Joel Peter Witkin talk in Santa Fe

jjstafford · Jul 23, 2005

Sparky said:
Look, folks. I really do appreciate the time you've taken to consider this thread and your responses, if not terribly well reasoned ones - to it. I am sorry that I got your feathers ruffled.

No ruffled feathers, but you invited comments when you suggested that one could only understand the photographs by being as sophisticated as yourself, then you declined to elaborate your sophisticated view. It appears you invited responses you cannot handle.

Sparky said:
At any rate - I am becoming very frustrated having my comments taken out of context. It's getting a little bit silly. Please try to keep an open mind about others' opinions please!

Context? What context? Opinions are one thing, but casting your opinions as justified with only the assertion that your words would beyond anyone's ability to understand is cheap innuendo.

Sparky said:
Somewhat reminiscent of "Lord of the Flies".

You have not distinguished your opinion with that noncitation from 5th grade required reading.

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

Mr. Stafford.

jjstafford said:
No ruffled feathers, but you invited comments when you suggested that one could only understand the photographs by being as sophisticated as yourself, then you declined to elaborate your sophisticated view. It appears you invited responses you cannot handle.

I never said I was 'sophisticated' in my views. However - I do see it as a relative term. At any rate - I have the impression that I spelled this out quite clearly. I thought the example I gave was quite good - the story about the friend of mine - the artist who was using the form of a gun in her artwork - who was attacked for the presence of this construct - her detractors assumed that the use of the likeness of a gun meant that she'd condoned their use in the public sphere. At any rate - I agree - I cannot 'handle' responses of an emotional nature. If you cannot keep it cool headed, reasoned and rational then you should not be on a public forum.

jjstafford said:
Context? What context? Opinions are one thing, but casting your opinions as justified with only the assertion that your words would beyond anyone's ability to understand is cheap innuendo.

I felt my opinions were being taken out of context. Read through again - and I think you will find that is a fair assessment.

jjstafford said:
You have not distinguished your opinion with that noncitation from 5th grade required reading.

I don't think I understand your question/comment. Are you suggesting that something that is fifth grade required reading is therefore illegitimate? If you are trying to understand why I made reference to it - I was comparing the behaviour of some of the forum members to the behaviour represented in the book. That's all. Is the bible somehow illegitimate since children are exposed to it at an earlier age than that?

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

jjstafford said:
I would bet he's thrilled for getting $8,000US a print.

Doubt it. I don't think it's that much considering the amount of work he must go through. I used to assist a photographer who makes $80-200K per print. It's good money - but I thought fair considering the amount of work we went through.

jjstafford said:
It doesn't matter how Witkin felt during the making of the photograph, any more than it matters how Ansel Adams felt, or how I felt, or how you feel when you make yours. Get it?

That's certainly fair - and I can accept that.

jjstafford said:
What is pertient in the making of the art in question is the substative fact that this photography (like most) concerns The Thing Itself. He was there, the subjects were there and the photographer manipulated the cadevers in no small way to make the images. You cannot separate that from the outcome with any level of pseudo-sophisticated machinations. This position is one of the few fundamental, singluar qualities of photography.

I don't quite get what you're saying. Are you saying that it is a fundamental singular quality of photography that what you see in front of you is what was in front of the camera - that photography is unmanipulable? I doubt that's what you're saying. Can you clarify a bit? Thanks.

jjstafford said:
You support the work because it delights you in an ambigous way you cannot explain despite your self-proclaimed sophistication. That could be called a Fetish. It does not remove the very fact that it was done with cadavers, possibly illegally, or any other fact.

No - I really think you're projecting now. The images have a horrible beauty. I find myself attracted to that. I've always been attracted to pathos in some way. This, to me, is one inalienable innate quality of photography. ALL photography contains qualities found in witkin's work. For me, Witkin has succeeded in amplifying it to an unprecedented degree. Read Sontag's On Photography. To me - all photographs contain an element of death and pathos.

jjstafford said:
Now who threatened you and what did they write, or are you trying to raise your status by casting yourself as a victim?

No -no interest in being a victim - I just don't care for personal affronts. I think it's tacky and it's not cricket. We're trying to have a constructive discussion here.

Jorge · Jul 23, 2005

Your gun example was terrible, if JPW had used the likeness of a cadaver you would be correct, but he did not.

