Dance (To A Slow Shutter)

[Asylum Steve]

I'm surprised a few of you guys (and I'm not singling you out, Trevor) seem to be dwelling on the CIRCUMSTANCES of the shot instead of its artisitc merit.

I don't think the circumstances (ie sitting in a crowd at a performance) are important at all in this discussion.

Ok, say I RENT this theatre out. I hire this dancer, set up all the lights myself, have him or her perform, and take the shot. Suppose my photo looks JUST like Tuna's.

Are you trying to tell me mine is more legit and has more artisitc merit because of the circumstances of the setup?

Sure, on a certain level you can make that argument (that the process is a big part of the artistic aspect). Still, if we're simply discussing the creative visuals and whether they work or not, both our shots would be the same...

My point earlier is that a theatrical environment with dramatic lighting and trained performers will always be a fertile place to create photos...

[Clicker]

Steve - Lots of good points here

[Elysian]

Irakly, I'm going to be honest with you; you made some great shots, you're a well known and respected photographer, but why do you have such a conservative way of commenting? Above all you should lead the gang in the right direction, give an opinion, give advice, come up with background information and things like that.

Sorry, but I'm not used to that. I prefer to dig deep and give all I can give with all the experience I've gained during these last 25 years. I'm able to be straightforward in my review (most members know this), so why can't you, after all my impression is that your comments will have more value than mine (knowing your background).

People need to see the whole picture, people need to know where to go from there. Maybe it's because I just expected that you would be the driving force in this forum and maybe that was my wrong interpretation.

I mean what is the real content of the comments you made like "not dynamic enough", "definitely something going on here", "I like the shot, it's funny and it definitely has several interpretations" or "I am not sure if I like this shot". It's all so vague, so restricted as if you avoid to express your real opinion. I don't understand it. In your situation I would have great joy sharing my knowledge, experiences or ideas.

Just a bit confused here, that's all ;)

[Irakly Shanidze]

Just try to think about it this way. For instance, you have... let's say Vacheon Constantin chronograph. It is undisputably one of the finest time pieces ever made. You glance at it p[eriodically, and every time it gives you a complex experience of figuring out time, enjoying craftsmanship and aesthetics and feling superior to all those Timex wearers. Now, take the atch off, unscrew the back, extract the caliber and disassemble it to 724 pieces. Will it now be able to give you, or somebody else the same experience? Basically, you expect me to do the same with a photograph. Believe me, looking almost at any photo I can find a dozen of reasons to like or not to like it. But if I give you a list and you read it, will you be able to percieve and enjoy (or perhaps hate) this photograph the way you did before? Even disregarding my own feelings towards this painful process of deconstructing art, do you think that I have a right to impose my views on everybody else? If you want me to, I will, just let me know.

Irakly, I'm going to be honest with you; you made some great shots, you're a well known and respected photographer, but why do you have such a conservative way of commenting? Above all you should lead the gang in the right direction, give an opinion, give advice, come up with background information and things like that.

Sorry, but I'm not used to that. I prefer to dig deep and give all I can give with all the experience I've gained during these last 25 years. I'm able to be straightforward in my review (most members know this), so why can't you, after all my impression is that your comments will have more value than mine (knowing your background).

People need to see the whole picture, people need to know where to go from there. Maybe it's because I just expected that you would be the driving force in this forum and maybe that was my wrong interpretation.

I mean what is the real content of the comments you made like "not dynamic enough", "definitely something going on here", "I like the shot, it's funny and it definitely has several interpretations" or "I am not sure if I like this shot". It's all so vague, so restricted as if you avoid to express your real opinion. I don't understand it. In your situation I would have great joy sharing my knowledge, experiences or ideas.

Just a bit confused here, that's all ;)

[Elysian]

Believe me, looking almost at any photo I can find a dozen of reasons to like or not to like it. But if I give you a list and you read it, will you be able to percieve and enjoy (or perhaps hate) this photograph the way you did before? Even disregarding my own feelings towards this painful process of deconstructing art,

A list? Who's talking about a list. Is it too much to ask for more if someone only comments in the way like this: "I (don't) (think) I like it". It helps us to develop as an artist, maybe not right away, but all these little experiences, ideas, discussions and explorations allow us to 'grow'.

do you think that I have a right to impose my views on everybody else? If you want me to, I will, just let me know.

Impose? Never heard of the word 'sharing'?

You really don't get it sometimes.
What an individual considers art when he/she was 10 years old, might be ordinary now.
What an individual considers art now, might not be considered art by them 20 years later
(And it's just not a matter of age). And art in this case can be photography, dance, music, architecture, film making, etc.
You have to ask yourself why that is and once you're discovered the 'why', you'll understand why people share views, ideas and experiences or why there are sites and boards like this or why people like to explore.

That's all I wanted to add.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Elysian, your behaviour is certainly not my business, but as a person whose intentions are as friendly as they can possibly be, I would really enjoy seeing a little bit more dignity in your posts. You seem to act like a schoolboy trying to put up a fight with a new kid on the block. Try not to post anything of this nature here forr a couple of days, then read whatever you have already posted, and you will understand what I mean. Remember, the key word is "dignity". We are adults here.

A list? Who's talking about a list. Is it too much to ask for more if someone only comments in the way like this: "I (don't) (think) I like it". It helps us to develop as an artist, maybe not right away, but all these little experiences, ideas, discussions and explorations allow us to 'grow'.



Impose? Never heard of the word 'sharing'?

You really don't get it sometimes.
What an individual considers art when he/she was 10 years old, might be ordinary now.
What an individual considers art now, might not be considered art by them 20 years later
(And it's just not a matter of age). And art in this case can be photography, dance, music, architecture, film making, etc.
You have to ask yourself why that is and once you're discovered the 'why', you'll understand why people share views, ideas and experiences or why there are sites and boards like this or why people like to explore.

That's all I wanted to add.

[Irakly Shanidze]

Steve, I've been thinking... Once on one of the local art shows I saw a guy who was selling his photos ov sculptures. Even though I generally regard this type of activity as very similar to shooting wildlife in a Zoo, this time I was stunned how good it was. What was good about it, actually, is a very original and unusual approach to the subject. Statues on his pictures looked almost alive, even passionate. I do not want to get into technical mumbo-jumbo of wet printing and supersensitive emulsions because it is not how you achieved your goal, rather, how did you come up with the concept.
When I recalled this from my memory, I immediately realized what was wrong with the picture under discussion. It looks like almost any picture taken in a theatre with a slow shutter speed and correctly exposed. That fellow at the art show was taking pictures of common objects beautiful by nature in a dramatically unconventional fashion, and that's what made his work art. A photograph becomes a work of art when a photographer puts more into it than just his technical expertise.
That said, I will move on to arguing that most landscape photos that I see are not artistic, because all I see is very well recorded beauty of Nature, which makes a great postcard, but will never withstand a test of time.

My point earlier is that a theatrical environment with dramatic lighting and trained performers will always be a fertile place to create photos...

[opus]

Irakly, you have said precisely what I was trying to say.

[Clicker]

The guy was not hunting, he was simply shooting.

I agree to a **point** with Irakly.. that is I see your view point, but I don't think it pertains to Tuna's Photo. Those people may have been dancing to a choreographed dance under lights he didn't set, but did they choregraph and set those lights with this vision in mind? No. He captured this vision. Studio Lighting aside, When is light **ever our own** anyway ?
I have thought about this subject before, If someone takes a picture, of lets say a wall with beautiful art / graffiti on it... People are going to think its beautiful . Was it the photo itself or the subject? It depends on if it is a straight on photo or if he worked other elements into the composition or not in order to make it his interpretation of it.
Plenty of people have taken well know art ( or even unknown for that matter) and "put a spin" on it.. I've heard plenty of times " this is my interpretation of this piece..." I think its fine, after all, we re-interpret in our minds anyway, Everyone had a different feeling or interpretation of " art" Taking a photo of it the way you see it, or taking a photo of sheerly because you thought that sculpture would look awesome with dark clouds and a rainbow behind it.. well its still your vision.. and on another note ( not sure if this fits in to this discussion, but it came to mind..) Photos of Plants : Landscaping could even be considered art as well, as it is an arrangement of plant life to gain a reaction from humans, butterflys, birds etc... So, if i take a picture of a flower dancing in the wind, is that okay? afterall a landscaper put it there in that arrangement, in a sunny spot.... lol.

Really, I think this discussion is fruitless, It should only be applied to one photo at a time, not photography as a WHOLE.

[Trevor Ash]

The guy was not hunting, he was simply shooting.

