From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 09/17/00-03:33:43 PM Z
On Sun, 17 Sep 2000, Editor - P.O.V. Image Service wrote:
> One is free to like or dislike a particular piece. Aesthetic tastes, politics,
> life experiences, all will play a part in the choice of one's personal
> preferences in art, I however, will always support the choice of the artist,
> whether or not I enjoy the work in question...
Keith, I think you miss the point of the objections -- which try (with
little success I gather) to bring to consciousness harmful stereotypes
apparently not understood as such. It's easier to see historically,
perhaps. For instance "darkies" eating watermelon and similar motifs in
photographs of black people popular in the 1920s and 30s were racist
stereotypes. One magazine of the '20s had, among its genre categories for
competitions, "Coon Photography" (I'm not making this up), illustrated by
a black child with a racoon on his lap. The title was, "Jes us Coons."
(And I still kick myself for not buying that magazine at an APHS flea
market a while back... it had no other interest & seemed a bit pricey, but
that kind of social history may be priceless.)
I don't think anyone would argue today that these stereotypes weren't
harmful. What they argued *at the time* is not on record, perhaps
something about free expression, and "the choice of one's personal
preferences in art," etc., but I like to think that ultimately they got it
-- without blaming the messenger.
While it's true that Mapplethorpe, Sturges & Mann have all met objections,
that's *not* this argument. I can't offhand think of one worthy
photographer today doing this kind of stereotyped eroticized naked lady --
or *sexist* stereotype. (Where is Jesse Helms when we need him !!?? Those
bozos are always barking up the wrong tree.) But I note that "racist" got
into the dictionary some 15 years before "sexist," and still seems easier
to perceive.
Although I myself think Mapplethorpe is often brilliant & Sally Mann
usually brilliant, I have my own objections to Sturges -- not for his
subjects, which seem tame enough, but for being a lousy photographer. (He
should put Helms on retainer!). But none of them have anything to do this
argument. Which is about the perpetuation of stereotypes harmful to half
the human race: same old, same old naked-lady-photography cannot wrap
itself in those flags.
I note, BTW, that of 3 featured photographers in Post-Factory #5, 2 show
nudes, explicit, frontal and all that -- but these are of *people*, not
eroticized cliches. (John Dugdale & Galina Manikova. The 3rd photog is J.
M. Cameron.)
Judy
.................................................................
| Judy Seigel, Editor >
| World Journal of Post-Factory Photography > "HOW-TO and WHY"
| info@post-factory.org >
| <http://rmp.opusis.com/postfactory/postfactory.html>
.................................................................
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT