Temptation...

Thanks

A series of images . An interpration of a dance called "Alma"( an apple in the Turkish language). My focused experience is of the symbolic bible story of the forbidden apple.... with some added connotation

 

Dancers: Shany Katzman, Yoave Grinberg. Choreography: Rachel Erdos

 

Thanks for your impressions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's difficult to tell who's tempting whom. This seems very active, partially because of the bit of blur. The absence of color (apart from the sepia) also adds to the drama by removing anything that competes with the main theme (namely, bright colors).

Very good shot, great light!

 

Alberto

Provocative and seductive. It looks like a foreplay. I think the roles should be reversed.

All of you, yes temptation in this scene can work both ways.... even for me, her look says "will he be tempted? will I be able to seduce him..."... I have uploaded another scene of what I think is "recoil "...

Yes, it can be read both ways, but she is holding the tempting apple:-)

The women is holding the apple and therein lies the temptation and the knowledge however from the angle you took the shot it looks like he is trying to temp her with his provocative dance moves. I like the ambiguity.

Nicely done -- as always!

Thanks for your comment and expressing your point of view, but your evaluation is "half work?....lol because there is a continuation

here

 

What do you think?

 

Thanks Paula and Joe as well.

I'd be interested in your thoughts on the relationship between your photography and what it is saying and the dance and what it is saying.

 

I've spent a lot of time thinking and hearing about portrait work and the relationship between photographer and subject and how what comes through is a collaboration.

 

You are working along with someone else's direction and artistic vision yet, of course, these photographs are your own expression built on that. They certainly have a strong and recognizable Pnina style and approach that becomes your "voice." I am aware that sometimes you capture energy, and sometimes they are more like still lifes, forms and figures. This one is certainly energized, but has that element of a still life.

 

There was a recent thread in one of the forums about photographing sculpture, architecture, etc. And, as is always the case with such forums, there was a contentious debate about whose art the photographs were.

 

I took the position that the photograph is the photographer's creation, of course built upon the vision of someone else. How do you see it? Do you go into a shoot like this differently than when you are less restricted with your camera, say out on the street instead of in conditions where you have to deal with certain tough lighting, quick movements, and a much more controlled environment?

 

Are you thinking about things like who's seducing whom at the time of a shot and trying to convey a certain subjective point of view and make your own interpretive statement? Or are you trying to be more documentarian (with an obvious artistic flare) and present an objective representation of the dance?

 

I'd be curious to hear the choreographers' and directors' responses to your photos? Sometimes, subjects I work with are more concerned about how well they look in a portrait than whether I've made any kind of artistic statement myself. Do you ever get similar reactions about the look of the dance itself vs. the image as a photograph?

It is such a wide subject with many points of view. I will try to answer your questions as best as I can with MY point of view. I will start with a more general thought of mine and will come to the dance later.

 

First, all my work in the different fields of the photography medium, are my subjective personal interpretation of what I want to convey. It always has a touch and connect to my inner worlds and perception of life in general. ,What I really interested in, is to try and understand the meaning of human life and actions.( a brief explanation of course).

 

Part of it is my dialogue with other artists ,dead or alive, that again touches my own perception of human activities created by them. So even it is based on their perception and creation , the interpretation will be always mine., not connected to what their thoughts were while creating their work .

 

In the 90's, and even before, there was a trend in the art world, that talked about " citation", it means to take an art work or even parts of it and add something of yours, and give it a new meaning, connecting to your perception. I see it as a dialogue of cooperation ,or a junction, of my perception to theirs.

 

Some examples that will explain my points: look at my presentation of " Follow the light", it was a dialogue with some of J.Vermeer's work of art, but it is completely my staged photography.

 

 

http://photo.net/photodb/presentation?presentation_id=268934

 

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=481162

 

Another example and writing is my painting series of the "cycle of life", (the last file in my body of works, it was published in a magazine in USA with a front page , inside article and photographed paintings)). Please read my explanation of " art and being", which explains in general my dialogue ,especially with E. Munch's works that touched deeply MY inner life and my voice .

 

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=336866

 

Now photography in general, in many of its aspects is based on other works of human creations, like photographing architecture, temples , museums, churches,mask festivals( example Venice)the Egyptian pyramids , music and theater performances, kimonos( cloths) and also portraits( using models as you do)etc, and we want to sell our work, who is the owner of the work? There are legal definitions of some ,but I think that interpretations are very wide.

