View Full Version : “What is it about this world that demands an image?”
Austerby
12-02-2008, 01:51
So asked Keith Jarrett last night during his concert at the Royal Festival Hall in London, angry that someone in the audience had the temerity to take his photograph - despite plenty of instructions that photography during the concert was not permitted by both him and the venue.
He's entitled to protect his professional image and is clearly sensitive to distractions (we also got told off by him for coughing during his wonderful performance of solo piano improvisations).
How should we respond to his question - What is it about this world that demands an image?
(note, it wasn't me who took the photo - I didn't have a camera with me :angel:).
Fred Burton
12-02-2008, 01:57
Piffle. He is a product that is trying to protect it's value. Which is his right. But there is no great philosophical point here.
sojournerphoto
12-02-2008, 02:16
pertinent
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2007/aug/09/keithjarrettsoutburstshouldbeapplauded
tom.w.bn
12-02-2008, 03:58
He shouldn't give any concert if he is so distracted even by coughing. I see no professional artist here, just a diva.
Prohibiting photographs at a live concert is not so uncommon.
Al Kaplan
12-02-2008, 04:22
What's so special about a live concert? Buy a recording. With a good sound system you'll save all the hassles of getting there, the price of the tickets, dealing with uppity performers. You'll save a bundle of money too.
From the performers point of view, though, the clacking of SLR's, the whirring of motor drives, and the bright flashes can be disturbing to everyone there. Not everybody shoots available light with an M Leica.
Dave Wilkinson
12-02-2008, 04:32
Who's Keith Jarret ???
noimmunity
12-02-2008, 04:49
Keith Jarrett used to cough, stomp his feet, hum and otherwise make lots of noise during his performances. But for his solo piano improvs he always insists on classical venues with classical mores. Now, Jerry Garcia, another consummate improvisationist, was the total opposite. You could do just about anything while Jerry was busy playing. As a result, his performances became sub-culture happenings.
Nobody is answering austerby's original question. I'll take a stab: in order to have an image, you have to have a frame. No image without a frame. So the real question is, what in the world calls for framing? It's a little bit like asking why do humans like to make a clearing in the woods?
tom.w.bn
12-02-2008, 05:03
There are a variety of reasons for taking photos at a concert. Just like there are so many reasons for photographing street, architecture, landscape, family, crisis, .....
Every person who takes photos has his reasons and satisfies some demand (internal or external).
Roger Hicks
12-02-2008, 05:10
Why an image? About the same reason you have concerts and recordings, I'd guess.
Cheers,
Roger
bmattock
12-02-2008, 06:32
"What is it about this world that demands an image?"
I don't know. Humans seem to like to see, hear, and read about things which interest them. It may constitute a 'need' in the literal sense - it would appear that humans first expressed ideas to each other in pictorial form in the very early part of our development. This need has continued to the present day - when we send an exploration vehicle to Mars, for example, we include a camera.
Our need to see a visual representation of the things which interest us range from the ridiculous to the sublime. We have images of eerie deep-ocean creatures and the insides of people's bodies. The moment of birth, and the moment of death (in natural forms as well as otherwise). We have photographs of great world leaders giving famous speeches, and we have photos of pop stars dangling their babies out of hotel windows and getting out of sports cars sans undergarments.
The world's demand for images is all-encompassing, unceasing, and indiscriminate.
Is that for good or ill? I cannot say. I can only say that it appears to be part of woof and warp of the human condition.
We want to know - and an essential part of knowing is seeing, ever since we first learned to scratch game animals on cave walls.
Keith Jarrett may not accept this when the image-taking is done outside of the framework he envisions - and as others have said, he is certainly within his rights to demand that no photos of him be taken in a private venue. He might do well to reflect that his albums are advertised and sold as much by images as by sound. We are more visually stimulated than we are by sound; it is simply more convenient. That's why musical events are advertised by photo or artwork prints on posters, in newspapers and magazines, and subway walls. He criticizes the very medium that helps to provide his sustenance. His right - but a trifle hypocritical.
