Discuss a Joel-Peter Witkin Photograph.

[Sparky]

It seems to me that the human capacity for misunderstanding and alienation is nearly infinite. All I can tell you, it that, to me, and many other people I have known, Witkin's message is anything but a negative or horrific one, to all but the most superfluous readings of his work. It IS however, extremely reactive, and anti-authoritarian. And this is the aspect which I think offends people. If you would LIKE I can try to put into words exactly what I see his images DOING - though I'd prefer to spare you from the awkward detail of my dull description. Other artists I can think of doing work in a similar mode of expression might include Edvard Munch, Francis Bacon, John Heartfield, and others. To me it is high satire and a reaction to living in a sick, sick, sick world full of hypocrisy, greed and complete disregard for human life. So - it is in this forum that he chooses to address us.

To me, it's very similar to the crisis of perception that punk rock went through.

 

[Sparky]

Here's an interesting little blurb on his work, that might serve to illuminate some issues.

http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2000/05/09/witkin/print.html

 

[catem]

I have to say I'm getting a little perturbed by the argument that goes "If you criticise it, you don't understand it. Go away and do a little research".

Let me make clear: I consider myself as open as I can be to all sorts of art. I am certainly responsive to transgressive art - where would we be without Bacon, Mapplethorpe, Helen Chadwick, the Chapman brothers, and yes, Andreas Serrano, to name but few. I'm racking my brains to think of the photographer who photographed a woman cancer-victim and it was enlarged & publicy posted - was it Serrano? I thought that photograph was tender and telling of the complex subject of death.

I certainly do not belong to the school of thought which says art is only about the "good", unchallenging things of life. Good art has always challenged, in some way, in my opinion.

That doesn't mean that anything and everything transgressive or challenging cannot be criticised.

Sorry, but the picture does not tell me any more about the human condition, or give me any insight into my own predudices or shortcomings. It speaks to me far more about the artist than anything, and is sensationalist rather than revealing of deeper truth. (The two can, of course, go together). Of course it is common for artists to be doing this, and there's nothing wrong with it. But I reserve my right to make my judgement on whether or not he speaks to me with his self-oriented art. (I do not buy that he's working for a wider good, or only in the most tenuous sense - a case of intent being overlaid after the event?)

In the passage quoted above Sparky, I think it's telling that the author wrote:

quote: "Joel-Peter Witkin tore his way out of the womb on Sept, 13, 1939"

So......no-body else came into the world this way?

I also wonder if this picture seems more revealing of the subject of death if you have never seen a dead body. I have, my father's, I was wih him when he died and his body stayed in the house for 24 hours, we all saw him and spent time with him, the youngest (age 3) included.

I don't need to confront this artist's demons. Dead bodies, certainly if it's a quiet death, are not in themselves in the slightest bit shocking.

As a final point - it is also important I feel to distiinguish between 'art' (as in painting) and 'photography'. You cannot in fact compare a Bacon or a Munch to a photograph. It is a different reality.

Cate

 

[Bill Mitchell]

Here's an interesting little blurb on his work, that might serve to illuminate some issues.

http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2000/05/09/witkin/print.html

Thanks for the link, Sparky. I've always wondered about him. For example whether there was any connection between him and the Witkin Gallery -- apparently not.
I've always found his work pretentious and silly, just like the kids with their black Goth personas and body piercing, (and also like Halsman' jump pictures, from another thread). It's essentially visual satire more than anything -- Herman Munster not the Frankenstein Monster.
Would it make any difference in appreciating this image to know whether the torso had been bisected by a chainsaw while still alive or after death? Witkin's photograph doesn't ask that question. In fact, the "prettyness" of the pose tends to make it immaterial.
There is nothing new about making fine-art by arranging cadavers into artistic situations -- painters have been doing it for at least a thousand years, and literature is full of it. I don't think that Witkin does it particularly well.

 

[Sparky]

Thanks for the link, Sparky. I've always wondered about him. For example whether there was any connection between him and the Witkin Gallery -- apparently not.
I've always found his work pretentious and silly, just like the kids with their black Goth personas and body piercing, (and also like Halsman' jump pictures, from another thread). It's essentially visual satire more than anything -- Herman Munster not the Frankenstein Monster.

LOL - that's quite funny - I think there's a truth in that!

 

[Christopher Colley]

For anyone interested in a quite lengthy interview with Mr. Witkin you can view one here:

http://www.horvatland.com/pages/entrevues/12-witkin-en_fr.htm

there is some discussion of photographs, how they were made/why.. etc.

edit: dont think i need to tell you its quite graphic

 

[GraemeMitchell]

What troubles me is the idea that was voiced that art in this day and age should be uplifiting and positive to be 'good.' If you want uplifiting and positive go to church or join a zen group or watch Disney movies. I'm not saying this in a patronizing tone at all (well, maybe the Disney bit), but one of the beauties of art is that it is w/o limits.

