Robert Mapplethrope: photographer

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!

Cathy Opie: Painting Figuratively

Catherine (Cathy) Opie is a photographer whose work is internationally recognized and highly regarded by art critics, their magazines, and by her audience.  Although she has a broad spectrum of foci for each of her series, she is recognized for her focus on sexual identity (in large format) as she questions societal norms in her depictions of transexuals, transvestites, as well as tattoos and scarification, thus igniting controversy.  She aims to inform the viewer and is "interested in capturing the so called perverse".

I chose pieces mainly from two of Cathy Opie's series to present; ones that I believe offer a broad view of her subject matter, perspective, and interest.  The photographic portraits with the vibrant backdrops are from her series "Being and Having" and evoke questions that force her audience to truly look at the individual in the frame.  Her work ignites interest because it explores the issue of identity, not just sexual, in all of her subjects, from "landscapes to lesbians".  By igniting questions among her audience, due to the ambiguity of her subjects' gender and role, she "seeks to learn about herself and her society. (Knot Magazine)  

The other series I included in my presentation were pieces selected from Cathy's "In and Around Home" 1999 series.  This set of work featured the private and public world, presenting the home through the lens of a "gay artist/ mother/ activist" (Art's Journal).  Here, she uses a wide range of photographic style and subject matter, shooting landscapes, front doors, hometown windows, kitchens, and family life.

In general, Cathy Opie's work has been cited in an interview with the artist to be "a reaction to the HRC [Human Rights Campaign] led 1994 March on Washington, to the homogenization of gay culture that she felt was then underway, and to the HRC's promotion of gays as just-like-you suburbanites"(Art's Journal).

Here are some questions for reflection:

What do you see in Cathy's "Being and Having" series? Are the figures masculine or feminine? Why, what convinces you? And are her pictures beautiful?

Would you say that this series and its subject matter inform the viewer? How and what do they say?

How would you describe Cathy's "In and Around Home"? Do you consider Cathy's wide range of subject matter to have one specific style? Does she incorporate one major theme throughout her series? Throughout her work in general?

How are the two famous series' interrelated, if they are? 

Little Muffins in the Big City

Greetings from Philadelphia everyone! So today was our first full day here and we went to City Hall and the museum to see the Frida Kahlo exhibit and other awesome collections. We've also had a lot of opportunities to walk around the city and check out all the different sights. One of the things that I've found most interesting is all the art that is in this city. also, we weren't allowed to take pictures in the gallery so here's what you wouldve seen...




Today we got to see the big clothespin by Claes Oldenberg and the LOVE sculpture by Robert Indiana. Also, Philly has the largest urban mural program in the country...we also discussed the murals that Diego Rivera (Frida's husband) created, including the very controversial mural that was destroyed in the Rockefeller building.

So this got me thinking...If you all had the opportunity to create a mural on any building on Denison's campus, which building would you choose and what images would you paint...and why? Consider the contributions of the community and that impact that it'll make.

Here are some photographs to inspire you...

Kehinde Wiley

Kehinde Wiley was born in LA in 1977 and has since moved to New York to work. He got his BFA from the San Francisco Art Institute and his MFA from Yale. His paintings have been sold from anywhere between $12,000 – 40,000 and has hundreds of people waiting in line to buy new paintings of his, clearly showing how popular his work is.

His paintings have been dubbed a combination of “European portraiture meets hip-hop culture.” He finds young, black males in urban environments (usually Harlem) and has them pose in positions of their choosing from a number of famous Western paintings. These paintings come from portraits done between the 16th – 19th centuries, painted by the likes of Titian, Ingres, Reynolds, Tiepolo and others.

He paints the men in the same poses as the people in the classical pieces, but wearing the same outfits he finds them in; often times wearing baseball hats, athletic jerseys, and oversized jeans. His paintings are done in hyper-realism, with thick paint and lush lighting, and the works include styles from the Renaissance painters, French rococo painters, as well as urban graffiti artists. He also creates unique, psychedelic, and ornate backgrounds for all of his pieces.