John Rountree
12-02-2008, 09:57
Images are important to us because we have evolved as creatures who depend upon and get most of our information through our eyes. The mere act of standing upright (which is the defining characteristic of homo erectus) gives our sense of vision enormous advantages over all the other animals that are bound to the earth by four legs. Taken a step further, the mundane act of seeing is further enhanced when the image has an aesthetic resonance.
Goldorak
12-02-2008, 10:27
I don't know who he is... but I googled his name and stumbled upon this image (http://www.downbeat.com/photos/IM55716.jpg). By looking at his face, it's maybe obvious why he doesn't want his photo taken? :-)
angeloks
12-02-2008, 11:09
I don't know who he is... but I googled his name and stumbled upon this image (http://www.downbeat.com/photos/IM55716.jpg). By looking at his face, it's maybe obvious why he doesn't want his photo taken? :-)
Check the Koln Concert. I love it.
There are lot's of reasons the world demands an image :
1. money, money, money - you can sell it because curious masses want to see it and pay for it in form of TV, newpapers, magazines etc.
2. sometimes a picture tells more than a thousand words
3. human memory is not archival proof, it keeps fading and a picture helps keep it fresh. They are a back-up for memories that become so countless nowadays that your biological terrabytes are at their limits of overflow.
The reason for Keith Jarrett to be upset might not be commercial as his pictures are not really hot stuff on the front pages... but more the disturbance aspect of some jerks that can not resist to take their flash camera out and bust a moment of concentration for the artist and the rest of the audience. That's just an enormous lack of respect. Being annoyed by that if it happens over and over again doesn't have anything to do with Diva attiude.
bmattock
12-02-2008, 11:40
...but more the disturbance aspect of some jerks that can not resist to take their flash camera out and bust a moment of concentration for the artist and the rest of the audience. That's just an enormous lack of respect. Being annoyed by that if it happens over and over again doesn't have anything to do with Diva attiude.
I agree that the people who took the photos should not have done so. The artist has the right to allow or deny photography in a private venue, as do the managers of that venue. Absolutely.
On the other hand, having read the Wikipedia entry on said performer, it appears that he is indeed a bit precious, having previously demanded the the audience not cough during his performance, walking off stage because he did not like the piano he was provided, and so on. Quite entertaining, and I suppose a mark of his abilities, if he can insult people as he appears to do and still be popular. I understand Bobby Fischer was like that as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Jarrett
bmattock
12-02-2008, 12:14
How can anyone in the West not know who Keith Jarrett is? Last night I actually ran into a student who did not know who David Byrne is.
I did not know the the former, I am a fan of the latter.
It's not like you have to know the Koln Concert -- but that is like never having made love to "Dark Star." or seen "Breathless."
No, no, and no.
With regard to the musical humping, how about side two of "Physical Graffiti" by Led Zeppelin? "Kashmir" was quite the hit in my day.
tom.w.bn
12-02-2008, 12:34
How can anyone in the West not know who Keith Jarrett is? Last night I actually ran into a student who did not know who David Byrne is.
It's not like you have to know the Koln Concert -- but that is like never having made love to "Dark Star." or seen "Breathless."
So little time - so little to do.
--Oscar Levant
I didn't know either of them. Just not my music I suppose. What do you think now? Am I a moron with a digital camera?
bmattock
12-02-2008, 14:42
Truly you have never seen either version of Breahless? But you have heard the song? Tell me you have heard Jerry Lee!
I know who Jerry Lee Lewis is, yes. Fan? Well, I acknowledge his contribution to rock-n-roll and I'm happy to listen to his songs if they come on the radio. I have never seen the movie(s) you mentioned. Not really much of a movie-goer.
Goldorak
12-02-2008, 14:50
Fred, I'm curious to know why would anybody have to know Breathless, the movie, as it is a rather bland and almost insulting copy of the original by Goddard.
You meant A bout de souffle or we're you serious about Breathless, the bland copy?
I would simply think if you do not know of David Byrne -- that you are not someone I would choose to select CDs for a long road trip.
I was watching some early Talking Heads clips on you-tube recently.
