Temptation...

First of all, thanks, Fred, for advising Pnina how to chastise me, using correct English grammar!

 

Seriously, I took down my comment because I second-guessed writing a lengthy, heartfelt comment on PN about analytical approaches to understanding artifice and visceral or associative reactions to art. Pnina knows what I mean; we've "discussed" a situation like this off-line --the advantages of writing small, focused comments like "great tones, composition, and lighting.., " and leaving it at that as opposed to really getting into it. Fred, I think, from your comments that you feel discussions including artistic analysis, philosophy, sexuality, even politics and history are basic to discussing art, but I don't see much conversation like that on this site, and I just ended up removing what I wrote, not because I didn't stand behind it--I do--but I wondered what's the use? Is it appropriate here on an open forum? What's the goal of these comments anyway? I return to comment because it seems the two of you are interested in discussion. You give me courage to write what I think.

 

All lasting literature and other forms of art--enduring monuments--are partially built on inter-textual references, symbols, myths, previous stories, communal thought, whether or not they are in the intentions of the artist at the time he or she fashions his or her art. The differences are what separate classics from beach books, great art work from bad.

 

This is a wonderful photograph, for it is deeply aesthetically pleasing and delightfully playful. The light casts a golden hue on the figures, apples, their reflections, as if it were the Golden Days in the history of mankind, the days in Eden. The man dances without inhibitions, and the woman's eyes and her playful hold on the apple expose her lively interest in him. According to the Garden of Eden myth -- and this is an acceptable approach to critiquing this photo, for the elements of that myth are all present: man, woman, apple, temptation, the suggestive serpentine way in which the male dancer is posed, the black abyss just behind them (are they even aware?) point to the question, what happens when play with the apple is done, and they have succumbed to temptation? Pnina, even your title, "Temptation," suggests consequences; temptation is a universal theme: think of Pandora or Lot's wife....

 

The exile from Eden archetype continues in literature and art and throughout the Torah with a cycle of rewards and punishments, or a convenient explanation for why there is suffering in the world. The myth upon which this photo partially rests suggests reveling in innocence but more so on its end, as we, like Adam and Eve, eventually succumb to temptation, breaking the "rules." Adam and Eve are plagued with guilt and shame about sex. The myth serves as a foundation of underlying religious control over behavior, for so many people wait for a renewed time of innocence, for a return to the Garden of Eden, whether it be their concept of heaven, nostalgia for their youth, a first love, or waiting for a messianic redemption on Earth. This breeds hostility and intolerance. Obviously there are other ways to view this, other archetypal myths that employ the elements above that will lead to innumerable interpretations. Adan made an interesting remark, that the woman might be viewed as submissive, on her knee carrying an apple around in her mouth....A feminist might have a field day with this one. Of course, a misogynist might too.

 

 

Can a person effectively understand art if he or she ONLY remarks on and values the mechanics of the artifice? Does it do justice to the art or to the artist? I think the result of viewing art in this way may be a rote, mechanical, computer-like "correct" answer, such as what might be required on a standardized test. But something would be lost. Art would be lost. The whole point would be lost: the interactive spark between audience and the artwork, audience and the artist, the artist seeing new things in his or her own work. It becomes lifeless.

 

I used the Bible in my previous example to make my point, but I, like the two of you, am agnostic. I hope I do not come off as a didactic Bible-thumping religious clone. After the Holocaust, how could any Jew be anything other than agnostic or atheist. But to be religious...? How is that possible?

 

I will continue searching for my H. Leivick "Sacrifice" poem to illustrate what I mean with creative betrayal in that case of the sacrifice of Isaac, which I'm not sure I clearly explained, though Pnina, I think you've got my point. Leivick's poem challenges the concept that a living creature must be made to suffer so someone else may prosper. Is this cruel, superstitious type of nonsense of sacrifice in every culture? It leads to the communal acceptance of turning living creatures into scapegoats; people and or animals are made to suffer for "the good of the whole." It's primitive thinking...insidious. Does it ever not lead to misery, excuse, and intolerance and dehumanization of people or abuse of animals: the idea of "we" and "they"?

 

Until I find his poem, I'm leaving a poem Leivick wrote about being a Yiddish poet in America. Perhaps all artists can relate. He wrote it in 1912, after escaping Siberian exile (or is that too much information?):

 

When I think of us -- Yiddish poets,

 

A sorrow grabs me -- sharp, acute;

 

I want to scream to myself, to pray --

 

And just then the words grow mute.

 

 

 

So outlandish is the look of our poems--

 

Like stalks the locusts have possessed;

 

One comfort: get disgusted with yourself,

 

Slink on God's earth, an alien guest!

 

 

The blood of our word on cold fingers,

 

From fingers -- to cement, hard and cold;

 

Oh, ashamed, ridiculous singers,

 

Squeezed between four disgraced walls!

