photo studies in shock value

December 4, 2002 5:58 PM

Taking a lesson from Robert Mapplethorpe -- Some of Robert Gligorov's subjects might be a little difficult to look at, even though the quality is so easy on the eyes. (A few are NSFW.) I think this one is my favorite.
posted by crunchland (29 comments total)

A little art history for those too young to remember, Robert Mapplethorpe was a photographer who became notorious when a show of his work at the Cincinatti Art Museum, which included many nsfw images in the early 80's. The photos shocked many, and was used as one of the cause terriblé when it came to government funding for the arts.
posted by crunchland at 6:12 PM on December 4, 2002

it's so hard to shock nowadays (or i'm really jaded!)
posted by amberglow at 6:23 PM on December 4, 2002

What a difference 20 years make, Amberglow. I blame cable tv.
posted by crunchland at 6:24 PM on December 4, 2002

For those in Miami this weekend, you can see Gligorov's work at the Aeroplastics booth in the Basel Miami art fair. It's good stuff!
posted by RJ Reynolds at 6:28 PM on December 4, 2002

Man, I was comfortable. Now I'm all afflicted.
posted by strike3 at 6:29 PM on December 4, 2002

Wow. Some really great stuff there. Thanks for the link.
posted by dazed_one at 6:29 PM on December 4, 2002

OT, but... the photos were a cause célèbre; Mapplethorpe was an enfant terrible (no accent). Now back to the transgressive art!
posted by languagehat at 6:35 PM on December 4, 2002

bob-maplethorpe-potential-getaway-driver-GO!
posted by oog at 6:38 PM on December 4, 2002

I must not be jaded enough, because the photo of the little girl with breasts, pubic hair, and tanlines shocked the hell right out of me.
posted by jodic at 6:51 PM on December 4, 2002

I like the fish bird thing. But the hanging guy with TV? Most of these are so one-dimensional as to make me even sadder with every passing minute about the current state of art. Radical, fine...but give me layers of beauty and irony, not some permutation of advertising art.
posted by kozad at 6:51 PM on December 4, 2002

that's a really nice link crunchland, thank you.
i'm old enough to remember mapplethorpe -- at least a little bit -- and i remember being puzzled by the controversy that surrounded the cincinnati exhibit.
my parents told me that it was people who were frightened of difference that were making all the fuss, and i left it at that.
it wasn't until i got to high school -- and later, college -- that i really began to understand what a bombshell his photographs were.
it's nice to see someone continuing to work in the same vein.
on preview: kozad, don't you think the advertising-esque aspect of it is intentional and/or adds to it?
posted by dolface at 6:57 PM on December 4, 2002

I've always wondered the origin of the banana penis, now I know.
posted by Stan Chin at 7:01 PM on December 4, 2002

where is the jesse helms when you need him?
posted by jazzkat11 at 7:26 PM on December 4, 2002

but give me layers of beauty and irony, not some permutation of advertising art

Well, I think that's a bit overly critical. I can't be completely sure, but I am thinking that some of those images were taken primarily as editorial art for some magazine somewhere. (The one with Sting is a clue.) So, maybe as works of fine art, they might be a little shallow and deritivative, but still somewhat thought provoking, in my opinion.
posted by crunchland at 7:41 PM on December 4, 2002

it's so hard to shock nowadays (or i'm really jaded!)

Are you kidding me? Have you seen this one yet?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:04 PM on December 4, 2002

Thank you, oog. I thought that as well.
posted by Hankins at 8:42 PM on December 4, 2002

I think I saw better versions of most of those in my 10th grade photography class. Oooh... penises and death. I'm all shocked and stuff.
posted by Xkot at 9:02 PM on December 4, 2002

Are you kidding me? Have you seen this one yet?

Nice pants.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:28 PM on December 4, 2002

Art.
Not Art.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:33 PM on December 4, 2002

I think you're doing Mapplethorpe a disservice. I don't think he resorted to ham-fisted shock and image manipulation.

'B-list' album cover ideas more like.
posted by marvin at 9:33 PM on December 4, 2002

yup, I'm definetly jaded. The little girl pic basicaly made me go 'heh', and that was about it. The others. eh.
posted by delmoi at 9:36 PM on December 4, 2002

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.
posted by crunchland at 9:56 PM on December 4, 2002

Sorry. On reflection, that last comment is pretty dismissive. I shouldn't have posted it.
posted by crunchland at 4:51 AM on December 5, 2002

I thought the little girl pic was pretty disturbing. The only way it could've been worse is if she'd had Richard D. James' face.
posted by zztzed at 7:21 AM on December 5, 2002

where is the jesse helms when you need him?

at the strom thurmond birthday party?

also, what marvin said
posted by matteo at 2:52 AM on December 6, 2002

I thought the naked girl pic was a cut-and-paste job: a prepubescent face on a postpubescent body, or a variety of sources making a composite photo.

Or would he just not do that?
posted by dash_slot- at 4:28 AM on December 6, 2002

Not to over-analyze it too much, but the length of the arms is wrong for a full grown person. But you're right, it is a cut-and-paste job.

And I have to tell some of the rest of you, your ambivalence is just so cool. You have it down really well. But, while I'm thinking about it, when was the last time you fuckwits created something other than a pile in the toilet?
posted by crunchland at 5:28 AM on December 6, 2002

I dunno, crunchland,

if you want everybody to go gaga about your favorite photographer/writer/whatever the fuck, tell us in advance.

then we'll just tell you how much we love him/her/it, and make you a happy boy, finally
posted by matteo at 10:01 AM on December 6, 2002

crunchland...everybody has different tastes. This guy's stuff is interesting in its own way, but you are posting to an audience with a wide diversity of taste scales.

Those of us who dissed your guy's art, for the most part, are comparing it to High Art.

Now, I am a populist at heart, but, when it comes to art, I am firm in my belief that art should be grand and subtle, not simplistic and propagandistic.
posted by kozad at 7:30 PM on December 6, 2002