Other than that, try to put your horror aside for a moment, and give Witkin the benefit of the doubt. Just imagine he's trying to share with you something that is actually sensitive and tremendous, an insite into death and otherness and things mass culture for the most part dilludes or sweeps under the rug. Yes, he's doing it in a difficult way, but imagine he is doign it with a love for his subject and for life and beauty, and at the the same time he wants to take you someplace uncomfortable to help un-numb you from the every day. Okay, so you may still spit on him, but I just think it's important to recognize how easy it is sitting in the peanut gallery, and also important to recognize that he may be trying to do something very difficult with his work, something with meaning. Many artists are never capable of this.

A teacher used to say to me, when I gave an unfair critique, "we like what we understand."

With that, I don't care for Witkin (his printing is incredible), but I would embrace an oppertunity to sit down and talk with him.

 

[david b]

This thread was mentioned over a photo.net.

Have a look Dead Link Removed

 

[Lee Shively]

I'm relatively conservative in many ways but I try to keep an open mind toward artwork. I've never found Witkin's work to be pretentious--unsettling sometimes, yes. I don't get a warm, fuzzy feeling from it. I don't get a great political or social commentary from it either. I do find most of it to be complex and technically outstanding. I've seen some of his prints and they are incredibly well done. And while I personally wouldn't hang one of his more intense photographs on my office wall, I'm not about to condemn his work.

 

[catem]

Yes, he's doing it in a difficult way, but imagine he is doign it with a love for his subject and for life and beauty, and at the the same time he wants to take you someplace uncomfortable to help un-numb you from the every day.

My point is he is, in part, trying to un-numb us with regard to our feelings about death.

BUT the danger is that to do so in an overly-sensational way can be in itself a de-sensitizing process. So, for me, in that respect, it doesn't work. I don't see the love for the subject that others do, because for me love/empathy is not about manipulating something, but letting it speak, as far as it can, for itself. Manipulating bodies in this way seems a little like anthropomorphism. It is stemming from something very different from, for example, Bosch's images of body parts, which was a way of dealing with too much death, too much horror on an everyday basis, so it's role and responsibility is different and more sensitive.

I think I do understand what he is trying to do. I don't think he succeeds with the photograph we have been discussing.

This is not to deny his skill as a photographer.

Think I've said enough now
Cate

 

[GraemeMitchell]

BUT the danger is that to do so in an overly-sensational way can be in itself a de-sensitizing process. So, for me, in that respect, it doesn't work. I don't see the love for the subject that others do, because for me love/empathy is not about manipulating something, but letting it speak, as far as it can, for itself. Manipulating bodies in this way seems a little like anthropomorphism. It is stemming from something very different from, for example, Bosch's images of body parts, which was a way of dealing with too much death, too much horror on an everyday basis, so it's role and responsibility is different and more sensitive.

I think I do understand what he is trying to do. I don't think he succeeds with the photograph we have been discussing.
Cate

well put.

 

[David H. Bebbington]

What troubles me is the idea that was voiced that art in this day and age should be uplifiting and positive to be 'good.' If you want uplifiting and positive go to church or join a zen group or watch Disney movies. I'm not saying this in a patronizing tone at all (well, maybe the Disney bit), but one of the beauties of art is that it is w/o limits.

You are welcome to your point of view, I would just like to be sure that you have understood the essential difference between on the one hand spiritual uplift, which fully recognizes the pain and horror of certain aspects of human existence but seeks to transcend these, and on the other hand the Disney mentality, which seeks to coat everything thickly with sugar. Speaking for myself, I consider wallowing in doom and gloom relatively easy, it's achieving a transcendental state that's difficult!

Furthermore, even for the sake of hyperbole, I find it bizarre that you equate zen mysticism with watching Disney movies - the former involves using the full capacity of the mind, the latter involves locking the mind in neutral!

 

[GraemeMitchell]

Furthermore, even for the sake of hyperbole, I find it bizarre that you equate zen mysticism with watching Disney movies - the former involves using the full capacity of the mind, the latter involves locking the mind in neutral!

The juxtaposition was not hyperbole at all! Indeed, I know more people who use "Disney" for piece of calm than anything truelly Zen. Disney and substance abuse. I mean, as you pointed out, spiritual transcendce is no easy task.

But I'm probably just hanging out w/ the wrong crowd.

 

[david b]

I've mentioned this before, but seeing the images in person, I think is important.

JPW is an excellent printer. Probably one of the best.

The content might be objectionable, but the technical aspects are amazing.

 

[spiderfish]

Wow this is an interesting thread. I am a little uneasy posting my first post here, but here it goes anyway.

The most influential part of Witkin’s work (in my opinion) is not his subject mater, but his printing style. Witkin is the first photographer I know of that distressed his negatives. Using razorblades, flames and bleach to alter the look and feel of his work(if there were others please let me know). Then there is his “post processing” where he would use bizarre methods of mounting and coat the prints with all kind of substances to change it’s appearance. He wanted to personalize his work both in and out of the darkroom. While not really my thing, I know more then a couple of people who were inspired after seeing Witkin’s work to experiment.

