Jump to content

Mapplethorpe LACMA and/or GETTY


Rod Hagen
This topic is 2956 days old and is no longer open for new replies.  Replies are automatically disabled after two years of inactivity.  Please create a new topic instead of posting here.  

Recommended Posts

Seen either exhibit yet? I'll visit at least one and would like to hear about both. THANKS!

 

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-knight-mapplethorpe-review-20160322-column.html

 

 

I saw it at the Getty a few weeks ago. I hadn't seen his work in so long and it really took me back to the 80's. I had forgotten about the craziness around his work that had happened. What was very interesting to me was the number of kids viewing his work. There was a high school there when we were there and they were viewing the works. There were also a lot of families with their children. It is amazing how time gives a lot of perspective on Art. The downside to the Getty exhibit for me was it was fairly small. I expected a larger show. Overall I was really glad I got to see it and I really enjoyed it I would have just liked to have seen more of his work exhibited.

 

 

There was also an exhibition of Daguerreotypes that was fantastic really well done with some amazing gems. I think that show has left now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

100+ photographs doesn't sound small to me. No?

 

I think they are counting the books on display as part of the 100+ photographs. They had 3 areas with the books on display that you could leaf through and look at. The exhibit was only in two sections of the photography floor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I taught art history and photography for years but never cared much for Robert Mapplethorpe. The fact that he never printed his own photographs was always mind boggling to me. So much of the art of photography is accomplished in the printing process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

go and see both; we saw the Getty's exhibit first; I thought LACMA's exhibit was stronger on interpretation; good window on the times!

+1 ! Also, I'd like to add that many of the patrons make for good eye candy, if you excuse some of the clueless tourists who have no idea what they walked into...

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-naPeR0t0jzo/TaLN8LWswYI/AAAAAAAAATE/6bJna8DwelA/s1600/duane_hanson_tourists_2.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe Andy Warhol did paint his individual “one of a kind” paintings. However, like most artist he certainly did not pull his own etchings, serigraphs, or lithographs. The artist usually prepares the etching plate, the serigraph screens or the lithograph stone and then a printer pulls the individual prints. In preparing an art photograph a considerable amount of burning and dodging is essential to each print produced and thus each one is unique. At least 50% of what one sees in an art photograph is produced during the printing process in the lab/darkroom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I taught art history and photography for years but never cared much for Robert Mapplethorpe. The fact that he never printed his own photographs was always mind boggling to me. So much of the art of photography is accomplished in the printing process.

 

...You may be the intellectual victim of an inherent bias toward photography which presumes that the camera alone cannot produce art and that ascribes no aesthetic credit in itself to the process of seeing or staging things in a particular way. Hence, for photography to be a real art it has to undergo a second stage of mediation, the printing process, where the real art is made.

 

Here's the irony. There have always been idea men in art history, that is artists who weren't necessarily the makers of their own art. That's why with some artists of the Renaissance/Baroque periods there are intractable issues with authentication and attribution.

 

It's interesting as well to note how contemporary art has almost completely done away with the fetish for the artist as the single maker of his own work. Take Jeff Koons, for example. He's is the consummate idea man. One would be remiss to dismiss the significance of his work just because he doesn't make almost any of it.

 

But, back to Mapplethorpe, as I see it, it is significant for five reasons: (1) It did help to legitimize photography as a collectible, aesthetic object; (2) it is inextricably associated with the Culture Wars of the late 80's and a period of fear and death for gay men. It may not tell the story, but it is part of that story; (3) in its own time, it was ironically quite a conservative response to the media culture that was being repurposed in the work of many artists. See the Picture Generation artists; (4) Consequently, it was quite original in its own time when compared to the work of contemporaries like Cindy Sherman and Robert Longo; and (5), it (the images themselves) are worth a look. For example, they pose the question(s) of what is perfection, what is beauty, and what is erotic in art? For the most part, my opinion is that Mapplethorpe did not make erotic photographs, not even the ones in his X-portfolio.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I agree 100% with your assessment of Mapplethorpe's significance which has been huge. After watching the documentary, however, I admired him less than I always had because of how mean and cold he could be to others. Turning on his much younger brother and making him change his last name for an exhibit where they both had pieces displayed in order to not take away anything from the grand Robert was inexcusable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The documentary on Mapplethorpe now in queue on HBO is an intriguing and informative piece of film making. I did find the material compelling but ultimately the story and the man were quite sad. It seems he had a great eye for composition and little desire to do anything beyond finding the perfection angle and the perfect lighting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh there's no denying that there is a real art to printing and maybe even to developing if you push the negative in an unexpected way. Croping, dodging, cutting can make for an entirely different photo. It's just tedious, but sometimes important things are. However many photographers consistently get everything he wants, and nothing he doesn't, into the shot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...