 

Now the dance series of mine. Working with dance choreography have all the points mentioned above.. Yes there is many restrictions while photographing scenes on stage( especially lights and fast changing of movements, and more), or even in rehearsals. And I work with choreographers only after I see some of their work and connects to the way their head is working collaborating with mine. What I do while photographing a dance is, taking only the fractions of it ,that are a junction of and with my inner feeling . The" forbidden apple" series is a good example, as the dance is not connected at all to the bible story ( its name is "Alma" and it is more a series of movements with the apples and two dancers), the interpretation of it and the name is my own interpretation, but I give the credit to the dancers and choreographers as it is a collaboration. A dance is a set of movements that are mostly abstract, photographing it ,I add elements that are around, like shadows

 

http://photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=794093, slow shutter speed,reflections, color tones, giving the dance my point of view and addition

The 3 choreographers I work with the most, are very grateful of my interpretation,and Sally the one I work with the all the time,says that I have a very unique interpretation, and left the well known photographer she worked with before and works only with me now.I give them credit, and give theme the right to use my work for their PR needs without asking for money,They give me credite while using my photos, but I can sell my work to others that are ready to pay....

 

Fred,I hope I have succeeded to answer some of your questions, let me know if you want to know more.

 

This is so odd. I wrote you a quite lengthy reply earlier, which has somehow been deleted. I'm so sorry.

While I'm in Florida, I will try to recreate my thoughts and rewrite them for you. You were so gracious to have answered me and I was so thankful to read your responses and follow up with you. It may take a couple of days as I'll be busy with family but I promise I will have more to say and thank you again for your insightful thoughts.

I do remember one thing I had said was in response to your magazine article. That is a wonderful statement of your photography and thoughts about life and what you capture. You do emphasize the struggle of life, which of course we all feel. I wanted you to read something positive from Jean Paul Sartre. It is more accessible than most philosophy, but it might be a bit of a struggle for you language-wise. Existentialists recognize the same struggle of life, the questions begging for answers, the strangeness of our human existence, yet, in EXISTENTIALISM IS A HUMANISM, Sartre really presents a rather positive side to that human struggle and suggests how community and human bonds overcome so much of the loneliness and despair that people often associate with Existential thought.

Thanks for your answer, really interesting about your answer too... I will be interested to have your answer of this one, I will try to recreate my part that was deleted...

 

I have read Sartre and Simon de B. years ago, so thanks for the link it will be interesting to come back to it.

 

Have a nice trip.

I think that's a very important consideration which you observe about photography being built upon things in the world, architecture, nature, etc. So, to varying degrees, every photo is a collaboration. I think that you recognize that is clear in the endeavors you achieve with your photography, overtly collaborating with others. Certainly, in the dance photos, you add the capture of and focus our attention on shadows and reflections. Those typically accompany dance but are often simply accompaniments in the moment of the dance yet they become so integral to and important in a photograph. While capturing the motion, with blur, of the dance itself, you bestill and preserve those fleeting things which otherwise pass by so quickly.

 

Jeff mentioned the seeming temptation here by the male figure, a twist on the Eden myth. I see it too and think that perspective enriches the story for us. It would be interesting if you gave notion to that male-temptation perspective throughout the series. But I wonder if then it might stop being a collaboration and become more your own private voice. That is why asked the question. Do you feel an allegience to the intent of the choreographer or do you allow yourself complete freedom of interpretation with these photos of dance? I do see a difference in the way you handle your Vermeer series, for example, from the way you handle this dance series.

 

I have to question your statement about the apple. While I think you personally felt and wanted to interpret the apple biblically, I have a difficult time accepting that that symbolism wouldn't have been present in the dance director's mind. The wonder of art is how it uses symbols and to surround a male and female on stage with apples, putting one in the mouth of a dancer, would naturally lead an audience to the Adam/Eve association whether it was meant overtly or symbolically. In most art, because of the bible and because of the power of symbols, an apple is rarely just an apple. Just like rain at the end of a tragedy is rarely not a baptismal symbol. What you have done so keenly is to advance and recapture that symbolism for yourself by deciding on the right moment where it feels most like a temptation and conveying that through your photograph. Indeed, these characters in the dance were not Adam and Eve, but the dance recalls it implicitly and then you re-present it explicitly.