Byrne was a master.
Not everyone knows everybody, sure.
A couple of weeks ago I listened to a conversation a cashier had with a young barista (at LePain Quotidien, not Starbuck's mind you :p) and he didn't know Bob Dylan. I asked her how anyone could not know him, she just raised her shoulders and said , he's twenty... we both smiled.
I had my faith restored recently by being able to discuss the joys and advantages of 5x4 film with the young sales girl (about nineteen) at the local Kodak one hour.
After that I wouldn't care if she didn't know who Bob Dylan was! :p
The answer is Tabloids.
I've read about them ... they can make your voice suddenly get deeper and cause you to grow extra body hair in unusual places!
bmattock
12-02-2008, 19:12
Not everyone knows everybody, sure.
A couple of weeks ago I listened to a conversation a cashier had with a young barista (at LePain Quotidien, not Starbuck's mind you :p) and he didn't know Bob Dylan. I asked her how anyone could not know him, she just raised her shoulders and said , he's twenty... we both smiled.
I just assume most do not know the music I tend to appreciate. I would most likely get blank stares if I mentioned Agent Orange, Amy LaVere, TSOL, Cal Smith, 5 Chinese Brothers, James McMurtry, Red Lorry/Yellow Lorry, Shonen Knife, Carolina Chocolate Drops, Nathan (the band), Roxie Music, Soft Machine, and King Crimson. Etc.
Dylan? Yeah, he's cool. But he makes me think of Warren Zevon, whom I also liked quite a bit.
I've read about them ... they can make your voice suddenly get deeper and cause you to grow extra body hair in unusual places!
Have you seen the movie Taxi Driver, the main character looks too much in the mirror and suddenly starts asking his own image in the mirror, "are you talking to me?"
All I'm saying is that one too many self-portraits could have adverse psychological ramifications which might manifest itself as forum-hogging, flaming and finally to biting chicken's head to drinking Rodinal etc...
Speaking of self-portraits, where is Pixtu? :confused:
Al Kaplan
12-02-2008, 19:32
Starbucks must hire better baristas here. The ones where I go think it's cool that I photographed Dylan and a whole bunch of other musicians from that era. What they really want me to do is set up my sound system again so they can come over and listen to everybody from Bob Dylan to Pink Floyd on the original vinyl.
Have you seen the movie Taxi Driver, the main character looks too much in the mirror and suddenly starts asking his own image in the mirror, "are you talking to me?"
All I'm saying is that one too many self-portraits could have adverse psychological ramifications which might manifest itself as forum-hogging, flaming and finally to biting chicken's head to drinking Rodinal etc...
Speaking of self-portraits, where is Pixtu? :confused:
Where in this thread have we been discussing portraits ... stop drinking the rodinal! :p
Where in this thread have we been discussing portraits ... stop drinking the rodinal! :p
It has a smooth and silky finish, unlike those Australian wines. :p
Al Kaplan
12-02-2008, 19:55
I've been known to shoot a self-portrait or two. I work cheap and don't need a model release.
It has a smooth and silky finish, unlike those Australian wines. :p
No ... that's HC-110 ! :p
No ... that's HC-110 ! :p
I have to try that... but first i need some shots of Iford rapid fixer to get my senses working!
I've been known to shoot a self-portrait or two. I work cheap and don't need a model release.
The dualism of self-portraits is always intriguing. Who's really "you"? the person who pressed the shutter or the person in the photo...?
It can also get really disturbing if you ask yourself to smile and start having small talk with yourself.
quadtones
12-02-2008, 20:10
Over the years, I've taken an awful lot of photographs of performers--on stage during dress rehearsals of plays [directors thought the actors shouldn't care if I had a camera in their face]--but not performances, where it might interfere with the audiences involvement. In jazz venues, taking available light photos since the 60's, I've often had musicians [whom I'd gotten to know over time] express the idea that the photos being taken became part of the totality of what was going on, and had no real difficulty with my involvement [in small clubs--but large auditoriums are a different sort of venue--people need to sit in their auditorium seats and behave themselves, not have a good time]. Two examples of these [loooow light] shots are attached.
