From: Thor Bols (thorbols@hotmail.com)
Date: 11/03/00-12:50:13 PM Z
I like much of Mapplethorpe. In fact, I own one of his works (purchased
before the hoopla, and it was still expensive), so I have every reason to
hope that his work would appreceiate in value.
My problem is with the emphasis on "spunk" as a priority in a venue which, I
assume, has as its purpose an emphasis on education. It would seem, almost,
that Mapplethorpe is being chosen to be included not because of any
intrinsic value of his work, and not because of his influence, but because
the instuctor figures that there is a greater chance that her audience may
have heard of him, and he might offer a more entertaining lecture.
Her initial request was for a list of photographers who "greatly affected
the medium, *either visually or technically*. Now, how on earth can
Mapplethorpe even BEGIN to be considered for this role? Technically?
Hardly. Most of his work is done using the same routine studio lighting
and photo equipment and then out-sourced for printing by other parties.
Visually? Nothing too new here, either, except *some* of his work included
a documenary-style depiction of the gay subculture, albiet "shocking" enough
to the the bible-belt extremeists of the USA to threaten the very existence
of publically-sponsered art. Certainly he has not "greatly affected the
medium".
Mapplethorpe has been included for sensational reasons alone, in order to
reduce the "yawn factor". What kind of a priority is this? His inclusion
calls into question the ethics of the instructor, and with it her
competency. Would other disciplines use sensationalism for a selection
criterion? Economics? History? So why must photography be "dumbed down"?
>From: Robert Lyman <railroad@northweb.com>
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: photo history lecture
>Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2000 15:31:00 -0400
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Thor Bols" <thorbols@hotmail.com>
>
> > It would appear that you have placed entertainment over education. By
> > promoting Mapplethorpe as one of your "five", you have already
>sacrificed
> > intellectual integrity for "spunk", as you put it.
>
>
>Thor
>
>Although I tend to agree with you about Mapplethorpe's work, I think it is
>important to consider a couple of points.
>
>First of all, any list of "most important photographers" like this is
>going
>to consist of a variety of opinions. For some people, some of
>Mapplethorpe's work is so offensive that they are incapable of making an
>unbiased judgement. Others don't find it offensiive at all. On the
>other
>hand, some might tend to overestimate his work, precisely because it is so
>"daring".
>
>Also, the reasons a particlar photographer might be included are varied.
>Regardless of our opinion of Mapplethorpe's work, he is a very significant
>figure in recent history.
>
>Just felt like butting in, I gues
>
>Bob Lyman ( railroad@northweb.com )
>http://www.geocities.com/Soho/Workshop/7610/
>http://www.artists-in-residence.com/users/radiance/
>
>
>
>
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/01/00-11:46:55 AM Z CST