 

That is so much the beauty of photography. Not that it represents the world, but that it re-presents it.

Collaboration I think, is in most photography creations. You use your models! Your creation is: the added meaning, color, light, composition catching the moment etc, but it IS a collaboration, without your models approval and standing before your camera ( like Stuart taking you to his bed room and posing for you) , there will not be a photo....

 

Jeff has put his hand on something that I though about too ( who is tempting who..... As a male dominated society, as we still are , maybe less than before, but still)) I did not react to this as I have left it to the end of the series like a surprise,...;-)).( it will be some next photos)

 

Yes, Fred, It will be MY voice ,my feeling/emotion , point of view, but still a collaboration in execution.....

 

Some example to explain my voice in the dance to enlighten the issue:

 

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6366662

 

Was composed from two photos...I gave it the meaning, my connotation of a human situation...

 

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6082516

 

A model dancer ,my composition, cropping decision( while photographing), light, meaning of the dance( movement) etc.

 

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5380086

 

My voice expression, the blurred dancer, cropping decision, color, light, emotion ,technic .

 

3 dancers, my voice, technic( slow shutter), composition, does not have anything to do with the real dance

 

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=6387653

 

http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=5333211

 

My interpretation, cropped from a scene, colors. title ( taken from life situations, no connection to the dance narrative, but using the stage situation for my expression ....

 

 

Fred, only some example, I can give you more with explaining my feelings, reasons, inner rational. I use the models , Yes ,but I don't feel obligated to the dance, choreographer's meaning etc. My only obligation is to my inner truth of creation, and artistic execution( in my eyes of course).

 

You are also right, that an apple will not be just an apple and has a strong symbolism in our culture, not only in the bible... Wilhelm Tell is another legend of the 14th century....

That is in Brief... Lets talk again when the series is finished, I think it will be clearer, but I still think that collaboration is a key point to most creations in photography..

I'm not sure if perhaps you misunderstood me. I am agreeing with you that much of photography is a collaboration, between photographer and subject matter, between photographer and art history, etc. When I was writing, I was comparing in my head your work with dancers to my portraits, just as you have done. At the same time, it is all on a continuum and a matter of degree. In some work, the collaboration aspect feels stronger than in others. That's what I meant to say about comparing your work with Vermeer and your dance photos. It is not a value judgment. It is to say that your dance work feels more collaborative than your Vermeer work, to me. I see more objectivity in this particular series of dance work and more subjectivity in your Vermeer work. I would say the same about the photo of Stuart with his baby portrait vs. the more recent rework of Stuart with the dark shadows. The former feels more collaborative, the latter less so to me. Yet it is the same raw material, Stuart, to begin with. There are many who think portraits should be *true* to the subject and the photographer should stay out of the way, whatever that means. I find that appropriate in some situations and not in others. I go with my gut in each situation.

 

This photo of yours, because of the perspective you added, by capturing the male as temptor -- especially if that was only a moment of it in the dance and not the main intention of the dance -- becomes more personal and about your voice. The series itself does not continue that theme so it becomes not a dominant one in your overall voice and treatment of the series. What I was wondering was, would you feel you were betraying the dance director's vision by imposing such a strong vision onto his or her original vision? When I shoot someone's portrait, I usually talk to them about the degree to which I might add my own vision to their image. If, for instance, I felt obliged to present Stuart as clearly and straightforwardly as possible, to seek out the true (whatever that means) Stuart, I might handle his portrait very differently. My question is really about motivation and what issues come up for you and me as photographers working with "living" subjects. I think there would be virtue in honoring the intentions of a choreographer and not adding one's own voice when photographing a dance just as their could be when creating a portrait. Staying out of the way, as it were. Yet, there is also a desire to put ourselves into our work. As I said with the photo of Stuart, he was flattered by the idea of being "used" to create something personal to me. And it sounds like your dancers are flattered, too. But I can imagine situations where you might feel much more restricted in terms of personal interpretation, depending on the context and what you were trying to achieve. There is a balance always between what we present and what we create.

I just came from a dance show, I photographed.I have uploaded the continueing story, that I planed before, and I think will furnish and explain some of my toughts,I will answer you Fred, and you Donna, tomorrow.

 

Thanks you both for a very interesting discussion.