On the other hand, a club owner told me, after his headliner showed up late, more than a few years ago, "Miles is a genius, but that doesn't mean he has to be an a**hole."
Al Kaplan
12-02-2008, 20:45
Nh3, shortly after I bought the 15mm Heliar a few years ago I tried to get a photo of myself with a friend, and it worked. There was nobody else around to shoot the picture. Then I started playing around with the technique, documenting my life, the places I went, the people I knew. It was fun! The image of me is pure acting. Other people in the picfture might not realize that I'm even taking a picture or that they're included. They're not acting. I hold the camera in one hand or the other and have become adept at winding and firing one handed. I usually shoot about 3 frames of each situation. How I get the framing and compositions is something I can't figure out myself. The bigger mystery is how I hold the camera steady at arms length. A lot of those shots are at 1/8, 1/4, and some even longer. The distance scale is always set at one meter. I always print them full frame, no cropping. There's a whole section of them in my P-net portfolio and a lot of the photos on my blog are those self-portraits in different situations. I mostly do them with the lightweight Bessa L. A Leica M is a bit heavy to hold like that.
I'm not really sure which me is me, the one who presses the button or the guy who pretends he doesn't know he's being photographed. Maybe the camera has a spirit of its own. It sure gets me to do some strange things such as wandering around town with a toy monkey (or is it the toy monkey who gets me to bring the camera?)
thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com is the blog
Austerby
12-03-2008, 01:14
Ahem, returning to my original post - the point I wanted to explore was that Jarrett's challenge was about why individuals feel the need to possess their own image of an event: what impulse made that person in the audience feel the need to try to take a photo (despite being asked not to). We're not talking about portraits here, this was someone probably using a mobile phone camera or P&S - the flash fired from halfway back in the auditorium (I was sitting in the Choir so behind the performer and could see what he could).
I'm not interested in getting into a debate about who knows what - a wise person once told me never to underestimate what people don't know.
It was, however, a remarkable evening of solo piano improvisations where, for me, he conjured up soundscapes and imagery that entranced, entertained and thrilled me unlike any other performer I can think of. If you can catch him, then do go if you can get tickets - but you have to go on his terms.
Carlsen Highway
12-03-2008, 02:27
Now that Mr Eastman has succeeded in putting a camera into everyones hands they have become an integral part of our culture; as has motion picture as well, which means we are at the stage that if there is no image; it didn't actually happen. This is why he took the picture. To prove the concert existed and he was there.
bmattock
12-03-2008, 03:31
Ahem, returning to my original post - the point I wanted to explore was that Jarrett's challenge was about why individuals feel the need to possess their own image of an event: what impulse made that person in the audience feel the need to try to take a photo (despite being asked not to).
Ah, that is very different. I don't know the answer to that one, either, but I note that people will feed the animals in the zoo whilst standing in front of the sign that implores them not to.
They won't pull over for fire trucks and ambulances despite laws and social mores that say they should. They pass school buses despite the danger of running over small children, they race around dropped railroad crossing signs, they touch paint despite 'wet paint' signs.
There appears to be a strong streak of anti-authoritarianism in us, which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on how it is expressed.
dave lackey
12-03-2008, 03:50
I had my faith restored recently by being able to discuss the joys and advantages of 5x4 film with the young sales girl (about nineteen) at the local Kodak one hour.
After that I wouldn't care if she didn't know who Bob Dylan was! :p
Heresy!
Anyone who doesn't know Bob Dylan is missing one of the fundamentals of photography...enjoying music as part of the art. Of course, you MUST care if she didn't know who Bob Dylan IS....it is your duty to teach this young person else she live a life of emptiness.:(
Warren Zevon? Yeah, another great one....
Back OT...what is it about this world that demands an image? Because the image fills in the information that is missing when all the other parts, such as music and words are already in place.
But, that music, Dylan, Zevon, Muddy Waters, etc. is such an inspiration for good photography....at least for me.:angel:
Heresy!
