c6h6o3 said:The last ones I saw, about 3 months ago, were magnificent. What does that have to do with Witkin? His prints are not nearly as good as the Bill Brandt prints I've seen.
But would anyone eat anything? And keep it down if they did?c6h6o3 said:Your dinner parties certainly wouldn't lack for topics of conversation then, would they?
You could argue that Witkin has made the artistic choice to present his ideas in a sensational way. Therefore he bears the responsibility of how they are perceived.StephenS said:I love Witkins work. I'm fascinated by the spirituality at its core. If I would collect photography and live with it on my walls, I'd have Witkin at or near the top of my list -even though it's not 'easy on the eyes' in certain ways. I think people might do well to try to get beyond any shock value the images may have and read some criticism of his work.
I'll stick with my original assessment, "demented", sick. I don't care if this was due to an assumed art career strategy or an inherent mental state. I'm referring to the effect and how it was attained. Should public museums or galleries even allow minors into the presence of that kind of imagery, along with the trend in blatant pornography that often accompanied it in the same venues, during the same era? Think twice before giving some airheaded "artiste" culture reply. Otherwise, I should have never replied to this disgusting thread myself. Some of the responses remind me of just how callous people can be to the obvious. So like I said, if you want to hang these kinds of pictures in a dungeon somewhere, that's your own business, but in public?? That whole ethos, "It must be art if it offends people, or shocks them", is neither new nor much more than a lame excuse for lack of an alternative.
I am not aware of anything He/She photographed. Never heard of this person before. I was simply addressing the idea, that you raised, about museums not allowing a certain person to enter the museum.Are you even aware of the horrifying degree not only
runaway teenagers but even young children were being exploited at that point, in that very demographic cauldron? .
if nothing else, necrothreading has brought this to my attention.the work of jeffrey silverthorne,
The last ones I saw, about 3 months ago, were magnificent. What does that have to do with Witkin? His prints are not nearly as good as the Bill Brandt prints I've seen.
if nothing else, necrothreading has brought this to my attention.
thanks john.
Hi DREW
(he's got me on ignore)
Death and the corporeal dead are so often treated with disgust, and as not fit for art of any kind. Much pearl-clutching and calls for the fainting-couch to be brought forth ...
In earlier days, when death was (literally) so often on the doorstep, people were less squeamish.
We only have to think of David's Marat (dead and bloodied) or even Millais' Ophelia (not dead but on her way) let alone of course 2,000 years of depictions of a horribly mutilated middle-eastern guy being tortured to death by being nailed to some wood, or all the mourning paintings and sculptures made over thousands of years.
Still, as you mentioned Brady, by coincidental happenstance I came upon this interesting Twitter 'moment' today:
https://twitter.com/DrLindseyFitz/status/1022933481247191040
in which we learn of the birth of the embalming industry during the American Civil War, and the guy who not only had photographs of corpses, but actual corpses in his shop window ...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?