Seeing as how the historical paintings on which he bases his paintings were all done of rich aristocrats or glorified generals or the like, the Africa-American men in his paintings are usually seen as powerful, heroic, grand, wealthy, and inspiring. These qualities also come about because of the sheer size of the paintings, some over 9 feet tall.

Some questions come to my mind when looking at his work that I will pose to all of you. These include, but aren’t limited to:

How do you feel about the backgrounds of each piece? What do they add to the paintings, if anything? Do the natural themes of the men collide in a good way or bad way with the artificial shapes in the background?

Do you think the statement “European portraiture meets hip-hop culture” is accurate when describing his work?

What do you think Wiley is trying to say about class, wealth, oppression, power and race in his work? Could he be saying these men will never actually achieve this power in society, and thus the dream can only be captured in a painting, or could he possibly be trying to get these men to strive to reach this goal?

Would you consider his detailed portraits of Africa-Americans in positions of power (which may also invoke a sense of envy) to be unique and original? If so, is this why they are so popular? Is it possible that even he not know what these pieces are trying to say, but may just have created them to put a contemporary viewpoint on famous historical paintings?

Aside from the different themes and subjects, do you think his style of painting and painting technique mimics those of the great portrait painters of the 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries? If not, how are they different?

Feel free to answer any or all of these.

Painting Figuratively with Yuskavage

Yuskavage was born in Philadelphia in 1962. She received her MFA from Yale University, and is currently living and working in New York City. She made her name in the 1990’s, and now she is a very big name in the art world. Her exhibition in a New York gallery last year sold out before the opening, and one painting sold for over $1 million.

Lisa Yuskavage’s work is described as exploring “confrontational sexuality” of female nudes. She has been likened to painters in art history such as Tintoretto, Michelangelo, Goya, and Rothko in terms of process and appeal, but her work is also described as kitsch (Playboy models and pornography). I find her work quite interesting in questioning the position of the female nude, overt sexuality in art, and what her appeal is to so many people.

With process, Yuskavage makes models of her figures before painting them, to study poses and light. A lot of her work can be connected to poses and methods of painting the female nude in art history, such as “Balls” and “Dutch Girl.” “Dutch Girl” makes me think of the females portrayed by Dutch painters such as Vermeer.

Much of Yuskavage’s work is about the response from the viewer. “When Lisa looks at the female nude, in her whole body of work, she is pushing notions of viewership, voyeurism, and our responses to very confrontational psychologically charged images and erotic images.” What is the line between good art and pure pornography? Is the intent to arouse the viewer? Or is Yuskavage pointing to something deeper? Her work has been described as feminist, with a critic saying “You can’t paint the female nude and use it in an explicit and confrontational way and not have it seen as feminist.”

I find the “Ledge” paintings interesting. They are said explore symbiotic psychological relationships. Indeed, the paintings with two female figures in them make me think of the women’s relationships to one another. At first glance, it seems sexual, but perhaps it is about the struggles a woman faces between her sexuality and her femininity.

In all, Yuskavage’s work brings up interesting questions: Most importantly, can a work be feminist and sexist at the same time? Are Yuskavage’s works really the ideal of Baroque and Renaissance painters like her critics say, or is she just the "flavor of the week" because her work shocks the viewer? What is the line between art containing openly sexual content and pornography which is meant to arouse?

Kerry James Marshall

Kerry James Marshall discusses racial issues through his art. As we discussed earlier in the semester, does it make a difference who makes the art? Marshall claims that he had a "social obligation" to create the works that he did because of where he grew up, etc. How would his art be different if it were made by, for instance, a white man. Would it change the meaning or power of his artwork at all? Are artsists really obligated to discuss pressing issues that they see around them? Also, stylistically, his works are generally very bright and busy- how does this add to the meaning of his work?