Thanks so much for such an insightful take on the matter. I read your words with great interest. It is not the way I look at things, but I am always happy to be exposed to another way of looking at art.

 

I don't think there ever is the kind of truth to which you refer, whether in art, dance, or the bible. While it is certainly the case that people use biblical quotes for their own agendas and there are more objective scholars who seek to understand the bible from a neutral perspective, I'm a firm believer in the fact that such a neutral perspective does not ever exist. No matter the scholar, s/he will always bring cultural and historical influences to their readings. I have studied very academic interpretations of ancient texts, from the bible to Plato to pre-Socratic fragments of Pythogoras and Parmenides. Even the most thorough of scholars have great disagreements as to the meanings of key passages and often as to even the overview of the whole purpose of texts. A text is always open to interpretation. It will seem to convey a different truth to many based on many factors. The bible is certainly no exception.

 

To speak of the "betrayal" of a true work of art by a subsequent artist or the "betrayal" of the true spirit of the bible assumes a position of omniscience that no human can ever have.

 

You ask about the viewer who has "no knowledge of the original" having a partial or inferior understanding of the work of art based on that original. I'd hate to think that. When I create a portrait, I know that most who view it will not know the person whose image I am working with. It may be my job to convey Truth, which means conveying what I genuinely and honestly feel and looking inside the person to connect with something real and genuine. What the viewer will get is a sense of Truth that connects to the viewer's own reality and emotions. In other words, I don't necessarily (although sometimes I may want to) feel I need to convey what I think my subject is feeling at the time. If I catch a meaningful glint in someone's eye in just the right light and that connects with me in the moment, I trust it will likely connect with the viewer as a more or less universal symbol of feelings and looks we have all seen or known. There is Truth in that, but not any kind of direct correlation to the truth of the person's specific feeling in the moment. People have read all kinds of things into portraits of mine, from shame to fear to uptightness to happiness. I don't concern myself with whether the person was actually feeling those things at the time as much as connecting to the viewers in a meaningful emotional way. I have to let go of the photo once I put it on display. It may speak to others in very different ways. I am content as long as it speaks. Sometimes, I may have put a certain slant on it which I wanted to convey and I can only hope I did it effectively enough for it to be understood that way.

 

If I use a portrait to express, for instance, my own insecurity about aging, that is not a betrayal of my subject if he didn't happen to be feeling that same insecurity at the time. Unless I have somehow promised him to paint him in a certain light and then fallen back on that promise.

 

What I was talking to Pnina about was our consciousness as photographers of all of this. I don't think there is an actual Truth to what the dance means that Pnina could ever actually stick to. I think there is the director's interpretation and intent and Pnina's interpretation and each viewer's interpretation. If the director, for instance, were to tell me that apple was not a biblical reference, I would ask for his or her reasoning but it would be rather doubtful that any reponse from the director would convince me. Because I think apples are symobolic in given situations, this being one of them. That's why I always say that the artist does not have THE truthful interpretation of a work any more than anyone else does once it becomes public. I would simply walk away saying the artist was in denial by not recognizing the significance of the apple.

 

For me, texts like the bible and really all works of fiction (which I consider the bible to be) are living, breathing things. So are works of art. Their "truth" will change with the hours and passing eras, from one culture to the next, interpreted differently by someone sad or happy, someone content or someone restless, someone spiritual or someone empirical.

 

I think good artists will commit to their interpretations and not shrink from them. If they want to make a satire of the bible, an irony, a homage, if they want to try to elevate it in their work or denigrate it in their work they are entitled as long as there is a sense of genuineness and consciousness of what they are doing.

Thanks for your thoughts, Fred. I enjoyed reading them, as always. Sorry, Pnina, I took my thoughts down for the time being . I'm sorry for getting in the middle of your dialogue.

You have really created a nice load on my English;-)), not easy to express my thoughts and feelings, but it is a good lesson, and I will at least try to clarify my point of view.

 

 

Fred I can not see what I do ,disconnected from what I'm. A priory choosing to photo the dance world (scenes ) is because I'm close in my feeling toward what it represents for me , lets say more than landscape or other subject I photograph.

 

I see in the dance( very hard to explain) a sort of spiritual freedom of the human body and soul, in one hand, and connected to life especially when there is an inner narrative of some sort(I connect especially to that kind more than a full abstracts ,but there are abstracts I connect to as well, when choreography is interesting.).

