On being photographed

[Arthur Fink]

As a dance photographer I feel myself constantly moving between documenting the dance before me, and sharing my visual impression, my feelings about of what I'm seeing. I'm always interested in how my images will be received by the dancers, the choreographers, by others who viewed from aside.

I invite particularly those of you who have experience as dancers and as choreographers to share your experiences of seeing two dimensional still images of your three dimensional live works, and to share your experience of the working relationship with those who photograph you.

[Arthur Fink]

If you're interested in this subject, check out:

"Partnering with Camera: Physical and Visual Imagination" up in Maine, at Bearnstow August 10th-16th. Organized by Bebe Miller and Ruth Grauart, this weeklong retreat will investigate the interaction of camera and movement. To sign up contact Bearnstow directly. Scholarships and Transportation assistance are available.

http://www.bearnstow.org/ for more information

[Rob Divine]

One observation that I can contribute as a dancer is that you often find yourself selling the "peak" of the leap or suspension and hanging there a few seconds longer than you would safely do so to appease the camera lens. If you land with a thud, the still camera will never divulge your dirty little secret. If you land with a thud in the theater, or too close to the stereo during a class combination - theres certainly Hell to pay.

Or maybe its just my lack of having the proper equipment. My past photo shoots were basically a friend with a Kodak camera (think: vacation camera) with standard b&w film. Nowadays I know there are all sorts of high-shutter speed, multi-shot, fancy gizmos to capture dance in its more natural state.

[Sofia]

I'm a dancer but also have an interest in painting and photography (still very amateur) and I've long been thinking about the question "how to capture movement in a still picture".
As you're saying here, it's very often about the peek, which becomes very still to me. Sometimes the preparation or the landing (as an example) says a lot more about the actual work, but how can you make that a good picture?

[Rob Divine]

You know I've been thinking about this alot lately too, and I'm a dancer like you so I don't know if I have the answer. I think maybe the answer has to come from Arthur or another photographer. But I think (and anyone who has pondered this more thoroughly than I have, feel free to opine) that there are two categories of movement quality: (1) where the value of the movement is in the suspension, the gravity-defying, the perceived weightlessness, the notion that a human can indeed fly. (2) where the value of the movement is in the design of the mechanical sequence of movements to arrive at its conclusion - the "how" you got there being more important than the getting there. The former is obviously prime photographer stock, but the latter unfortunately can only be indicated by a still photo (but not captured).

Sometimes I sketch to remember movement sentences I want to put in a piece. I draw a human figure and then add little arrows or directions to indicate "how" the movement is to be carried out, much like a comic book artist. Those arrows are what are lacking with photography. Maybe a certain lighting or adding colors or blurring effects to the photo can help indicate the "how", but it really is only an indication of the mechanical sequence of movements.

I also always wondered how different the dance world would be if gravity was slightly different. If we all weighed somewhat more or somewhat less than we do on Earth. How the rules would change. How much higher would we jump if light. How much earthier would we be if heavy. How the entire landscape of dance would change.....

[Arthur Fink]

I'm listening ... could say much, but prefer at this time to hear from dancers on this subject. My experience, as a dance photographer, is a different one.

[Sofia]

You're talking about "the notion that a human can indeed fly", but maybe it's the opposite? The reason that it looks so fascinating is the notion of what comes up must go down. So in our heads we automatically create a "what comes after, and what came before - scenario"...
So maybe it's a little bit boring of me to ask for something that actually shows the movement instead of something that triggers the imagination to create it. But to be able to show the anticipation would actually trigger the imagination even more.

But to me it's not only that. To me it's also the opinion that dance isn't a sport, where it's only about how high you can jump... But then we come to another question...
If you want to capture the essence of dance, you first have to decide what the essence of dance is...

[Arthur Fink]

"The essense of dance"? Gee, I don't know what that is.

I do know about my reaction to, or my feeling when watching a dance. That's personal and subjective, of course.

When photographing for myself, that's often my starting point, and I don't need to check it with anybody.

But when on assignment -- typically photographing for the dancer(s) or choreographer -- I'll often shoot some images, show them to the subjects in camera, and ask whether "I've caught it". Often their words will help my focus internally, and will guide me towards better images. That's why I say that dance photography is typically a collaboration.

Could the scholars tell us about "the essense of dance" or of a particular dance? And, if they could, would it make a difference?

[Rob Divine]

Dance is an art form and therefore subjective - I agree of course. But I think to some degree a definition of terms is in order. If someone was to tell you that tango is about the passionate expression manifested in staccato, sharp movements and angular lines, and not knowing that upfront, you begin photographing moments of softness or less powerful transitions, then maybe you didn't capture the "essence" of tango (substitute jazz, ballet, hip hop etc. for tango and you get my point).

I totally get what Sofia is saying about capturing the preparation or the aftermath of a "money" move. Then the burden is on the viewer's imagination to evoke what transpires immediately after or immediately before. And that evocation can be more powerful that what happened in reality. So in a way, the still photo is like a "teaser". But it can still capture tremendous quality and detail: such as a dancer tensing muscles in a coiled serpentine position waiting to unlease a tremdous amount of energy to.............. (we'll never know, but we can imagine).

I hate to say it but porn works that way - magazines or still images anyway. Its not the attractive body in a provocative position that does the trick, its the ensuing mental fete foraine where the machinations of conjecture as to what transpires before or after that point ultimately brings the viewer to their intended *ahem* climax.

[Sofia]

Yeah, it doesn't have to be too serious but I actually frased it "IF you want to capture the essence of dance" ;)But also if you get a feeling from the dance you see, isn't that the essence to you?

I agree with you that it is a collaboration, as it always is when two artforms work together. It could be taking photos of dance, or something as common as dancing to live music (or the other way arround: playing to dance). I think that makes art more interesting, when it's more of a give and take. Not only one person presenting without any feedback. I believe you can take it further when you let different art forms work together.