Controversial day

[severian]

Larry Clarke. Yeah, man. I found a copy of Tulsa in a used book store for $12. It is the absolute best "anti-drug" education one could possibly find.

Joe,
I'll give $12.50 for that book.
Jack

 

[smieglitz]

..,And the guy who shoots the Weimaraners.. Absolutely frightening...

William Wagman (sic)

 

[Valerie]

Another vote for Sally Mann's Immediate Family work. Also Joel Peter Witkin.

 

[Roger Krueger]

David Hamilton and Sally Mann for young nudes. But in the current witch-hunt atmosphere I wouldn't be caught dead in possesion of this stuff, doubly so if I were a teacher.

Mel Killpatrick for his 50's car crash shots (discovered posthumously in the 90's).

Diane Arbus for the mental patients (more posthumousity).

EJ Bellocq for the Storyville prostitute photos (photos that he mostly loathed and destroyed later in his life) Three in a row for posthumous publication--his 89 remaining plates were discovered, publicized and published by Lee Friedlander over 50 years after they were taken.

Alexander Gardner for the moving-the-dead-soldier-at-Gettysburg incident.

I might vote against Nan Goldin--seems to me the only controversy there is insipidity vs. art. But if you will admit this sort of controversy Friedlander, Winogrand and Eggleston are probably candidates too, although I personally like all three far, far better than Goldin.

David Armstrong and Uta Barth for veering outside the constraints of focus.

Leni Riefenstahl and Tina Modotti, although both were controversial mostly for their politics rather than their photography.

Jacob Riis for his expose of turn-of-the-century poverty and squalor.

Tom Forsythe for the Barbie photos that got Mattel cranky enough to engage in protracted hopeless litigation just to hurt him, to cost him a great deal of time and money merely to warn others that Mattel was not to be messed with.

William Mortensen for the way he (and other pictorialists) were savagely attacked by Ansel Adams and other our-way-is-the-only-way f64 adherents.

 

[Claire Senft]

Why limit yourself to what museums find fit to hang omn their walls?

 

[severian]

Why limit yourself to what museums find fit to hang omn their walls?

I don't limit it in any way. It's just away to emphasize that my world considers these photographs to be impotant

 

[Guillaume Zuili]

-Jane Evelyne Atwood : women in prison.
-Shanta Rao : Portraits of men when they come.


And why not for men : Araki

 

[steve]

How many years after Rejlander?

I would put Rejlander into a different category than Hockney, as Rejlander used multi-printing techniques and copying (like H.P Robinson, Uelsmann, etc.) to create tableaus. For that matter why pick Rejlander when Henry Peach Robinson could also be used as an example?

However, neither Robinson nor Rejlander did the same thing as Hockney. Rejlander and Robinson wanted to fool you into thinking the image was a made from a single exposure. They "built" images that emulated the look of a single exposure but could not be made unless they were constructed from multiple images. However, they went to great lengths to HIDE the fact that the image was made from separate, individual exposures.

Hockney purposely shows you that you can't make the image without hundreds of single exposures put together to make the final image. He's purposely exploiting and showing the look and distortions of multiple exposures that mean nothing until assembled into the final image.

He's purposely showing the assembled whole as a means to deconstruct the idea of the single exposure = single image (among many ideas contained in his images).

Does that clarify the difference for you?