 

I'm not a dancer, but I learned dance as a child for some years( music as well) and it is part of ME! I think that you are doing more portraits because it is like a dialogue with yourself ! You talk with your models as you are going to "use" them, but on the same time you find things about yourself. It is a duo dialogue, with your model and yourself, I think many art works are done in that way, an inside part of the artists expressed with an outside collaboration, it can be a personal saying or enlarged context based on historic events like Donna's great example of the poem and the biblical story of the sacrifice.

BTW, there is an artist here, his name is Kadishman, he took the sheep as a symbol for the "Sacrifice of Issac" and did a huge series of paintings based on it but does not really represent the story only hints about the biblical source.

 

The biblical story is a cultural heritage not only for Jews, and like many other culture related narratives, were used by artists, to recreate new layers, interpretations and feelings.( like some of the Impressionists using art works like statues, from far exotic places in their paintings) I tried to take the story from its starting point toward some thoughts of our present era ....

 

You are right that the "follow the light" (Vermeer) story is different from the dance series, as it is two different approaches to deferent subjects and narratives. In the first I was the "choreographer"/artist AND photographer. In the dance I'm the photographer and the artist /interpreter at the same time, but enlarging the context after seeing the results, which evolves in me as an inner deeper understanding of what I want to convey, expressing the feelings I have while looking at the dance..

 

Donna and Fred, there is never a guaranty that what an artist want to convey ,while creating and uploading a work of art or a series will be understood. There is an idea that a photograph especially, has to connect to the viewer without any explanation, it is right only in part, as you have explained the context of the poem Donna, it was easier to understand,and bring closer the thoughts of the artist. This is probably what a curator is doing..( was done very well by my curator in my last exhibition, again in collaboration of what I wrote.

I enclose some of my written thought that is part of my catalogue of the dance exhibition, that you Donna, helped eliminate my mistakes....

 

"Dance photography- A point of view"

 

 

I'm an artist working many years in the visual arts trying my best to express my inner world.

 

It is a long struggle on the path to the final outcome. A thinking process , a trail and error, creating experiments and deletion, and a love to experience and dialogue with creations done by other artists in other domains of creativity, different from mine.

 

In the two series presented, I have worked with two different points of view. The first was following the process of a new dance creation, and the second, the outcome of a whole creation, nuances of how it is reflected by the viewer, in this case mine, without following the process.

 

My work in "Dance in Formation ", followed a long period of time a choreographic experience of building ,of body language, interaction between choreographer and dancers, and dancers between themselves. It is following the un perfect, the movement forming and unfolding, the effort to achieve the " clean" accurate dance expression , describing the inner experience. The music accompanying, and the inner connection of the whole.

 

The second series " Concerto for an orchestra and four dancers" , is expressing the creation as a whole. The perfect " product", EXPERIENCED BY THE VIEWER, myself as one, that sees for the first time , choreography (as point of view) that is expressed in a creation shown on the stage.

 

It is two points of view complementing two aspects in a dance creation, the starting point of the process and the final outcome show ,on the stage, and its influence on the viewer."

 

 

 

I will finish by answering Fred, that I don't feel the obligation to follow with MY interpretation the choreographers line of though. I know that they are not expecting it, as each creation in any medium, after it is published has it own life and viewers interpretations.

 

I didn't consider your comments "getting in the middle" of Pnina's and my dialogue. I thought they helped and furthered some interesting points. Why did you delete them?

I'm really " angry" at you! your addition was good and added some very nice points , please upload it back!I unswered both of you, because it is not easy to articulate my thoughts in English.

I do want to say that while I know it must be difficult for you to articulate your thoughts because of the language difference, you do a wonderful job of expressing yourself and I always understand the core (no "apple" pun intended - LOL) of what you're saying. One minor correction, you would be angry AT Donna, not OF her. But, me too, Donna, what gives? You always have such wonderful things to say. I'd feel terrible to think that anything either Pnina or I said caused you to second-guess the value of your contribution.

Thanks, I promis you that I do it much better in hebrew.... thanks for your correction, do it always when you meet my mistakes.... ;-))I have also sent you an email with the recreation of the forum posting, did you get it?( we wrote also simultaneously at Julie's posting.....