Anyone who doesn't know Bob Dylan is missing one of the fundamentals of photography...enjoying music as part of the art. Of course, you MUST care if she didn't know who Bob Dylan IS....it is your duty to teach this young person else she live a life of emptiness.:(
Warren Zevon? Yeah, another great one....
Back OT...what is it about this world that demands an image? Because the image fills in the information that is missing when all the other parts, such as music and words are already in place.
But, that music, Dylan, Zevon, Muddy Waters, etc. is such an inspiration for good photography....at least for me.:angel:
Surely if she was able to appreciate the benefits of large format she would have to have heard of Bob Dylan ... I may have to go back and ask now! :p
[quote=Austerby;944233]....
It was, however, a remarkable evening of solo piano improvisations where, for me, he conjured up soundscapes and imagery that entranced, entertained and thrilled me unlike any other performer .... quote]
To experience Jarrett the way you did in this live performance, you have to open up and soak it up and follow him into his spaces, then you'll most likely never forget this experience.
Today we live in a world of complete overload of media of all sorts. People usually take all that crap only as background noise, entertainment in an otherwise boring life. These people can't experience such a concert in a way you did - and therefore they need some other reminder of the experience in form of a picture. And they don't really care about any announcements and hundreds of people being disturbed. if they had just the brains to wait until the end when the applause starts, so no one would care about the picture being taken but no they can hold it until then... . That they are in the wrong performance at the wrong time in the first place, is another topic...
I am reminded of the androids in "Blade Runner", who, having been implanted with false memories to serve their 3-year lifespan, were also given a handful of snapshots that also correspond to their false memories. These snapshots served the purpose of reinforcing a sense of (in this case false) nostalgia.
I think there's an element of this with us non-androids, as well.
~Joe
“What is it about this world that demands an image?”
absolutely nothing. they're about as necessary as sofas. and concerts i suppose.
to turn the situation around. let's say you had an exhibition. in a decent enough gallery. no music, no café, just the space with walls and floor and ceiling and fancy lighting, and the carefully selected photos of course. and the visitors strolling through at their own paces, enjoying your photographs. not let's say a 25year old arrives, with a huge 80's like ghettoblaster on his/her shoulder, loud...
Al Kaplan
12-03-2008, 05:37
I would politely tell them to please turn off the music because they're disturbing people. I do this all the time at an outdoor cafe. It seems nobody else has the guts to do it. If they don't comply I loudly tell them that everybody knows that the louder a guy's music is the smaller his dxxk is. That always seems to work.
mabelsound
12-03-2008, 07:03
Yowza. I think Jarrett should be honored here. He's brilliant, an historic performer, and he is known for not sticking to repertoire. The kind of thing he does, he needs to concentrate to do, and if he says no cameras, then he deserves no cameras. I can't see any other way of looking at that situation--people should be honored to be able to hear him play live at all. Especially given his history of illness that has at times prevented him from playing.
In general, though, I think a good picture of an artistic performance can help you remember the emotion of the moment, and if the musicians don't mind, and you don't block other people's view of them, then it's perfectly fine to take pictures. Personally, I tend to feel as though taking photographs distracts from my enjoyment of live music, so I don't do it. But that's just me.
tom.w.bn
12-03-2008, 07:40
I am reminded of the androids in "Blade Runner", who, having been implanted with false memories to serve their 3-year lifespan, were also given a handful of snapshots that also correspond to their false memories. These snapshots served the purpose of reinforcing a sense of (in this case false) nostalgia.
I think there's an element of this with us non-androids, as well.
~Joe
How do you know that you are a non-android?
bmattock
12-03-2008, 07:41
...if he says no cameras, then he deserves no cameras.
I quite agree. His venue, his rules.
...people should be honored to be able to hear him play live at all.
Pfft. He puts his pants on one leg at a time. He should be honored if I decide to spend my money to listen to him play and then put up with his childish antics. Which, by the way, I wouldn't. I don't pay people to verbally abuse me. I prefer physical abuse, you get more for your money.
