Mapplethorpe C/D

i appreciate mapplethorpe in a way. at times his work seems like the result of a conscious aim at being "iconic," which bored me. are mapplethorpe's photos considered important because they are/were shocking? are they shocking because they are frank in their eroticism? perhaps i was born too late to appreciate him fully?

i'm thinking about him because im reading patti's book just kids which is about her relationship with him. after reading the 1st half i started to wonder if i would have appreciated his drawings more than his photos

bored = bores

patti also says that he never read anything, which is :/

I once read that this guy used only natural light bcz he was intimidated by pro lighting setups. This made me feel like I had a chance in the world.

i didnt know that but i believe it! just watched an interview with him in which he says he took a lot of pictures of objects when he was learning about light, because he didnt want to put a human being through any trouble or annoyance

How is this guy's name pronounced? Like Apple-thorpe, or like Maple-thorpe?

i've always said "maple-thorpe," but i'm not certain that's correct

the triangle of light behind patti

I'm not very familiar with Mapplethorpe's work, but I do know that eroticism is never enough to be either iconic or shocking. I expect he had more going for him than just shock value or eroticism, but if my suspicion is wrong, then no doubt he'll fade out and be forgotten pretty soon. There has to be an exposed heart somewhere in any great art.

I still feel like people are secretly lolling at me when I pronounce this guy's name.

I'm reading "Just Kids" right now. Few books have ever made me feel like I know their subjects like this one does, Patti and Robert both. The writing is surprisingly good -- poetic without being indulgent, descriptive without ever getting fuzzy. Read it.

I'm not very familiar with Mapplethorpe's work, but I do know that eroticism is never enough to be either iconic or shocking. I expect he had more going for him than just shock value or eroticism, but if my suspicion is wrong, then no doubt he'll fade out and be forgotten pretty soon.

You are not very familiar with Mapplethorpe's work.

Some of his photographs are of big cocks and gaping assholes and semen and blood, but it almost doesn't matter, because everything he photographed, he cast into marble. Ebert likes to say this about movies, but it may be doubly true for photographs: it's never about what it's about, it's about how it's about it.

If you take issue with his almost overly starched sense of composition, that's an argument I'll hear.

just kids - was amazed @ how good it is.

You are not very familiar with Mapplethorpe's work.

So, you're saying his work is all about eroticism and shock value?

Sorry. One man's eroticism is another man's wtf eye roll. The same goes for shock value. Shock just doesn't speak much across cultures. What shocks a Sri Lankan and what shocks an Inuit just aren't going to be the same as what shocks a Southern Baptist. It's just turtles all the way down.

So, I still contend that shock value and eroticism aren't enough to make great art. I don't need to know Mapplethorpe's art very well to know that much. Saying a big cock is cast into marble doesn't really say much other than it's a big cock.

So, you're saying his work is all about eroticism and shock value?

I'm saying it's hardly ever about that, and so what if it is.

just kids - was amazed @ how good it is.

I think so were the people who gave it the National Book Award.

I think he was saying it's *not* all about shock value. It's not about exposing a raw, shameful thing to shock and horror, it's about exalting the subject matter.

xp

xp i wonder if they were shocked! i read it as a kind of non-fan of patti - nothing against her, just never paid a ton of attention to her work. NOW i pay more attention.

There has to be an exposed heart somewhere in any great art.

I'd modify that to say "an exposed self," and not to get too existential or anything, but isn't that unavoidable? Every creation contains its creator. That's why it's creation.

so what if it is

So, if it is "all about eroticism and shock value", then it may speak to its own limited audience, which is fine as far as it goes, but it's not going to last. If it is about more than that, then it has a shot of speaking to more people in more contexts.

You seem to think I am critiquing Mapplethorpe, by critiquing art that stops at eroticism and shock value and goes no further, when all I am critiquing is such shock/erotic art, wherever it exists. As I said, I understand Mapplethorpe may be more than that. What you've said, however, has not been especially illuminating on the subject of how his art addresses other, deeper realities than arbitrary tittilation or disgust.

Again, what you've said does not change the value of M's art, but may only reflect your inability to qualify it in words I can understand.

I am experiencing an inability to understand why you think that all he ever took pictures of were supposedly shocking things, or why you're banging on about it after admitting that you're not very familiar with his work.

An exploration of art that is intended mainly to shock, in a general way, should be its own thread. It's not really what he was about.