 

 

 

And if one like us comes, a brother

 

From a cellar, a sweatshop, he's cursed --

 

He finds us in his own mute tongue

 

And avoids our solemn verse.

 

 

 

And we, like children, like knights in love,

 

Like Quixote, doing things unheard,

 

In loneliness as ever we tremble

 

Over every letter and word.

 

 

 

Sometimes, like frazzled cats, dragging

 

Their kittens around, distraught,

 

We drag our poems between our teeth

 

By the neck through the streets of New York.

 

 

 

When I think of us-- Yiddish poets,

 

A sorrow grabs me -- sharp, acute;

 

I want to scream to myself, to pray --

 

And just then the words grow mute.

I want to clarify what I mean when I use the term "creative betrayal." I am not arguing that there are certain "truths" to literature that make one person's interpretation more valid than the other's as long as the elements in the literature are not taken out of context.

 

For a small example, think of the slogan used when Dwight David Eisenhower was running for president (I wasn't born yet, but I know the slogan). It is: "I like Ike."

 

(I'm sure you know that Ike was Eisenhower's nickname; however, I don't think Pnina would know this.)

 

If one were to write a small essay that explains why this slogan is effective, one might argue that it is an expression of enthusiasm for the object of love. The name of the object of love is already within our love for him, and the person of the loving subject is also integrated.

 

 

More simply put: "I" begets "Ike" and "I" begets "like," as if the libido is creating. -- It has a structure similar to those Russian dolls that fit into one another.

 

What I wrote above are just facts of how that slogan is constructed. They are "truths." No matter who the audience is, the construct of that motto remains the same.

 

___________________________________________

 

For further explanation of the term "creative betrayal" (I am NOT arguing here that there is only one way to read a text) : Creative betrayal is a literary term (an artistic term), which can easily be understood by reading the following poem, for you will see how this poem violates the "integrity" of the original text but does so intentionally and for effect. I couldn't find H. Levick's "Sacrifice," which is too bad because it is short!!!!!! However, I found one written by Itzik Manger. Moreover, it stays in keeping with Pnina's photo of this dance series. Figure it out (think of infidelity), which changes (or creatively betrays) the original point of the biblical text upon which it is built. Read and you'll better understand how I am using the term "creative betrayal." It's a bit long but oh so FUN!

 

[One additional thing added Sat.: Fred, my use of the term "creative betrayal" is, I think, what you mean by your word choice "twist" in your comment above: "Jeff mentioned the seeming temptation here by the male figure, a twist on the Eden myth." What is the twist? It is an intentional diversion from the unchanging integrity of the written myth in the Torah. It is a creative (artistic) betrayal of the original text.]

 

 

Title: Eve Brings Adam the Apple

 

The first man, Adam, lies in the grass,

And spits at a passing cloud,

Humbly, the cloud says, 'Adam,

Please, would you cut that out.'

 

But Adam sticks out his tongue

and says to the cloud, 'Too bad,'

Then spits a slender stream of spit

And says, 'There's more of that.'

 

Wiping the spittle with his sleeve

The cloud grumbles angrily,

'That's what comes of nothing to do,

and lying about all day.'

 

The first man, Adam, laughs and laughs,

His teeth make a fine display

Just as Mother Eve comes back

From her walk in the apple allee.

 

'Where have you been, oh Eve, my wife,

My dear, where have you been?'

'Strolling about in the plum allee

And chatting with the wind.'

 

'You haven't been to the plum allee,

It's a lie; you've not been there.

Your body smells of ripe apples

And there's apple smell in your hair.'

 

'It's true, I've been in the apple allee--

What a poor memory I have;

You've guessed it at once, my dear husband,

God bless you, my darling love.'

 

'What did you do in the apple allee,

My dear, where have you been?'

'I was chatting with the serpent

About a blessed-sin.'

 

The apple trembles in her hand,

Gleaming scarlet red,

Foreshadowing, as she holds it,

Twilight and passion and death.

 

The first man, Adam, is puzzled by

The sweetness in her voice.

And he simply cannot understand

Her strange new loveliness.

 

Trembling, he puts his hand out--

'Stop, Adam. You're making me blush.'

The night extinguishes their shapes--

H, U, S, H spells "Hush.'

Thanks for both parts of your comments, Donna. I like the Manger's poem as an example of creative betryal.I think that it is a well known fact that many artists in different domains are using for thier expressive art basis , other art and cultural works that are international( more or less) treasures . They will always use it as only a base, and will add their personal/individual thoughts( it has to be like it and not a copy....) or change the whole point but use some of the characteristics of the original art work.I tried to explain Fred my point of view in the upper comments here.

 

I like the way Fred writes a critique, when he does it with extensive impression and trying to understand the motivation /influence/thoughts behind the given work, but it is not possible, and not needed in many of the works here at PN, or even elsewhere, in other sites.

 

Fred ,I think that your rework of Stuart , aside of what I have written you there, Hosoe works are well influenced you technic.

 

I think that art in all its forms, is not created in an "empty space". a real serious art is created with a whole culture of creation behind it, that we are reading, studing, exposed to in many other ways.

I see what you're saying about creative betrayal and understand what you mean about internal structures and integrity. I think you make an important point and that's how symbols wind up getting identified and understood and that's the more solid part of communication, languages, and art. Structure and integrity allow us to understand and then to comment or betray an original conception or creation.

 

But I still wouldn't use the word "truth" as strongly as you do because I think these internal structures and their integrity is still contextual and dependent on, not independent of, many changeable factors.

 

"I like Ike" gets its meaning not just from the internal structure of how the words themselves relate but what those words convey to us. We can't just access the internal structure without being affected by the connotation of the words themselves. "Ike" is a substitute for "Dwight," so it already suggests a casual or friendly tone which plays off the word "like." Aside from the poetry and similarity of the sounds of the words, we will immediately be influenced by those things. Yet, someone who doesn't know who Ike was and that Ike is a nickname for Dwight will not get a big part of this.

 

Furthermore, let's say in the future, a hated president (think Nixon or Bush) comes along who's first name is Michael and who, before becoming so hated used the slogan "I like Mike," perhaps even as a homage to Ike. After his unbearable reign, I would maintain we might never be able to hear even the original slogan "I like Ike" in the same way. So even though that slogan will have the same words with the same internal structure, history itself will have changed the way it affects us, will have, in fact, changed the "truth" of the phrase. There will now, as never before, always be attached some irony to it.

 

How this relates to Pnina's photo:

 

I think many of us kind of know what the myth of Adam and Eve is about. (I must admit a bias right there, as many see it not as a myth but as a true story.) Yet we all bring layers of meaning to it on top of that. The choreographer's perspective, even if s/he claims it's not "about" Adam and Eve, nevertheless uses the well-known symbols of the story with some intention. Pnina then adds her layer to that.

 

Donna, I'm not talking about whether there is one right interpretation or another. Surely there is not. I am talking about what the supposed "truth" inherent about the story of Adam and Eve is. It may be "true" that it is a story found in Genesis in the Old Testament. (Of course, we have the problem that many orthodox Jews refuse to call it the Old Testament and insist on calling it The Bible -- that will affect the truth of statements even about where the story is to be found.) If I see the story portrayed and immediately consider it a mysogenist myth, my take on Pnina's photograph will be extraordinarily affected by that. Someone else may see the story as being about the eternal love of man and woman (that's the case in another discussion of one of Pnina's photos). That's as valid a take as mine. So his insights and emotions around Pnina's creative betrayal of the story will be affected by his perspective on the original story, not by -- in my opinion -- an internal truth the story has that Pnina is riffing on.

 

At the same time, I know you're onto something, because there is something recognizable in the apple as symbol and its bringing forth the Adam and Eve story that allows Pnina's photograph to be effective. I guess I would say it's more about recognizable symbols and familiar histories and cultural affinities than it is about truth or a play on truth.

This discussion reads like a graduate thesis in the philosophy of art/photography. Brilliant.

Thanks for having the patient for that long thread....

 

I think "truth" is a subjective term. The dictionary defines truth as " corresponding to reality". First I don't think that art in general corresponds to reality, it can depict reality, but each artist has his own reality as he is experiencing life in general, and his mundane reality. ( the Japanese movie "RASHUMON" by Akira Kurosova is a good example )

 

There is no evidence that myth of any kind was reality, but there are people that will see the apple story ( as one example) in the bible as reality that existed, and others will not . So truth, faith, religion is very subjctive concept( can be seen well also in the court)... and therefor I think that art creation which is based on part of a cultural heritage, has only the subjective truth of the artist/writer/poet , etc. so many of the arts based on a heritage, but having the added( layers) meanings of the artist, which does not correspond in its internal structure to the story , are creative betrayal...

 

I think as well that while every art form is subjective first, it gets its wider context by the viewers, interpreters, curators, public etc. some of it will become a modern "myth" or "legend"( example, Andy Worhol ,Marlin Monro...)

Fred and Pnina, Your last comments are thought-provoking, and I want to respond. I've an acute time shortage (work, an approaching test, other stuff) but will respond very shortly.

When ever you do it it will be interesting to read.

Please excuse the time lag in my response. I've been exhausted and in a time crunch, which led to this delay. But please know that I learn so much from both of you and feel these discussions help me understand art so much better. I want to thank you both for that.

 

I think that we all agree that there are fixed, unchangeable structures, patterns, rhythms and rhymes, points of ungrammaticalities, (catachreses), symbols, archetypes, intertextualities, and other elements in literature and art that are unchangeable. I used the term "truth" to refer to them, not to one truth of interpretation. Good literature and art are "overdetermined" with these elements--that function as signs, so if a viewer or reader misses one or more of them, there are other "signs," elements of artifice within the work that lead to the same direction.

