From: Editor - P.O.V. Image Service (editor@p-o-v-image.com)
Date: 09/17/00-04:05:54 PM Z
Judy Seigel wrote:
>
> 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.
Ahh.. No, I don't miss the point..
What I am saying is that those stereotypes and others are axiomatically present in
much artistic work..
It just depends upon which particular stereotype a society finds acceptable to the
mean..
> For instance "darkies" eating watermelon and similar motifs in
> photographs of black people popular in the 1920s and 30s were racist
> stereotypes.
Understood completely..
> 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.)
>
And you see, don't you that the value you impart to those pieces today is quite
different from what may have seemed valuable then..? Because you view the imagery
through the social prism of today..
Yes, we are in many ways more enlightened today..
But, the danger is in over-reacting to works we may feel tread the edge too
closely.. Every time we limit artistic freedom in our attacks on it we harm all
artists..
>
> 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
Judy, this is where we have to separate paths..
We may both feel that way..
But low-culture or popular art, like that of the "nudie magazines" etc. still
sells..
I won't engage in ever deigning to decide who is a "worthy" artist... That kind of
thought has, in the past, all too often been used to apply the "unworthy" label to
the avant-garde.. I hope you see the danger inherent in using current social mores
to evaluate the worth of an artistic piece or an artist..
It may be fair as a way to measure your feelings towards a piece or its value to
you.. But to pass judgment on the rightness of the political or social message a
particular piece or artists sends is to me Abhorrent..
> 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.
>
That may be true.. But, again, because a particular piece seems to objectify or
idealize some sexist or racist stereotype does that strip the piece down to
something less than REAL art? I think not..
Another story from Berkeley is apt here..
A Japanese student in one of the photo classes did a photo series that morphed an
ape into an African Male.. It was the cause of much hand-wringing and consternation
there.. But the student, given his cultural milieu had not imbued the piece with any
racism.. He meant it simply as a note on the evolution of man and chose the African
Male as the tones were more easy to morph.. It was the viewer, not the artist that
added all the emotional baggage..
>
> 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.
>
Art is only high-brow then?
Elvis paintings on velvet are not art?
Hip-hop is not art?
Art is what the artist creates and what the viewer perceives as such, and every
viewer has the right to make up their own mind..
>
> 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.)
>
One person's cliché is another's real person..
Look back at Ms Anderson's comments on the poses struck by the Go-Go dancers.. Their
poses represented who they were, what they perceived themselves as, as much as any
done of "real people."
Keith
--
{ For the latest on the 1270/870/875DC Orange-Shift Issue }
{ Head to http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/ }
{ Links and the issue chronology are updated as new info becomes available }
{ The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-image.com/ }
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : 10/01/00-12:08:59 PM Z CDT