...YinYang.....

There may be a language misunderstanding, I'm not sure. I know, of course, that you are "always ! close" to all your dance scenes. As we are all always close to the subjects that we photograph. I was not saying I didn't think you were close to the other scenes. I was saying that this photo seems to convey that closeness more intimately, precisely because of all the things that are being mentioned. Gordon has mentioned voyeurism. I see it, too. That voyeurism comes from your approach to this and the way you've handled it. I think you have put more of a personal stamp on this photo in the way you've handled it and the techniques you've used than you have in some of your other dance photos, which I find a bit more presentational rather than interpreted. I'm sure you were as personally involved in the other photos but I think, for all of us as photographers, that personal involvement comes through more in some of our photos than in others. As I read through the comments here and the comments on some of the more straightforward photos I'm thinking of, here more of the comments are on your style and approach, the blur, the toning. In some of the others, more of the comments are actually on the dance itself, the staging, the expression of the dancers. I find that you, Pnina, are more present in this photo. The reason I find that is that I see evidence of it in the photo, even though I know that you *feel* present in all your photos. I see more visual evidence of that involvement in this photo than in some of your others.

 

Now, of course, in all your photos, you have chosen the time to push the shutter, the exposure, what to include and what not to include, etc. But those things alone are not what I'm talking about or what makes a photo seem personal to me. To an extent, what makes a photo seem more personal is a bit intangible and often hard to describe. But it also has much to do with technique and approach, perspective, etc. I think your approach to this photo, as a photographer, despite your feeling agreat closeness to the others, is more personal. Much of that has to do with your choices in processing. I know that you have feelings about all your photos and that all in this series stem from what you describe as a unity of opposites and depicting human behavior. I don't question that you feel that way about all of them. I do think some of them express and convey it better than others. In this photo, for me, there is more visual evidence of your feelings.

An excellent cover-page for Milton's "Paradise Lost", Pnina.

Very good and beautiful photo. It has a "classical" and "modern" look at the same time, but more then the look it has mistery inside. I love the toning. Regards.

Everything and nothins. Emotions created out of light, shadows and shapes. Great.

Glauco, for your nice comment, I hope your vacation was a nice one,...;-))

 

Laurent, your impressions are well depicted my intention working on it.

 

Jose, thanks as well, glad you connected to it.

 

Ton,I used the same CS3. I'm not familiar with the argirotype technic, what is it ? thanks for your compliment.

 

Gord,I worked to reduce and soften the focus, and blurred more the upper part in order to enhance the mystery, the intimacy, and make it less voyeuristic( even it is impossible really)....

The R corner has only one leaf really lighted, and I think that if I make it more subtle it will ruin the connection to the rest of the leaves that are like a frame, but I will try and see how it works. I thank you for your two extensive evaluations that you know I appreciate much ! ( I wait for more of your last fruits....)

 

Fred, thanks for writing to me again, there is no misunderstanding, I understood and understand very well the difference you see in this one and some of the others.I understand as well why you see it more as a personal approach, and to an extent I agree with you. As I explained to Gordon, I worked on this one a bit differently, ( well maybe it is another step forward ...;-)). and I have some more that I work on in the same technic.

Fred, I post process every photo I take of the dance, what you see many times is not how it looked on the stage, I understand that not all of them are transfering my involvement in them,but I'm. Anyway, it is good that you wrote me , I will think of what you said, and that is why it is important to change ideas feelings, and thoughts, it is part of development. and I'm here for this purpose, You are a nice help in English too, so please answer my questions.....( blessed?...;-))

I wonder if and how will you see my involvement in the next one "windy flow" ? ( if you have the time and will) which is done differently as well?

 

Amal,I'm not familiar with Milton's " Paradise lost" I will look for it.Thanks my friend.

 

Joaquim, I appreciate you written impression ,I like your depiction as classical/modern, I work on this idea precisely.

 

Pawel, you have really disappeared, I wrote you , but no answer. are you coming again soon? Thanks for commenting and showing a life sign...;-))

