Looking past the subject material.

[Keith]

A photographer that gets discussed very seldom around here is Robert Mapplethorpe ... and I guess there's obvious reasons for this. Much of his subject material was very confronting and controversy and censorship dominated a lot of his exhibitions and his career generally.

I saw an exhibition a long time ago while visiting a friend in Sydney. The exhibition had been vetoed by the censors in Queensland but readily accepted in the southern states and out of curiosity I went along to see for myself what all the fuss was about.

Was I impressed with his photos ... yes, very much so!

Was I personally confronted by his choice of subject material ... not really!

How much restriction (if any) should be placed on an artist's choice of subject material and is censorship valid any any circumstance?

Bill Henson's case also comes to mind here with his nude images of a thirteen year old girl being seized by New South Wales police. That really lit a fuse and the images were openly and publically condemned by our then prime minister.

 

[Godfrey]

The first works I ever saw from Robert Mapplethorpe were his photos of flowers. It immediately struck me that he was a major talent, even before I looked up the name and saw the rest of his photography. I've since seen quite a lot of it, and (like with other photographers) I'd be hard pressed to say I love all of it, a lot of it is just amazing.

In the mores of the times, his photographs were highly controversial and confrontational. Perhaps they are, in their own way, inspirational for those who suffered through those times and who have survived. They present a challenge even today. The world is changing — but there is still much pain and sadness associated with being gay, with AIDS, with prejudice and bias about gender identity and gender preference.

His biography is interesting: http://www.mapplethorpe.org/biography/
How quickly AIDS aged him is intense.

G

 

[DominikDUK]

I agree Mapplethorpe is a superb photographer and I believe the fear the audience/public etc... about certain subjects naked males or children has more to do with the public then with the photographer. I once had a talk with someone about the page 3 of the Austrian Krone Newspaper and why the only show nude women and no naked men. His answer was that he often finds the naked male body more attractive than the female one but hastened to say that he is not a homosexual. He feared to be perceived as gay or his reactions to a male nude.
The fashion and movie industry is dominated by women that look like teenagers and the audience does not have a problem with the sexualisation of young women in the fashion or movie industry but they do have a problem with an image of a girl in an art context. Why is that in our society it's okay to lust after a movie star and model but not thank god after naked girl. It's a fear of our own sexuality.
I also believe that the fashion, movie and artworld has a close relationship with pedophilia that I do personaly not find ok.

Nevertheless I love Mapplethorpe's photography. Bill Henson's image I don't feel so comfortable with

Dominik

 

[Roger Hicks]

Dear Keith,

My reaction to much of his stuff is much the same as yours: technically gorgeous, beautifully lit, superbly composed, shame about the subject matter...

But there are several ways of looking at this. One is: why not go for his flower studies? Another is: why do I dislike the male nudes? Another is a reduction ad absurdum: what subjects would I find completely intolerable?

The last is closely related to the second and is in many ways the most interesting. I've not seen Bill Henson's work, but I find it hard to believe that it's that shocking/horrifying/disgusting. After all, both David Hamilton and Jock Sturgess have been similarly attacked for what I understand to be similar pictures. But then, I find it amazing that violent death is freely portrayed in mainstream movies, but explicit sex is found only in 'pornography'.

Addendum: In an (unsuccessful) attempt to find some 'disgusting' Henson pics online, I did find http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/s...-the-nuddy-and-making-art-20110409-1d8j6.html which seems to me to be as worthy of discussion as your original ppint.

Cheers,

R.

 

[--s]

half ot: if you´re interested in mapplethorpe´s life, "just kids" by patti smith is a wonderful read. they shared precious years of their youth together, being lovers and friends and associated artists.

 

[j j]

His biography is interesting: http://www.mapplethorpe.org/biography/ G

Patti Smith's autobiography Just Kids is a good read and includes much about Mapplethorpe.

EDIT: straightmp was quicker!

 

[lynnb]

How much restriction (if any) should be placed on an artist's choice of subject material and is censorship valid any any circumstance?

Bill Henson's case also comes to mind here with his nude images of a thirteen year old girl being seized by New South Wales police. That really lit a fuse and the images were openly and publically condemned by our then prime minister.

I don't think it's practicable to make general rules about subject material; it's how artists interpret the material that usually has the most impact.

Even then the impact depends on each viewer. Once an art work is made the artist loses control over how it's interpreted.

Also, two artists can approach the same subject, with one deemed offensive at one point in time and the other deemed offensive years later, as the social context changes.

When I go to an art gallery I expect to be offended by something. Art at the frontiers of a society's discourse is sometimes like lobbing a stick of gelignite or a dead cat into a room. People often get upset when their perspective is challenged. Viewing challenging art is sometimes just what is needed to shake up encrusted views that are no longer realistic.

Having said that, I can fully understand censorship of art that can destabilise a peaceful society - such as art which champions the values of Nazi National Socialism or which glorifies Hitler, or encourages another Final Solution. We don't want to go there again.

 

[Roger Hicks]

. . . Having said that, I can fully understand censorship of art that can destabilise a peaceful society - such as art which champions the values of Nazi National Socialism or which glorifies Hitler, or encourages another Final Solution. We don't want to go there again.