Personally, I tend to feel as though taking photographs distracts from my enjoyment of live music, so I don't do it. But that's just me.
Sometimes I go to listen, and sometimes I go to take photos.
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2051/2062947986_b97da1bfb0.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/wigwam/2062947986/)
bmattock
12-03-2008, 07:44
How do you know that you are a non-android?
Funny, I was thinking the same thing. "My name is 905, and I've just become alive..." - the Who or "We're all clones, all are one and one are all" - Alice Cooper sprang immediately to mind. These are the things that Phillip K. Dick and Harlan Ellison used to have great fun with.
Leaving Keith Jarrett, live performance, Bob Dylan, my next-door neighbour and Joe Stalin out of it for a minute, the question is an extremely pertinent one.
And, if you don't know the answer, if you don't know why you're pressing the shutter, each time you do it, then sit back and think about it for minute. It'll make your pictures better.
Cheers, Paul. (Who is going to do just that. With a glass of Drambuie.)
MCTuomey
12-26-2008, 12:37
i've recently read that Alberto Giacometti once said, "One never sees things, one always sees them through a screen."
regarding Keith Jarrett's request not to be photographed, if anyone asks not to be photographed, i don't photograph.
his question about our need for images: that's a tall order. it does seem to be insatiable. we often prefer images to real life, certainly those who exercise great influence seem to do so.
MCTuomey
12-26-2008, 12:47
Now that Mr Eastman has succeeded in putting a camera into everyones hands they have become an integral part of our culture; as has motion picture as well, which means we are at the stage that if there is no image; it didn't actually happen. This is why he took the picture. To prove the concert existed and he was there.
carlsen, i've just learned that one of the founders of Doctors Without Borders said the following, along the lines of your thought: "Without photography, masscres would not exist."
overlay the idea that today the image is nearly infinitely malleable in post-processing. the image no longer proves the event - it can prove anything. aaiiieeeeee ...
bmattock
12-26-2008, 13:11
overlay the idea that today the image is nearly infinitely malleable in post-processing. the image no longer proves the event - it can prove anything. aaiiieeeeee ...
It never did. Photographs were faked from the first days there were such things. Cut-n-paste pastiches were made of paper negatives and early prints, and double-exposure 'spirit photography' was all the rage for some time.
The hand-wringing lamenting for lost days of innocence that never existed gets old after awhile.
MCTuomey
12-26-2008, 13:41
my point is not a lamentation, though it sounds that way. sorry to add to your perception of a surfeit of hand-wringing over lost innocence.
another try: my point is we seem more and more to have an insatiable dependence on images to validate concepts, plans, actions. and the truth of an image is more malleable than ever. which is something of an inferno, in my limited way of seeing things.
perhaps this is why the author of the 2nd commandment sought to forbid the making of any image, in some interpretations. it may contribute to idolatry, or something like it.
bmattock
12-26-2008, 13:53
Fair enough. Perhaps I might just add that part of the human condition seems to be agonizing over why we are the way we are - if not hand-wringing over lost innocence, then certainly asking why it is that we 'demand images' and how awful it all is. I could show a little more patience - it appears that not only do we as a species demand images, but we demand to know why we demand images. Which I frankly do not get, but that's my problem, I suppose.
I don't think I am to add much here to the already said, but my interpretation of the musician rudeness is that the very question he publicly asked came out of his guts. Hereby the rudeness. As a musician he expresses his best feelings with music. Photograhers express ourselves with pictures. As B. Mattock said early in this thread, comunication is a human need of survival since the dyno times. All arts are a sublimation of human comunication.
Let's forgive the musician at his weak moment, thinking what would happen to each of us at the moment of extreme concentration to obtain a great image we were suddenly anoyed by something bringing us to pitfall a great moment.
Most of the chances are that most of us will not be as rude as the mentioned musician, and still I have known a certain fellow with 5 Leicas in his jacket, an extremely high class image maker, misbehaving towards people at the time of picture taking as if he was trying to play the flute while surrounded by a crowd of nervous cattle.
So we all are not saints either.
Cheers,
Ruben
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.