I recoiled a little to see the word "blessed" used in referring to a couple of my photos. This was in the thread on titles where you seemed to be saying that titles added to a photo's being blessed and you used examples from my portfolio, including the titled one of Jesus carrying his cross on a San Francisco street. As I said in that forum, that title was meant tongue-in-cheek. Actually, it's ironic that you would use the word "blessed" in that case, since in some ways it could be taken as a mockery of religion, although that wasn't my prime intent by any means. I think religious language, metaphor, and ideas seep into discussions about art and I find that unfortunate. I think art and religion have some similarities but art often gets unnecessarily infused with religious meaning and sentiment because it can be hard to explain and sometimes deals with intangible matters. Rather than "blessed," I might use a more secular word like "transcendent." Rather than finding "spirit" in nature, for example, I find the idea and the wonder of nature itself magnificent enough. Instead of "soul" I might use "essence," although I will use "soul" myself generically sometimes because it does capture something that we all relate to and understand, even those of us who don't really believe in it. I do think that, often, art and religion get confused and I prefer to avoid any confusion, because I think there are so many important differences. For one thing, I think art recognizes, cherishes, and can even glorify the profane, something I think religion is both afraid of and in denial about. I find most good art, or at least art that I respond to, to be much more honest than religion. Art is a crowning achievement of humans and, for me, god or godliness or blessedness doesn't need to be brought into it.

 

And while I do understand your personal desire to title things, and certainly respect that choice, I don't quite understand why a title would make a photo blessed.

 

Thanks for the interesting discussion. I will check out your new upload soon.

I think that I did not explain myself clear enough in the forum about titles. As you wrote that you don't find the titles needed, (Only for identification, if I understood well your reasoning, I wrote you an explanation in an email, I don't know if you have recieved it) I went to look at your titles and saw the two,especially about passover connected with the cross, or crucifixtion ( cozy seder and than what ? ) and the lion's head, and I gave it as an example that you do USE title from time to time. I wanted to express that titles can be very helpful ( maybe "blessed" was not a good choice of a word) to understand, to connect photographer thoughts with the viewers, but I don't understand why the word blessed could hint mockery of religion? ( "tonge in cheek", what is the meaning, ? mockery? ambiguity? not the real meaning of words? )

 

And that brings me to art and religion. In the history of the arts they are connected, because of the rich establishment of the church that was most of time the supporter,and more the consumer of religious subject arts for the churches and cathedrals . One example only is the Medici family ( which at least one of that family was a pop) in the 15- century that ordered the sistine chapel fresco( Michelangelo) and other paintings (that has a connection to Judaism as well, ). Middle age, Renaisance ,and earlier too.

I agree with you that art has more freedom to depict the profane, when the religions are not, but religious symbols and rules of human condact exist, and conducted also by secular people. Its duality in the arts ,combining symbols ,exist nowadays as well, even though in a very different way of expression and connotations..(Adi Ness, an Israeli photographer, well known, that photographed "The last supper " of Leonardo that is known as parallel with the night of the Jewish seder , executed with Israeli soldiers, sold for a lot of money, )

 

Ohhh, it is hard to explain all of it in English,( don't you speak Hebrew...?;-))

A story seems to be unflolding (like a still from a movie). I like it, Pinna. Very well done.

Beautiful, Pnina.

 

Alberto

I did not get an email.

 

Yes, the arts and religion have been very tied. But they no longer have to be, especially in our descriptions of nonreligious artworks. I have used religious symbols myself, partly because of their long history of use in the arts and partly because there is great symbolic meaning attached to them which I love exploring. But I hope I am going beyond religion as well by doing that.

 

To say that, for instance, there is spirit in nature, to me, is too easy, doesn't really tell me anything new, unless the photographer shows me something unique and personal about the landscape s/he is shooting. If you do that, I don't really care what word you use. But don't let a religious-based word substitute for feelings about something and certainly don't let it substitute for photographing the thing with soul. Just because it has soul doesn't mean someone has captured it and doesn't mean I want to hear about it instead of seeing it. To show me the soul is the challenge of the photographer. It's not just about the photographer feeling it when s/he's looking or appreciating it when s/he's in it, but actually visually expressing it.

 

My problem with religion has always been that it makes things too easy. It gives us a description of the world instead of allowing us the joy of describing the world ourselves. It gives us answers to unanswerable questions, which are part of the joy and journey of life, so I find it stifling. I call my picture The Spirit of Nature and suddenly I've magically given it gravitas (depth and importance). Nonsense.

 

The word "blessed" did not hint at mockery of religion. I said your using the word "blessed" was *ironic* (you unintentionally used the word "blessed" for something that could be considered the opposite of "blessed," my photo) because I thought *the photo* hinted at a mockery of religion.

 

Yes, I titled the Jesus photo intentionally because I thought the photo itself was lighthearted and comical as well as a plain old good street capture (tongue-in-cheek means lighthearted, sort of half in jest). I gave it the title to continue the irony and, as I said, to pay a little homage to David Meyer. I purposely gave it a "cute" title because I thought there was an element of "cuteness" to the photo. To a degree, it was self-mockery as much as mockery of Jesus. (Which I hope does not mean I have a Jesus complex. But that's a matter for another day!)

