Robert Mapplethorpe was a famous American photographer born in 1946. He was the third of six children and led a normal childhood growing up in Long Island, NY. In 1989 Robert died of complications resulting from HIV infection. Mapplethorpe began his artistic career in graphic design and painting, obtaining his B.F.A. from the Pratt Institute in Brooklyn. Most of his work involved images from magazines and other photographic media. It was not until after graduating that Mapplethorpe began taking his own photographs with a Polaroid camera, usually combining them with his paintings. In the mid 1970’s the artist began working solely in photography. His initial work included self-portraits and photos of his friends that were shot with his large format press camera. Most of his friends were other artists, composers, socialists, and most memorable, porn stars. Many viewers described much of his work as “shocking,” however Mapplethorpe once commented, “ I don’t like the particular word ‘shocking.’ I’m looking for the unexpected. I’m looking for things I’ve never seen before…I was in the position to take those pictures. I felt an obligation to them.” (Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation 2007). Although the subject matter was very controversial, his work was still credited for its technical mastery. In the 1980’s much of his photographic focus was aimed at classical formal beauty. These included beautifully precise still-lifes of flowers, statuesque male and female nudes, and portraits of celebrities and artists. Perfection and balance describe the photographic style of Robert Mapplethorpe’s impressive collection, however much of his content is disputed, even after his death.
Controversy:
Robert Mapplethorpe: The Perfect Moment was an exhibit displayed in a number of cities nationwide in the late 1980’s early 90’s. Even though many of his photographs contained explicit content, it was not until it reached Cincinnati in 1990 that a dispute flared up. The display of seven portraits containing sadomasochistic acts was the cause of indictment of the art center director Dennis Barrie and the Contemporary Arts Center. After a heated and highly publicizes trial, the indicted were acquitted. As a result of the controversy, public art funding has been a point of contention and many politicians debate the need for government sponsorship. Since 1996 the NEA budget has drastically dropped, and the controversy started by Mapplethorpe’s photographs are very possibly responsible.
Some of Mapplethorpe’s photos are of sadomasochistic and sexually explicit images. Given the amount of controversy that arose from Mapplethorpe’s exhibit, where do you believe the line should be draw? Should this form of artist expression and content be permitted to be on display? Where lies the difference between pornography and art?
I also found the differences/similarities between the work of Robert Mapplethorpe and Jenny Saville very interesting. While Jenny captures beauty in painting humans who general society would not dub as ‘beautiful’, Mapplethorpe chose to photograph statuesque human bodies. If you’d care to, compare and contrast!
7 comments:
It really upsets me that the government limits funding towards the arts. I understand that the federal government feels that it must uphold certain standards/societal norms/moral codes, but I think it will only hold back our society from plurality and accepting differing opinions.
Concerning Mapplethrope, where are the risky pictures? I mean, the one of his backside is scandalous, but the others are beautiful, artful photos. Like Yuskavage, I feel like the intent behind the work is very important. Mapplethrope wanted to show the unusual, the different. What is so wrong with those intentions?
It really upsets me that the government limits funding towards the arts. I understand that the federal government feels that it must uphold certain standards/societal norms/moral codes, but I think it will only hold back our society from plurality and accepting differing opinions.
Concerning Mapplethrope, where are the risky pictures? I mean, the one of his backside is scandalous, but the others are beautiful, artful photos. Like Yuskavage, I feel like the intent behind the work is very important. Mapplethrope wanted to show the unusual, the different. What is so wrong with those intentions?
I think the question of where the line should be drawn between pornography and art is a
really complex and tricky one. I believe the issue of censorship was brought up in class
and i always question who is in the power position to decide what to censor -- what
ideology does the content censored reflect, why is something being censored -- does it
challenge the power structures in place? I think the issue is so complex due to the
subjectivity of art -- an image to one person does not hold the same meaning as it does
to another and an image is never neutral and doesnt just have one layer of meaning which
i think complicates where to draw the line. I don't really have any answers to where the
line should be drawn but i do think it is important to discuss and question the
implications of censorship and the implications of not censoring certain images/artwork.
Also the question of comparison btw. Janny Saville and Mapplethorpe is extremely
interesting. Saville does depict violence and trauma against women but i wonder if these
images are less or more offensive, realistic or provocative because they are paintings
and not photographs like Mapplethorpe's images -- are his more or less
offensive/real/provocative because of the medium?
I don't believe anything should be censored. Censorship is not an option in a democracy, especially one like ours that is founded on the principles that people have inalienable rights, including freedom of speech. The government has too much power if they are able to censor things.
As for the difference between art and pornography, which by definition has no artistic merit and is obscene, I believe the difference can only be determined based on how different people view each. Personally I see his work both pornographic and artistic. I feel it is somewhat pornographic because by my definition of obscene, some of his work is obscene. So I guess it just depends on how each person views these two words.
I would have to disagree with the idea that nothing should be censored. I guess I'm playing devil's advocate, but just as we have a right to express ourselves, I think that we also have a right to live peacefully and to not feel violated. If someone's expression offends the majority of people, and interferes with their life, is it still acceptable? I think that the art world is different, as mentionned in some of the other blogs. I believe fully that in the art world, censorship is inhibiting and should be avoided, but I personally think that it's too general to say that all censorship is wrong.
Rachel brings up an interesting point that perhaps the medium matters when determining how offensive or provocative a work of art is. My initial reaction would be that obviously a photograph would be more provocative than, say a painting. However, I'm wondering why that is- what is the difference between a very realistic, detailed painting and a photograph? I don't really have an answer but it's a very interesting question to consider.
Mariel brings up an interesting point about the difference between painting and photography. The difference between a really detailed painting and a photograph? I think that no matter how detailed the painting is, how unbelievably close to "real life" it is, it is still a painting. It is still something that was made by an individual, that time was put into making that image, and we as the viewer don't know 100 percent if it's an actual representation. Photographs are, more or less, a representation of a subject in history, something that was actually there. Thus, I think that photographs of violent situations can be more provocative at times.
I would have to disagree with Mariel, and think that there shouldn't be censors in art. But, I also don't fully agree with Ben. Rachel had a good point that there is a blurry line between pornography and art and to further that, I think that in some cases pornography can be art. So with that said, I think that there is a time and a place for everything and Mapplethorpe's work should have been displayed, with out question...but perhaps a sign should have placed outside of the exhibit stating that there was explicit content.
Post a Comment