From: Thor Bols (thorbols@hotmail.com)
Date: 11/03/00-03:54:54 PM Z
Where do you come off making an assinine statement like that? Crawl back
under your protected little rock, will you?
>From: Brian Ellis <bellis60@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: Brian Ellis <bellis60@earthlink.net>
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: photo history lecture
>Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2000 16:22:14 -0500
>
>Anyone who read "Last Exit to Brooklyn," which predated Maplethorpe by
>fifteen or twenty years, knew the subculture existed. They just had no
>particular interest in seeing it and, having seen it, wish they hadn't.
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Monica Mitchell" <kore54@hotmail.com>
>To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
>Sent: Friday, November 03, 2000 4:04 PM
>Subject: Re: photo history lecture
>
>
> >
> > >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".
> >
> >
> > I have problems with this statement.
> >
> > Anyone who does something no one
> > has done before is in fact,
> > "affecting the medium".
> >
> > Mapplethorpe did that.
> >
> > He produced some great imagery.
> > Both beautiful *and* ugly.
> >
> > Some of it, like the body of work
> > you reference above, was mind blowing.
> > How many people knew that
> > subculture existed before
> > Mapplethorpe's images came out?
> > How many people realized their
> > sexual fantasies, or pequlirities,
> > were in fact, quite normal?
> > How many people asked questions,
> > started thinking, started relotutions,
> > all focuesed around on body of work?
> >
> > Isn't that what we want out of art?
> >
> > Isn't that the whole point?
> > The think, to express, to feel...
> > Isn't that "influential"??
> >
> >
> > You can rip apart his technical merits.
> > Honestly, I don't know how
> > he got from idea to print.
> > Frankly, I don't care.
> >
> > His work is visually stimulating,
> > and his ideas are thought provoking.
> >
> > And he's part of the reason
> > I started to *really* look at
> > photography as an expressive
> > art form rather then a series
> > of pretty pictures to be hung
> > over the mantle piece or
> > stuck in a photo album.
> >
> > For the most part,
> > his work said something.
> >
> > And that says a lot.
> >
> >
> > >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"?
> >
> > I think if you look at
> > Mapplethorpe's work that
> > doesn't include leather and whips,
> > you might think differently.
> >
> > The way he photographed
> > black skin on white is a
> > photo study in and of itself.
> >
> >
> > -Monica
> >
> >
> >
>_________________________________________________________________________
> > 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.
> >
> >
>
_________________________________________________________________________
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