 

As I've said a few times, titles can be effective. I'm not against all titles or all writings about a photograph. I am against them when they seem silly, immature, superficial, overly self-conscious, or sappy and dripping with meaningfulness, or when they seem to substitute for what I think a photographer might have put visually in the photograph himself. I recently had a discussion with a friend about an old photo of mine. When he found out it was my father, he said it made a big difference to him. I understood that and agree. In the forum, I may have come across as thinking it was an all-or-nothing matter and I don't.

Very intimate manner to see the woman-man relation:...you have very well connected the soul-body love!...Ciaomau!

Kelvin , thanks for all of them,you took a real tour.....;-))

 

Alberto, thanks as well

 

Maurizio, thanks as well

 

Fred

 

I haves sent you the email again. If you don't get it please send me an email with your right address.I had a problem like this in the past, I have to check if it is not happening again.

 

As I wrote you, and I agree, art and religious were strongly connected, and nowadays if they show up they are different. At the end of my comment I will upload Adi Ness work for you to see,( "The last supper" ) the explanation of what he did according to the Israeli myth is not for PN, if you are interested I will do it via email.

 

As I wrote in the forum, I think that a photo has to "speak" first, but I see the title or if you want, the language as part of creation( at least for me), and I like to FEEL the title as I feel the photo, both are connected for me..It does not say that all my works are touching the viewers, or my feelings are transferred to them, or they are perfect... I learn all the time and want to go deeper and purer in my expression, I think that you are doing the same.

 

I think that the religious people are living easier life with their faith, as there is God, that is responsible for them....they don't ask question, looking for answers that have no answers...is much more difficult. David Meyer sent me a name of this book (" The God delusion", by Richard Dawkins) which I read in Hebrew, and it is a very interesting essay.

 

I liked this photo of yours and it has an irony, aside of being funny as a street photo, it was a rare opportunity....;-) but I really did not

use the word blessed for your photo, only about titling in general.

 

I think that we have, each, our point of view, and we change ideas, thoughts and feelings in order to clear things and try to do better and better works..

Intimate, protective, organic. The light and absence of light tells the story. The sepia, the crop tie them to the earth.

 

BTW, I think religious people do question. I don't believe that there are not moments of doubt and disbelief.

Pnina, as I see the glimpse of your image above, I know it's too late and in all of life as well...

 

...too late to prevent. Damage done.

 

But I often wonder what was the missing ingredient which would have halted the decision to bite into the "forbidden fruit"? Our privilege of choice was our curse of destruction, yet it seems that even in the emotions captured in your photo, we wouldn't have had it any other way.

 

I realize the fig leaves are soon to come... (Sepia toning seems to announce the impending failure, unless that is a tan line and the animal skins have already arrived)

 

Eve's weakness has allowed me to enjoy your photograph and with Adam and (Saul) Paul, I too, suffer from a cursed thorn. The ingrediant was not available and It is our second choice that can make us whole again. ~Sky (Well done for this act and your capturing of it.)

 

...but alas, from the Yin and Yang, my dilemma remains...

I didn't say, nor would I ever, that religious people don't question or have doubt or struggles of faith. My statement was about the answers, not the questions.

Donna,for your feedback.

 

I know that religious people may have doubts,you can see some that are, as we call them here " returning with a question" means leaving the religion and become seculars. But I worked with many of them " With Gods help" , and "God gave and God took" is a kind of ( I'm not sure if the word is"resignation") but I mean a full acceptance . That does not mean that doubts don't exist, but much less than in the secular world.

 

Sky, nice to see you here.

 

"what was the missing ingredient which would have halted the decision to bite into the "forbidden fruit"? , " looks a hypothetic question to me....

 

"Our privilege of choice was our curse of destruction,",.....

Not having it is a dictatorship....;-))

 

Thanks for expressing your point of view .

Beautifully conceived and accomplished, Pnina. The color tones are gorgeous, the focus/blur just right, the whole image handled delicately and artfully. Eden, yin/yang, Pnina art.

Pnina, with every year I believe more and more that Eve could not have resisted.

 

Perhaps she and Adam as well could have resisted for a period of time, ultimately I believe that an unlimited test that existed for their eternal lives could not have been passed; therefore, I don't believe that they had in there beings the necessary ingredient to resist the temptation of the forbidden fruit. Could they have asked the Creator for its removal? I think they could have but in the end it would not matter because with Eve's success, we would not be communicating on Photo.net about this serious matter. I believe that we learn from it that it is necessary to correct our first bad choice with a good second choice but we are left with minds full of knowledge that gives us distress the remainder of our days.