 

[Wayne]

Fine, he's a good printer (maybe we can get Normal Mailer to help him out of jail should he wind up there) but he's still criminally deranged in regards to his corpse work. Would a single one of you intellectualizing and rationalizing this work agree to have your wife (not ex-wife) or daughter's corpse used for it? Whats this, not a single volunteer? Oh come on, nobody! But somehow its OK if he does it to someone elses wife or daughter without permission, huh, cuz whats that to you? After all, they are nothing to you, its not like YOU knew them. ...Gee, maybe his work does have a message, that many of you are just as fucked up as he is. I know Sparky would volunteer himself, but thats different, he's alive and could give his permission. These people and their families didnt, and wouldnt have, and neither would you.


Wayne

 

[c6h6o3]

Fine, he's a good printer

He's not, however, a great printer or even a very good one. When I first heard that he 'distressed' (aka 'tortured') his negatives, I became suspicious. Many would-be 'masters' of craft use such gimmicks to divert attention from their actual lack of mastery. Upon seeing some of Witkin's prints at an AIPAD convention, all doubt was removed.

When seen alongside the work of truly fine gelatin silver printers such as Stieglitz at his best or Brett Weston, Witkin's work is seen as merely competent to render whatever anguish it is he's trying to express. Hearing Joel Peter Witkin called a great printer elicits nothing from me except laughter.

 

[Sparky]

Wow this is an interesting thread. I am a little uneasy posting my first post here, but here it goes anyway.

The most influential part of Witkin’s work (in my opinion) is not his subject mater, but his printing style. Witkin is the first photographer I know of that distressed his negatives. Using razorblades, fames and bleach to alter the look and feel of his work(if there were others please let me know). Then there is his “post processing” where he would use bizarre methods of mounting and coat the prints with all kind of substances to change it’s appearance. He wanted to personalize his work both in and out of the darkroom. While not really my thing, I know more then a couple of people who were inspired after seeing Witkin’s work to experiment.

A lot of this particular body of his work is a direct referent to early pictorialist photography, where brushing of gum emulsions, painting-on and even scratching (there are a few Steichen pieces that use this IIRC) were commonplace. This was a backlash reaction to early photography's growing pains in relation to painting, in an attempt to make photography more 'artistic'. I would guess that witkin, in his search for a more mortal photography, picked up on this - I'd imagine that the 'corpse' imagery was a direct offshoot of using this technique. It would seem appropriate to explore.

 

[Sparky]

Fine, he's a good printer (maybe we can get Normal Mailer to help him out of jail should he wind up there) but he's still criminally deranged in regards to his corpse work. Would a single one of you intellectualizing and rationalizing this work agree to have your wife (not ex-wife) or daughter's corpse used for it? Whats this, not a single volunteer? Oh come on, nobody! But somehow its OK if he does it to someone elses wife or daughter without permission, huh, cuz whats that to you? After all, they are nothing to you, its not like YOU knew them. ...Gee, maybe his work does have a message, that many of you are just as fucked up as he is. I know Sparky would volunteer himself, but thats different, he's alive and could give his permission. These people and their families didnt, and wouldnt have, and neither would you.


Wayne

Actually - I wouldn't. I'm not terribly into him. I just defend his right to exist.

He's done a lot more work with live subjects than dead, hasn't he?

 

[Sparky]

He's not, however, a great printer or even a very good one. When I first heard that he 'distressed' (aka 'tortured') his negatives, I became suspicious. Many would-be 'masters' of craft use such gimmicks to divert attention from their actual lack of mastery. Upon seeing some of Witkin's prints at an AIPAD convention, all doubt was removed.

When seen alongside the work of truly fine gelatin silver printers such as Stieglitz at his best or Brett Weston, Witkin's work is seen as merely competent to render whatever anguish it is he's trying to express. Hearing Joel Peter Witkin called a great printer elicits nothing from me except laughter.

You seem to have a very rigid view of what is 'acceptable'. What do you think of the idea that, perhaps, different techniques suit different 'visions'? Do you feel that photography should 'depict' rather than 'express'? Can you flesh out your reasons for this statement?

 

[c6h6o3]

You seem to have a very rigid view of what is 'acceptable'. What do you think of the idea that, perhaps, different techniques suit different 'visions'? Do you feel that photography should 'depict' rather than 'express'? Can you flesh out your reasons for this statement?

I didn't say anything about what I view as 'acceptable'. I find Witkin quite acceptable, but don't think that he's a particularly accomplished craftsman. I submit that his work would be perceived as far more over the top if the tableaux were photographed and printed by an acknowledged master of gelatin silver black and white photography, such as Michael Smith. Why, the man would be jailed before the prints were dry.

 

[Sparky]

I didn't say anything about what I view as 'acceptable'. I find Witkin quite acceptable, but don't think that he's a particularly accomplished craftsman. I submit that his work would be perceived as far more over the top if the tableaux were photographed and printed by an acknowledged master of gelatin silver black and white photography, such as Michael Smith. Why, the man would be jailed before the prints were dry.

What do you think of Bill Brandt's prints?

 

[StephenS]

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.

 

[c6h6o3]

What do you think of Bill Brandt's prints?

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.

 

[c6h6o3]

If I would collect photography and live with it on my walls, I'd have Witkin at or near the top of my list

Your dinner parties certainly wouldn't lack for topics of conversation then, would they?