I realized that one of the differences between news photography and dance photography was that the former has to tell a specific story, whereas all a dance photograph had to be was visually interesting.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Being called a dance photographer makes me bristle. You might say that dance is my landscape. The root of my interest is movement or, rather, how movement can be interpreted photographically, and dance provides a perfect opportunity for this.
Over the years, I have perfected the art of dancing and photographing at the same time: it's a great double act. If you're dancing, you are joining in. If you stand there rigid, you are not in the flow of things.
I wanted to do dance with the same seriousness as art was done and acknowledged, not with the entertainment factor that is always connected to theater and film.
I wanted to do new things with dance, adapt it to the motion picture medium.
Dance is one of the most revealing art forms.
I could never figure out why photography and art had separate histories. So I decided to explore both.
Photography is more than a medium for factual communication of ideas. It is a creative art.
Photography can be a powerful instrument for change, and photojournalists can tell stories that make a difference.
I've always thought photography is not so much of an art form but a way of communicating and passing on information.
You open a section of 'The New York Times,' and there's a review or a story on a choreographer or a dancer, and there's an informative, clear image of a dancer. This is, in my view, not an interesting photograph.