Comments on: photo studies in shock value

photo studies in shock value

crunchland — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 17:58:27 -0800

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.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:12:59 -0800

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.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:23:37 -0800

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

By: crunchland

crunchland — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:24:47 -0800

What a difference 20 years make, Amberglow. I blame cable tv.

By: RJ Reynolds

RJ Reynolds — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:28:53 -0800

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!

By: strike3

strike3 — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:29:19 -0800

Man, I was comfortable. Now I'm all afflicted.

By: dazed_one

dazed_one — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:29:54 -0800

Wow. Some really great stuff there. Thanks for the link.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:35:25 -0800

OT, but... the photos were a cause célèbre; Mapplethorpe was an enfant terrible (no accent). Now back to the transgressive art!

By: oog

oog — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:38:44 -0800

bob-maplethorpe-potential-getaway-driver-GO!

By: jodic

jodic — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:51:07 -0800

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.

By: kozad

kozad — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:51:44 -0800

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.

By: dolface

dolface — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 18:57:32 -0800

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?

By: Stan Chin

Stan Chin — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 19:01:15 -0800

I've always wondered the origin of the banana penis, now I know.

By: jazzkat11

jazzkat11 — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 19:26:44 -0800

where is the jesse helms when you need him?

By: crunchland

crunchland — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 19:41:41 -0800

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.

By: Civil_Disobedient

Civil_Disobedient — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:04:36 -0800

it's so hard to shock nowadays (or i'm really jaded!)
Are you kidding me? Have you seen this one yet?

By: Hankins

Hankins — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 20:42:44 -0800

Thank you, oog. I thought that as well.

By: Xkot

Xkot — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:02:49 -0800

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.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:28:47 -0800

Are you kidding me? Have you seen this one yet? Nice pants.

By: Armitage Shanks

Armitage Shanks — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:33:10 -0800

Art. Not Art.

By: marvin

marvin — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:33:22 -0800

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.

By: delmoi

delmoi — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:36:32 -0800

yup, I'm definetly jaded. The little girl pic basicaly made me go 'heh', and that was about it. The others. eh.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Wed, 04 Dec 2002 21:56:29 -0800

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Thu, 05 Dec 2002 04:51:01 -0800

Sorry. On reflection, that last comment is pretty dismissive. I shouldn't have posted it.

By: zztzed

zztzed — Thu, 05 Dec 2002 07:21:22 -0800

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.

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 06 Dec 2002 02:52:04 -0800

where is the jesse helms when you need him? at the strom thurmond birthday party? also, what marvin said

By: dash_slot-

dash_slot- — Fri, 06 Dec 2002 04:28:45 -0800

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?

By: crunchland

crunchland — Fri, 06 Dec 2002 05:28:24 -0800

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?

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 06 Dec 2002 10:01:28 -0800

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

By: kozad

kozad — Fri, 06 Dec 2002 19:30:22 -0800

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.