Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2000/12/03
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]
on 12/4/00 12:52 AM, ARTHURWG@aol.com at ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote:
> Suggestion for high-quality straight porn: How about, "Older and Bolder."
> Arthur
As for the complaints that Mapplethorpe is technically adept photographer
who is only well-known because of his subject matter...well, couldn't you
say the same of Ansel Adams? ("He's only famous because he took pictures of
Yosemite. It's all high-class nature porn.") I would say that most
photographers ARE famous for their subject matter. What else is there?
Technical perfection? Who cares? Shakespeare is not famous for his mastery
of the semi-colon. You might argue instead that Mapplethorpe HAD NOTHING TO
SAY and therefore just opted for the most shocking, publicity-generating
subject he could imagine. That's certainly a defensible position, although
the PC types will kill you for being a homophobe. I thought Mapplethorpe's
photos possessed a lot of interesting tension between their formal
perfection and the rawness of the subject matter. I can't say I'm a fan. I
don't own any of his books. But...I've seen photos of barns, sand dunes,
shells and mountain streams to the point where I never need to look at
another one, but I'd never seen anything like Mapplethorpe's gay photos
before. The photos certainly reflected his life and obsessions, which for me
makes them more than a publicity stunt. I've seen pictures by pretentious
people who are just trying to get famous. They suck. (Excuse the pun.)
Dean Chance