I agree to a **point** with Irakly.. that is I see your view point, but I don't think it pertains to Tuna's Photo. Those people may have been dancing to a choreographed dance under lights he didn't set, but did they choregraph and set those lights with this vision in mind? No. He captured this vision. Studio Lighting aside, When is light **ever our own** anyway ?
I have thought about this subject before, If someone takes a picture, of lets say a wall with beautiful art / graffiti on it... People are going to think its beautiful . Was it the photo itself or the subject? It depends on if it is a straight on photo or if he worked other elements into the composition or not in order to make it his interpretation of it.
Plenty of people have taken well know art ( or even unknown for that matter) and "put a spin" on it.. I've heard plenty of times " this is my interpretation of this piece..." I think its fine, after all, we re-interpret in our minds anyway, Everyone had a different feeling or interpretation of " art" Taking a photo of it the way you see it, or taking a photo of sheerly because you thought that sculpture would look awesome with dark clouds and a rainbow behind it.. well its still your vision.. and on another note ( not sure if this fits in to this discussion, but it came to mind..) Photos of Plants : Landscaping could even be considered art as well, as it is an arrangement of plant life to gain a reaction from humans, butterflys, birds etc... So, if i take a picture of a flower dancing in the wind, is that okay? afterall a landscaper put it there in that arrangement, in a sunny spot.... lol.

Really, I think this discussion is fruitless, It should only be applied to one photo at a time, not photography as a WHOLE.

I'm not disagreeing wtih you here. You've done a good job of discussing the opposite view I was discussing.

That's all the compromise you'll get out of me

However, I would propose that in the case of this photo, the vision is "borrowed" and then a little "salt" is added for flavor, thus making it a "shared" vision. No matter what, I still think the photographers vision.....if he looks deeply and honestly enough at his self, may agree that it wasn't entirely his own.

I think I'm going to hate this forum because these arguments don't have right and wrong answers

[Trevor Ash]

It seems the argument some of you have goes like this:

If there were another photographer sitting in the rafters above the one that posted this photo and took a photo at the same time but from a different vantage point then both photographers would have different visions.

With exception, I think for the most part that would be complete hogwash. Generally, the difference between the photographs isn't going to be "vision" it's going to be composition or viewpoint. Now, you can argue that different composition or viewpoint is the same as having a different vision if you want but for most photographs I'd probably disagree with you.

So, what would the exceptions be?

Well, when two photographers TRULY have something in mind that they want to accomplish in terms of "vision" and they each individually success in their own apparent vision, and the two photographs are accepted by others as having a separate vision.

I guess there's not an easy way to explain what I'm thinking so I'll just come out any say it....hopefully I'm not offending anyone too much......

If I were at that theatre at the same time as this photographer my photograph would probablt look much the same even though my intentions were different. Based on this particular photo, I think the photographer just took a snapshot that ended up being a very interesting photo. I don't think "vision" had anything to do with it.

Damn, I just took many paragraphs to state what someone already stated which you can only discuss a question like this for an individual photo....it's not something you can discuss that covers all photographs like I (we) were trying to do.

I'm going to eat my lunch now.

[Clicker]

I'm not disagreeing wtih you here. You've done a good job of discussing the opposite view I was discussing.

That's all the compromise you'll get out of me

lol, Thank you!

However, I would propose that in the case of this photo, the vision is "borrowed" and then a little "salt" is added for flavor, thus making it a "shared" vision.

"shared Vision" Wonderful choice of words... I agree.


As I was driving home just now, I thought of another example...Using Irakly's photo of people on a dock / pier...(one in which there is a violin and a woman) Would this be a "shared vision" as well? As someone chose that spot for the dock for its " picturesque" qualities, and he came along added some "salt" and made an image.

[Asylum Steve]

Irakly, I think I know the reason for your comments, but it sounds very odd coming from you.

IMO, using dancers or theatre people as "models" is about as artistic as you can get. Good stage lighting only adds to the mood.

Sure, it is easy to create a cliche photo, one that we have seen many times, but the truth is when you shoot this way, you start with a subject trained to move and have them immersed in dramatic lighting. I'll take those elements any day.

I think it's the fact that you shot this type of photo so many times that is affecting your judgement. Of course YOU are tired of it, but that certainly isn't true for many others.

Personally, I like this shot a lot. Yes, it isn't technically perfect, but it paints the graceful, colorful movement of the dancer. The slow shutter speed is the perfect way to capture this feeling...

I mean, shooting in a theater I would not consider an artistic excersise, merely a technical job.

[Clicker]

I've posted this in Critique and want to have it there for that purpose. But meanwhile, it seems to me to be a possible candidate here as well. Am I allowed to do that?

Tuna

Moving my comments over (from Critique)

It makes me wonder...
"is this one person, or two?"
I don't even want to know, because its the mystery that keeps me enthralled!