 

How a viewer/reader reacts to the symbols and other elements of the piece of artifice, the personal and collective associations they carry for the person, make up the interpretations. Interpretations must always be tied to the structure and other elements of the text. If the critic takes elements out of context or chooses to ignore the other fixed artistic/literary elements and structure that do not fit into his or her world view or agenda, this approach might lead the viewer to misunderstand much of what the piece "says," how it is put together. The interpretation can become a distorted explanation that superimposes meaning rather than explains and uncovers meanings already embedded in the text or piece of art. There can be no artistic betrayal if a piece of art is not understood. How can one effectively rebel against something unknown or misunderstood?

 

Let's go to Pnina's piece; Fred, your interpretation of misogyny is supported by the artistic piece. The other PN person's interpretation of the "eternal love of man and woman" can also be argued, using elements of the text, particularly if one uses a Freudian reading of the symbols, and the love is sexual. Pnina, you offer a different interpretation (to the whole series) in a link within a comment addressed to Fred under the last pic of this series. (I'm still extremely moved by that interpretation.) Infinite stories and interpretations are imbedded in good works of art, but each one must be tied to the whole integrity of the text.

 

By the way, Fred, I don't call the Tanach (Bible) the "Old Testament" either (and I'm not religious). The "Tanach" is an acronym for the three parts that compose it: Torah (The Five Books of Moses), Nevee'im (Prophets)--(the HafTorah portion of your bar mitzvah), and Ktuveem (Writings) (such as the Book of Job, Ecclesiastes, Psalms, Wisdom literature). The Hebrew letters "taf" = "t" (the first letter of Torah) plus "nun" = "n" (the first letter of Nevee'im) plus "chaf" "ch" (the Hebrew letter used for Ktuveem--Chtuveem) is pronounced T(a)N(a)CH, which is simply a descriptive term of the collective writings. The Tanach is not identical with what is referred to by some as the Old Testament. It does not include all of those writings. While there are religious "agendas" and other arguments for refusing to call the Tanach the "Old Testament," the term "Old Testament" is simply incorrect.

 

As far as symbols taking on more or less importance or being turned from positives to negatives, such as in the political example you gave above, I agree, but even the different reading, with a hated "Mike" doesn't take away from the structure of the slogan; it just hooks into a reference that for you turns a positive sign into a negative, thereby changing the effectiveness (or meaning) of the slogan, perhaps giving it more of a wry interpretation.

 

Again, please excuse the delay. I'm still pretty exhausted and hope I was coherent! I'm very much looking forward to reading your thoughts.

"I think that we all agree that there are fixed, unchangeable structures"

 

I'm sorry if I was unclear in what I said but, no, I don't agree. I believe there are NO fixed, unchangeable structures. While I think there are degrees of fixedness, I think all internal structures are dependent on other structures and ARE contextual. It is like a spider's web with NO fixed foundation. The web gets built around various contexts and beliefs that are always questionable and reliant on each other (not some objective guiding element or fixed structure) for understanding. Contemporary philosophers, instead of using the term "correspondence" regarding truth (meaning that true statements correspond to real and fixed facts in the world) use the term "coherence," and that's my preference as well. Truth is what works within the web of a system of beliefs. For me, there is nothing fixed or unchangeable about it.

 

Again, to bring it back to Pnina's photo. It's not just that our interpretations vary around some fixed structural entity. It is precisely that there is nothing BUT our interpretations. There is no TRUE photo about which we have interpretations. There is only the photo AS INTERPRETED.

Donna thanks for your evaluations, and Fred for your fast answer.It was not easy for me, and I hope I understood the points uploaded.

 

"The web gets built around various contexts and beliefs that are always questionable and reliant on each other (not some objective guiding element or fixed structure) for understanding. "

 

I think thatI agree to that sentence and the word "coherence" corrresponds to my understanding and belifs of interpretation on a given text or an art work.

 

Donna, I think that what is FIXED in a text or any other art form , is the form itself( words, contexts of the artist, image,series of images a statue , etc)IMO there is no one and only interpretation which is THE right or true one , I agree it is a web, that starts with the given structure and ideas of the creator, and developes to many other factors of the interpreter.I gave the example of "RASHUMON", because it says that the truth has many faces of interpretation of a given "fact"( or art creation)"Truth," is relative, and is right from the point of view of the artist and/or the interpreter.So I see it as two ways of understanding, not always with a "unity" of the origin.( of what was the artist's initial intention, meaning, idea ) so ,comprehension/interpretation can be varied, as long as it takes into account the given structure.

 

I hope I sound reasonable in my interpretation/comprehention of both of you....;-))