 

So, I believe with the serpent's entrance, Eve could not resist and her inability to obey would indicate imperfection, which cannot be correct so the missing ingredient must have been Jehovah and His ability to utterly rescue his creation.

 

 

(Of course this is merely an unfounded opinion of mine and certainly hypothetical and in the end my contemplations matter little in the overall scheme of things)

 

It is a tremendous story and woven within the foundation of our humanity.

 

I enjoyed the contemplation that has come with your photo. Thank you, ~Sky

"It is a tremendous story and woven within the foundation of our humanity. "

It sums it all.

 

Thanks for explaining farthere your line of thought.

 

Did you read the book I was recomended, and I read just now ? it is called " The God Delution" by Richard Dawkins, fits your theory of the missing ingredient....

 

Hi Pnina, you're welcome for the explanation. No I haven't seen the book you mention. Surely, I can't be that smart. ~Sky

Pnina, again, I do love this image. I also have enjoyed the dialogue it has inspired.

 

Fred, you commented that, and I quote,

"My problem with religion has always been that it makes things too easy. It gives us a description of the world instead of allowing us the joy of describing the world ourselves. It gives us answers to unanswerable questions, which are part of the joy and journey of life, so I find it stifling. I call my picture The Spirit of Nature and suddenly I've magically given it gravitas (depth and importance). Nonsense."

 

I am amused you find religion a way of making things too easy. For me it is so the opposite. Religion sparks the unanswerable questions. Art is there in front of me. It is physical; it is tangible. I see it. Religion speaks of souls and God, and eternity. What is tangible about any of these? What is simple about these concepts? The very thought of eternity is scary beyond words. For me, religious based words do invoke feelings, because those feelings come from my essence, and my essence is based in a power greater than I am, a power which I cannot otherwise describe. I do envy you if you find religion a way to make things easy. As always, I enjoy your thoughts.

 

I didn't intend to be amusing, just honest about my own feelings. I actually think a lot of this stuff is quite serious and it affects us all a great deal. It's not just ideological.

 

I'll give you an example of an easy religious answer that I think is misguided and that must be fought.

 

In California, the Supreme Court has upheld the constitutional right for same-sex couples to marry. Many religious people who are against this right are behind a Constitutional amendment to overturn that right and favor instituting a ban on same-sex marriages. Over and over again, the stated reason is that the Bible says . . . blah blah blah . . . Leviticus. Instead of thinking through the situation, they quote an ancient book. Easy. They neglect to consider that there are many kinds of love among many kinds of people and instead rely on supposed tenets written centuries ago to guide them. Easy. They neglect to consider statistics showing that most gay couples seeking marriage are religious couples themselves and are more likely to be doing so because they have children. Instead those guided by religious morality misleadingly speak of protecting families when in fact they are hurting families. They neglect the difficult task of searching their hearts and going out and getting to know people and instead search for quotes from a book they often haven't read or even considered more than superficially. Easy. When answers come from quotes instead of penetrating thought, when they come from simple fear of the unknown or new instead of the more complicated road to enlightenment, I think they come too easily.

 

It's also too easy to ignore other demands set forth in Leviticus and to pick and choose the ones that suit a political agenda.

 

Another example taken from this thread. I don't believe that the foundation of the notion of human freedom of choice lays in "Eve's weakness." I prefer to avoid such simple misogyny.

Interesting points of view. I sure agree with your reasoning Fred

 

Margaret, I had some years ago a heated argument with a very religious Jewish woman about why it is not possible ( in the Jewish religion) to push the button of electricity at Suturdays... Her reasoning was that it is work!! and suturday God "said" it is a resting day.... my reasoning was that nowadays it is not work anymore, as it was millenniums of years ago.... to no avail...

 

Much easier to live with that faith of "God said", written in the bible.

 

As Fred stated and I hate it too, is the agenda of the religious establishment to force their way of thinking, living and faith on mine.

 

Again, it is on the" tip of the fork"...

 

Fred, what does it means" Leviticus" ?

 

Pnina, the reason not to push the light switch on Saturday was the product of Talmudic discussions in defining what is work and what the law states specifically. It's doubtful that the religious woman to whom you spoke knows the thinking behind this law. I think there are many benefits to not pressing the light switch. It certainly brings people more in sync with nature, instead of always controlling it, which is probably humbling in a very beneficial way. I think there are a lot of benefits.

 

Leviticus= VaYikra

it was just one example, there are many other subjects that the religious establishment uses a political agenda to tighthen the freedom of choice of people that are secular and have a different life style. I will not go into the problems but they exist and some of them don't fit the 21st century. Sorry.

 

Thanks for explaining Leviticus. ;-))