But there are those who would liken sexual freedom to the Third Reich. Also, a lot of Socialist Realist art from the USSR was very good, even though we don't want Soviet-style communism back.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Should some things be censored? Yes. Mapplethorpe isn't one of them though. Not a fan though...aesthetically or content wise.

 

[Rodchenko]

Mapplethorpe was an utterly brilliant photographer. Just genius for his use of light and composition. Sure, some of his images are challenging, and a few a bit dubious, but art is meant to provoke sometimes.

 

[gns]

Dear Keith,
Addendum: In an (unsuccessful) attempt to find some 'disgusting' Henson pics online, I did find http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/s...-the-nuddy-and-making-art-20110409-1d8j6.html which seems to me to be as worthy of discussion as your original ppint.

Cheers,

R.

I kind of read/skimmed through that, thinking, How is it the writer completely missed the work of Ryan McGinley?

 

[Mcary]

Simply question
So who should do the censoring. Should it be the kind of people that think work like Immediate Family, by Sally Mann should/must be censor, while work like What Remains, by Sally Mann is perfectly acceptable for view by kids of all ages?

Then of course there's the question of how such censorship is carried out. Is it simply limited to the prohibition of offensive or non approved work from publicly funded galleries/museums or does it included the private establishments? Then what happens to the people that violate orders of censorship? Do we put them in jail or send them to re-education camps, where they can learn to create "acceptable" works of art/photographs?

Censorship today book burning tomorrow.

 

[Roger Hicks]

Should some things be censored? Yes. Mapplethorpe isn't one of them though. Not a fan though...aesthetically or content wise.

What should, though? It's hard to think of really good examples.

Cheers,

R.

 

[gns]

Should some things be censored? Yes. Mapplethorpe isn't one of them though. Not a fan though...aesthetically or content wise.

Who would you have doing the censoring?

 

[airfrogusmc]

And then theres Witkin....

I saw an interview with Patti Smith and she talked a lot about her time with Mapplethorpe. I find the creative process so interesting.

 

[thegman]

Should some things be censored? Yes. Mapplethorpe isn't one of them though. Not a fan though...aesthetically or content wise.

I can't think of anything that warrants censorship, and as already stated, who would decide what was censored? It may be perhaps that in extreme circumstances, it needs to happen, but it's difficult to think of what those circumstances may be.

The type of people who would be likely to push through censorship laws are probably the very last people on earth you would want in charge of it.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I can't think of anything that warrants censorship, and as already stated, who would decide what was censored? It may be perhaps that in extreme circumstances, it needs to happen, but it's difficult to think of what those circumstances may be.

The type of people who would be likely to push through censorship laws are probably the very last people on earth you would want in charge of it.

Agree........

 

[gns]

Re: Who should censor and what... Personally, I find it funny that of all the stuff out there, Mapplethorpe's work would be what raised the question here. I mean, it's pretty tame, really. And I don't find it offensive or mean-spirited at all.

 

[icebear]

Sometimes the crying out loud for censorship is very reveling about the people shouting.
Usually hypocrites publicly condemn something to appear conservative and full of "moral values".
It's astonishing that the US public is so deeply concerned about child nudity.
I guess parents could get themselves into real trouble taking pictures of their own kids running naked in the garden, taking a shower from the garden hose or having fun in a pool. The aspect that little kids run around naked might be natural, is totally overshadowed by the possibility of abuse.
The entire nation (maybe just the media) went nuts about an exposed nipple for less than a second and children might be harmed for live after seeing it on TV ...Proportions have gotten completely out of hand. This is the country with the largest porn film industry on the planet and I assume not all of it is strictly for export...
Back to the topic:
I think, there should be an indication that a certain exhibition (or parts of it) might not be appropriate for children or certain audiences that might be “hurt in their religious feelings”, to give them a chance not to visit this exhibition but there should be a tolerance for others to have a chance to see the work and not ban it completely because a very small number of people might be offended.

 

[airfrogusmc]

Sometimes the crying out loud for censorship is very reveling about the people shouting.
Usually hypocrites publicly condemn something to appear conservative and full of "moral values".
It's astonishing that the US public is so deeply concerned about child nudity.
I guess parents could get themselves into real trouble taking pictures of their own kids running naked in the garden, taking a shower from the garden hose or having fun in a pool. The aspect that little kids run around naked might be natural, is totally overshadowed by the possibility of abuse.
The entire nation (maybe just the media) went nuts about an exposed nipple for less than a second and children might be harmed for live after seeing it on TV ...Proportions have gotten completely out of hand. This is the country with the largest porn film industry on the planet and I assume not all of it is strictly for export...
Back to the topic:
I think, there should be an indication that a certain exhibition (or parts of it) might not be appropriate for children or certain audiences that might be “hurt in their religious feelings”, to give them a chance not to visit this exhibition but there should be a tolerance for others to have a chance to see the work and not ban it completely because a very small number of people might be offended.

If we don't have tolerance where does it all stop? Remember the degenerate art (Entartete Kunst) and the show and what surrounded all of that in that very scary time for creatives. We wound up getting a lot of great artists of the time in the US because of it all.