Learning From The Masters. "Satiric Dancer" byAndre Kertesz

It's the closest I have ever seen a photograph come to cubist art, without being a total abstraction. Clearly inspired by Picasso and Braque.

/T
 
I feel the costume and the hairstyle are crucial in pinning the image to that experimental modernist period. It doesn't work with a model who belongs to another period because the references are missing.
 
Its a nice foto but I do not drool over it. Interesting is the year it was made, something along the 1920s I believe. Remember too that K was a skin magazine shooter for a while (mirror distortions). I do not see any Freudian innuendo or connection.
 
M. Valdemar said:
* But I still think the photo gets Ruben hot.
Click to expand...

She does it for me too. Much more so than that girl in the Tupperware tracksuit up there ^^^.

I think it's a pretty interesting photograph too, maybe because of its' age more than anything. The same photograph taken now wouldn't have the same effect.

I find this with alot of photography from the last century, that the interval between the time the photographs were taken and now adds a certain appeal.
 
M. Valdemar said:
But I still think the photo gets Ruben hot.

.
Click to expand...


"Perhaps Kertész's single best-known photograph is Satiric Dancer (1926). " - from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
ruben said:
"Perhaps Kertész's single best-known photograph is Satiric Dancer (1926). " - from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...

Funny. I had never seen it before. It is certainly memorable. Based on the comments, I would say it is an attempt to satirize cubist art of the day. And a successful one. It is humorous, while also tweaking aesthetic sensibilities. And like cubist art, has sexual implications.

/T
 
I think the photo at flikr serves as good grounds to better realize Kertesz' one.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daveglass/125824793/

At the flickr one the center of gravity is on the model's look into the camera, or the viewer, while the one of Kertesz is rather of movement, spin movement if you want, where the model is looking away and thus her arms and legs possition are of more weight. This weight in Kertesz photo is not about sex (while in the flickr one the sexy element is very prominent) but about Photography.

Kertesz photo is rather about breaking the boundaries of photography, or playing with its limits, while the flickr one is absolujtely within the rules.

Cheers,
Ruben
 
Betty Boop was Max Fleischer's best known character and she got generations of viewers hot and bothered.

Kertesz's photo was a commentary on contemporary art done with humor, with an image of a zaftig squirming hot tomato.

That "fliickr" photo is nothing but dreck, a hack photo by a no-talent who has no comprehension of what effect Kertesz was aiming for.


ruben said:
"Perhaps Kertész's single best-known photograph is Satiric Dancer (1926). " - from Encyclopaedia Britannica Online.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...
 
I don't think Kertesz was breaking any rules of photography at all. He was incorporating Cubist/Dadaist elements into a "live action" photo. It was SATIRE of ground breaking imagery, not groundbreaking itself, albeit with a good sense of the visual.




ruben said:
Kertesz photo is rather about breaking the boundaries of photography, or playing with its limits, while the flickr one is absolujtely within the rules.

Cheers,
Ruben
Click to expand...
 
I am bringing back this thread, after a month naphtaline aging, not because I have much new to say, but due to a certain picture I saw this week, absolutely different in form from Kertesz Satiric Dancer, and yet with some common elements.

Among the many contributions posted in this thread, I would like to mention two of them, as they are related to what I am going to say.

Post #19 by Valdemar, providing a great background and analysing the picture accordingly. And post #8 by RayPa, somewhat re-directing me to my emotions and my senses, instead of looking for an analysis.

Well I think both posts are right, each one in its cathegory. Unfortunately I have absolutely no background to follow Valdemar's post. But I can speak today with more clarity about what this image means for ME.

Of course, no one is to see my perception as a thesis about THE perception of this astonishing image.

First of all this whole picture is a kind of absolute creation of the photographer. Play with the cursor/magnifier provided in the link of my o.p. and you will find nothing could be taken out.

I think I have been mistaken by saying earlier Kertesz is breaking the boundaries of photography. On the contrary, he is using photography to make a humorous commentary about conventional human vision.

For my other technical opinions about this pic, you can go to my post #13.

Now, what feelings, associations, emotions this picture brings me ?
It very much about the joy of life, bohemian life, careless life, humour - this is brought mainly by the model's pose.

And all these within a turmoil of visually harmonizing contradictions already described at my post #13.

Cheers,
Ruben

PS
Kindly notice that Kertesz' camera is directly pointed from above towards the meeting point of the two walls, AND the floor.
 
Valedmar, if you're referring to the links I posted, they are not by one person and they reflect a playful approach which I think Kertesz would have enjoyed...His work was very playful.

I think this one, by a wonderful photographer named Rebecca Key, is homage in the very best sense of the word---taking inspiration from something and giving it your own voice. This is an excellent way to approach art history and it's what all the greats did, borrowed and stole shamelessly from the very best that proceeded them.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/rebeccakey/264805583/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom