness is awareness of oneself and one's thoughts and one's own awareness. It is often accompanied by a choosing of one's thoughts as opposed to simply letting thoughts in that accrue in the moment. Self-consciousness involves one's more objective evaluation of oneself, which is taking it a step further. Saying a photo looks self-conscious is often derogatory. But I sometimes like to play with a kind of self-consciousness. It's easy to fail at it. But it has also really worked for me. I have, by being self-conscious, transformed a very intentional, obvious, even cliché pose or gesture into something that seems to be a significant kind of awareness rather than a self indulgence.</p>

<p>.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Imagine photographing a model who changes poses, not on his/her own, but in reaction to the photographer's movement.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't have to imagine it. I've experienced it. The way you describe and the other way around . . . where I, as photographer, react and change perspectives, angles, exposures, and awareness depending on my subject's changes in movement, position, and expression. And that's what I mean by a dance, and there's no audience involved at the time (unless I'm out on the street with my subject and someone happens to be watching) and no money changes hands. It's a not-for-profit performance.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>For me, <em>part </em>of my performance (as Fred means it) is choreographed. Things like camera/tripod operation, exposure calculations, technical repetitive matters are so 2nd hand that I can do them without a thought. I can work and reload any of my film cameras literally with my eyes closed.</p>

<p>The creative part varies a lot. With portraits, if the subject has ideas on how to pose themselves, I'd rather do those first, before injecting my directing into the equation. Some subjects know exactly how they look, and what they want to project. After that winds down, I begin with variations on their ideas, then a mix of direction and cooperation, unless I have something specific in mind, and I often have something in mind, but it is open to revision on the fly. I would consider that somewhat choreographed....but at the same time, I am improvising, and remaining open-minded to anything that arises, and it can come from the subject, light, backgrounds, etc. One thing I want to make clear is that for me, photography is above all <em>play. </em>Yes, I call it work, but it is playful, interactively so, even through the hard times. This is not mindless goofiness, though some times it has been, but focused, intense play.This applies to landscapes, too.</p>

<p>On the subject of invisibility...I am not literally easy to go unnoticed, yet on the street, surrounded by the usual paranoid strangers, or even among the Tea ****ers, I move in and out, photographing with no problems, candidly when it suits me, and asking them to pose when it doesn't. When I gain access, as I do at many events, it's easier. I find that invisibility <em>is primarily not visual. </em>It has everything to do with the emotions that people interpret from your posture, muscle tone, tenor, movements, micro expressions, etc. Yes, initial information enters through their pupils, but "Invisibility", comes from further down the neural pathways. Most people are on autopilot anyway, as long as you don't trigger their defense mechanisms, which is ridiculously easy to do by projecting anxiety, they go about their business lost in their private reveries.</p>

<p>I think we all have behavioral as well as aesthetic tropes, things that become part of our performance and photography, sometimes learned others adopted superstitiously, that seem to work for us in some way, and/or we can't help repeating.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Fred asked: "Are there any other descriptions or metaphors that apply to different people's actions and processes?"</p>

<p>I have one, but/and it's definitely not a dance. Further, I'm going to use it to describe making a *bad* picture (I have extensive experience therewith).</p>

<p>Have you ever "done" or worked or put together (what's the proper word) a big jigsaw puzzle? A huge pile of loose pieces and a slowly emerging image? In my metaphor, you have most of the puzzle done. You, dear photographer, are one of the pieces (very Zen). You metaphorically look for its slot in the puzzle, turning it this way and that, until you spy a place that looks like a fit. You try to put the piece, yourself, there, but it doesn't quite fit. Impatient, tired, (bored?) you sort of wedge or force it into the spot. Sure, it goes there! you assure yourself, metaphorically looking at this lumpy, buckled disrupted scene with a big blob in the middle.</p>

<p>If, on the other hand, I am a good photographer, I will find the place where "my" piece, myself, fits perfectly, the place where it belongs -- and in so doing, at the moment of so doing, when I am "in" . . . the puzzle will disappear and the "image" will begin.</p>

<p>If, on the other other hand, I am shy or new or don't like metaphors or puzzles (or dancing) I may skip the whole "of-a-piece" thing and just shoot the puzzle from the "outside." And what will I get? A picture of a puzzle with holes in it.</p>

[pnital]

<p><br />Thanks Luis for the links.<br /><em>"Photographs can tell us something about dance."</em><br /><em>For sure they can,and BTW, I think that dance( performing arts in general) needs photography as photography can do a lot for the dance( theater), dancers(actors), and choreogrphers( conductors etc). The audience is the end product of all genre of smi and/or professional peformance. I think that coproduction is very fruitful, be it in portreature, performing arts , all genre of it, but first and for most it is for the search of answers ,expression of the self, for his own needs to speak/communicate /dialog/ create.</em><br /><em></em><br /><em>I do think all photographers perform, not for an audience or onlookers.</em><strong> </strong><br />I think you are right, as even though I'm not a dancer, and dancing on stage is mostly choreographed, I feel "dancing" and "performing"in searching to find my place/space in the production (I have a space in the theater so I don't disturbe the audience, and/but I don't see it as a puzzle, <em>Julie</em>).I seat, I stand ,I move, I look for the right light, sometime a saying, always a composition, sometimes a surprise , always try to get a meaning. co -production? yes and no... Improvisation? yes and no....<br>

(Fred the camera example was photographed the begining of the week in show, not a practice.)</p>

[dan_south]

Fred, I was only speaking for myself and my own physically awkward photography style. I now have an image of you

dashing gracefully around the streets of SF like a photojournalistic version of Gene .Kelly. :-)

 

 

Luis, great comments on invisibility.