Every creation contains its creator

If that were true, then my scrambled eggs would speak volumes to all who beheld them. But I rather doubt anyone could decipher me from the experience of looking at them, however psychic they might be.

xp otm - he has a flowers series, for example. people really focus on the "shocking" stuff, in his legend it's eclipsed everything else

i grew to love his photography last fall, fwiw, after delving in even slightly deeper than the surface !!DICKS AND BUTTS!!! thing which is yeah, totally reductive. love his portraits, especially selfs.

http://grab.by/8wfD

i am shocked and appalled frankly, shut down the nea!

http://www.duskin-ny.com/wp-content/uploads/image-import/_x0_O69sf5UA/SV5sJ2qLTVI/AAAAAAAAAow/owsqAc6rf2s/s1600-h/mapplethorpe%2Bpolaroid.jpg

THEY CALL THIS SMUT ART NOWADAYS?!?!?!

that cover of horses and the story of it in just kids

too much

http://grab.by/8wfP

hardcore gay porn

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2292/2418446682_f35c71a807.jpg

DICKS * BUTTS * PORNO * SMUT * HARDCORE

xp

I am experiencing an inability to understand why you think that all he ever took pictures of were supposedly shocking things, or why you're banging on about it

Maybe it is because the context of my initial answer was a response to the OP, which explicitly asked:

are mapplethorpe's photos considered important because they are/were shocking? are they shocking because they are frank in their eroticism?

I was commenting on these questions. One comment you quoted was:

I expect he had more going for him than just shock value or eroticism

To which you simply responded:

You are not very familiar with Mapplethorpe's work.

This seems pretty obviously to lead to the thought that perhaps you see his work solely in light of its shock value and eroticism. That wasn't helped by the further comment: "so what if it is".

Maybe this will help you to see why I am banging on. Eh. Maybe not. This sort of rehash of the source of misunderstandings rarely solves the original misunderstanding ime.

Edit: Thanks for posting those images. They say a lot.

I expect he had more going for him than just shock value or eroticism

I assumed Kenan skipped this sentence, tbh

i would like to watch all of "still moving"

Aimless: I apologize. I didn't understand that you were responding to things before the break in the thread. It makes a lot more sense now.

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/mapplethorpe/mapplethorpe_self-portrait.jpg

Love that self-portrait. And before you make fun of the hairdo, remember that it was 1980. :)

I once read that this guy used only natural light bcz he was intimidated by pro lighting setups. This made me feel like I had a chance in the world.

I'm intimidated by pro lighting setups myself, not because I fear that I could never master the technical hows and whys of all that business, but because I don't much care to unless I have a special reason. Natural light is unbeatable. On a cloudy day, it's diffuse and perfect for detail. In full sun, it's sharp and dramatic, or effusive. All pro lighting is an attempt to replicate natural light in one way or another, the same way that all cooked food is an attempt to bring the food as close as possible to the condition of ripe fruit.

Aimless trolling the fuck out of this thread. Why would you make a case for/against an artist without being familiar with his work???

aimless trolling this thread was p hilair good work

if that was trolling it was the most reasonable, uncontroversial trolling i've ever seen in my life

Saw Mapplethorpe: Look at the Pictures this afternoon, which I assume will play HBO at some point. Didn't make the historical connection of the subtitle.

I don't know if there are photos in this that weren't in the Sam Wagstaff documentary a few years ago--can't remember--but the film doesn't appear to dodge anything. Was I uncomfortable at times? I was. Had to kind of look away from the fisting photo. Thinking about whether I would have been any less uncomfortable if one of the two subjects had been female, the answer is no. I'm just a little prudish in general.

But maybe not that prudish. I think most people would be made uncomfortable by that photo. (Do I mean to say most straight people? I don't know--I'm sure someone will explain it to me in no uncertain terms.) But in 1978, Robert Mapplethorpe wanted the photo to make people uncomfortable, no? And if he knew that it was still making people uncomfortable in 2017, wouldn't he be happy about that? I think that's testament to how...fearless it is? (If I had to single out one photo myself, it would be the skull-cane self-portrait near the end of his life--incredible.)

Maybe the most interesting thing about the film to me was all the talk about Mapplethorpe's insatiable ambition. I know such a Warhol/Making It mindset is far from unique, but it seemed especially relevant in the social-media moment, where Facebook self-promotion is endless and oppressive (something I've both participated in and been appalled by). Mapplethorpe would have either been even more a self-promotional genius today, or he would have been lost in the deluge.