Most Shocking Photographers?

[bmattock]

Joel Peter Witkin has my vote. An image of a semi-nude a woman holding a small squash, and at the same time had a human head strapped to the back of hers (in such a way you don't notice it at first) made my heart stop. I read somewhere he had to go to Mexico to be able to do such photographs. I guess other countries are more "liberal" in terms of art....

Andres Serrano has done a few sex and corpse shockers as well.

Overall, though, I feel shock value only lives for so long, and in many instances is only a commodity or a gimmick. How long would you want a Witkin hanging over the dinner table as you chew your asparagus? An artist has to think long and hard to create an image that will last over time.

C.

Well, I probably didn't use the term 'shocking' well enough when I initially posted my message. I meant shocking in terms of eye-opening, enlightening, not shocking as in freak-me-right-out.

What happened was, I was looking at some work by the Avant-Garde Czech photographers from the 1900's to the 1940's or so. There were in a kind of cocoon, insulated from the rest of the mainstream fine art photographic world, although they were exposed to (no pun intended) Man Ray and others like that. But they went different directions with it.

If you do a Google search for 'czech photography avant garde' you get back a
bunch of fascinating photographs - to me, shocking. As in good. Something that I've never even considered doing as a photographer - and I may want to try to emulate, to see what it means to me.

Here's an example:

http://www.curledup.com/czechph.htm

Anyway, this has been a fascinating thread anyway - sorry I didn't say what I meant well enough!

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[captainslack]

Just today, while at the bookstore, I stumbled onto a book by Jock Sturgis. Can't remember the name, but the photos were all taken in this French beach town called Montevilet (or something like that) where most of the inhabitants are nudists. Most of his photos are of children, which can be quite shocking from a Western point-of-view.

He's an excellent photographer, BTW.

 

[RayPA]

...
Overall, though, I feel shock value only lives for so long, and in many instances is only a commodity or a gimmick. How long would you want a Witkin hanging over the dinner table as you chew your asparagus? An artist has to think long and hard to create an image that will last over time.
C.

I don't know if anyone will ever come close to Witkin. He's pushed that edge so far out there that one has to wonder if anyone can go further. There is a lot shock value to his work, but he draws on a lot on historical/classical painting and photography, symbolism and mythology, which makes his work pretty fascinating and deep (too deep for me), but you have to get past that initial shock. I think his work will stand for quite a while.

BTW, one of my favorite parts of his work is the way he attacks his negatives (scratching and damaging them).

It's funny whenever I go into a bookstore I always go to the Phaedon display (the circular/rotating Phaedon 55 series) and look for the Witkin book. I've yet to find one, so either he's really popular or the stores won't stock it (I doubt the latter). It's also kind of odd to find him included in that series with all the other normal, "important" photographers.
🙂
🙂
🙂

 

[johne]

Bill Mattocks,

Right! Put he and Jacob Riis together and one gets SHOCK! at least for the early part of the past century.
Johne

 

[Lonius Funk]

I am selling a book of Joel Peter Witkin for $30USD. It's a hardcover of "Bone House" and it's in excellent condition except for the outter slipcover that has a Quarter sized discoloration as though it's been in the sun. I don't know how it happened since I've had it stored away for so long but maybe it's because its covered in cloth and probably touched something that was not acid free. Contact me if anyone is interested. Thank you.

 

[the lobster]

The reproductions in books doesn't do Witkin justice.

I saw his exhibition at the Guggenheim about 10 years ago and the prints were huge. Like, 4X5 feet huge (dont' remeber exactly, though). And each was in a custom made frame. Very impressive work. Visually shocking, yes, but also rich in allusions to art history as well as Western (Christian) symbology.

I love threads like this because I get to check out all the photographers every one else mentions that I never knew existed!

Great topic!

 

[Roman]

Hmmm, shocking photographers? Most of the guys mentioned were more or less deliberately going for shocking images by arranging disgusting or sexually explicit subjects; nothing wrong with that. But what I find much more shocking are pictures of real human misery, like from Sebastiao Salgado or James Nachtwey (two of my all-time favorite photographers, BTW), and others in tha vein.

Roman

 

[ddutchison]

Someday, I am going to have to sit down with someone who can explain to me, in simple terms, what Diane Arbus' work is supposed to be about. ...

While I can't really say Arbus would be in my top 10 (or even 20), and have no idea what her work is really supposed to be about, I can tell you what I like about it - if that's the correct word to apply to Arbus' work.

I think she makes her viewers look closely at the very people whom most would, by force of habit, turn a blind eye to. I also like her blunt approach which never allows the viewer to retreat into pity (the usual tack taken by photographers when depicting those deemed to be "unfortunate").

That her photos are seen as shocking says more about the viewer than the photographer, I doubt it was her intention. Still, that's how her pictures always initially affect me. It raises uncomfortable questions about why this should be so, as they really are just simple pictures of people. I guess for me, her work is about not turning the blind eye, which is a fatal habit.

Anyway, what an amazing thread. I'm just beginning to work through all these other photographers I've never heard of before.

 

[Lonius Funk]

what I find much more shocking are pictures of real human misery, like from Sebastiao Salgado or James Nachtwey

Roman

Those two are my favorite photographers also. I have so much admiration them.

 

[RayPA]

Interestingly, Arbus always seems to be aligned with shooting marginalized and outcast members of society, which she did, but not always. I just flipped through her book again and probably well under half the images are of these so-called outcasts. In her book, she juxtaposes images of elite society-types, twins, triplets, transvestites, everyday people, nudists, midgets, convention goers, party attendees, etc., and IMO, (like all great iimages) it is absolute magic. Even her shot of a Christmas tree in a living room, and the one of a hotel lobby are pure magic.

BTW, Bill, if you ask "what is he/she trying to say?" I think you're asking the wrong question—of any photographer, or artist. 🙂 For instance, you don't get Arbus, and she is one of my favorites, but neither one of us knows what she was trying to say (if in fact she was trying to say anything at all [and does it matter anyway?]). I think the question implies the artist has an agenda, or preconception, when I believe that most of the time they are shooting what interests them, or what has caught their eye or attention. I don't know that anyone heads out to shoot thinking "today I'm only going to photograph images that depict man's inhumanity to man." 🙂

There's another Arbus book out called, "Family Portraits," which is interesting because, IIRC, it not only includes commissioned family portraits (Ozzie and Harriet Nelson family are in there), but also has several pages of Arbus contact sheets (which are always revealing). There are also quite a few portraits from August Sanders and Walker Evans.