Nobody has taken your comments out of context, you have dug this hole by yourself. It is a clear indication that someone has run out of arguments when they start telling their opponents they cannot "reason" and that they are unsophisticated.

Nobody here is being "emotional", if you call emotional having a moral stance, then it seems you are the one with the problem, not us. Funny, like all those who admire JPW, when you are asked how would you like it if it had been your family being desecrated, the response is "ah, you are being emotional" but always sidestep answering the question.....it seems it is great work as long it has not been done with your family's body parts, uh?

Wayne · Jul 23, 2005

Yeah Sparky, I'm sure someone's holding a gun to his head making him do it. Probably the little demons in his head.

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

The gun example - I think - was a terrific example. You're simply having a different discussion than I am.

I simply sense anger in some of the responses Jorge - quite a bit from you.
I am sorry that I like Witkin and find his work (gasp!) very sensitive and you do not. If you can convince me NOT to like his work - I am all ears. But I have to be convinced that his work harms people. This, to me, if the fundamental point of what we call 'morality'. Perhaps it offends you. Fine. Don't look at it. Let me ask you this one question, Jorge... "How, in your opinion, should his work be dealt with?" If it is, or SHOULD BE, a legal issue - then how should his work and others like it be dealt with? I just want to know your opinion on this.

Pur your money where your mouth is.

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

Wayne,
So tell me this... do terrorists get off on killing people?

Jorge · Jul 23, 2005

Sparky said:
The gun example - I think - was a terrific example. You're simply having a different discussion than I am.

I simply sense anger in some of the responses Jorge - quite a bit from you.
I am sorry that I like Witkin and find his work (gasp!) very sensitive and you do not. If you can convince me NOT to like his work - I am all ears. But I have to be convinced that his work harms people. This, to me, if the fundamental point of what we call 'morality'. Perhaps it offends you. Fine. Don't look at it. Let me ask you this one question, Jorge... "How, in your opinion, should his work be dealt with?" If it is, or SHOULD BE, a legal issue - then how should his work and others like it be dealt with? I just want to know your opinion on this.

Pur your money where your mouth is.

Well, so far you are the only one who thinks the gun example was good, and you refuse to accept how bad it was even thought we have tried to tell you. I see how you make arguments, I am right because I say so...huh?...

I dont want to convince you not to like his work, but then dont tell me it is because you are so "sophisticated" or "sensitive" it is the reason you do like it. Be honest and admit it is the morbid curiosity and voyeurism you like.

His works harms people because it brings shame and discomfort to those families of whom the body parts were used. But of course since you dont know them or can see them I guess this is not a consideration for you.

I will put my money where my mouth is when you do so first. You still have not responded to my question about the body parts being from a person in your family. You keep avoiding this issue, as well as ignoring the fact that all of us here are confining the discussion to body parts used illegally.

I have an answer ready for you as to how it should be dealt with, but first I am curious to see how you respond if your mother was in an accident and when you got to the morgue you found some a**hole playing with her body parts. C`mon big boy, you are so "unemotional" how come you keep avoiding this question?

You seem to think morality is good only as long as it fits you and your views, when it does not you discard it like yesterday's bad fish....

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

Okay -okay... I admit it... it's not because I find it beautiful...

It's because I totally get off on seeing dead bodies. I compulsively masturbate every time I see his pictures. Dead dogs, too!!! that's HOT!!!

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

Jorge said:
Well, so far you are the only one who thinks the gun example was good, and you refuse to accept how bad it was even thought we have tried to tell you. I see how you make arguments, I am right because I say so...huh?...

Because that was not the issue I had. I was talking about shallow responses to work. period.

Jorge said:
I dont want to convince you not to like his work, but then dont tell me it is because you are so "sophisticated" or "sensitive" it is the reason you do like it. Be honest and admit it is the morbid curiosity and voyeurism you like.

see prior response. I get a sexual thrill out of killing people. really! come on! you're doing really good at nearl provoking me. What sort of fool are you? Yes, sure - I suppose there's a morbid curiosity. Is that wrong? Please point out where I said I was 'sophisticated' and 'sensitive' - I believe I disclaimed that. You are putting words in my mouth again (= taking comments out of context). Come on - do you not find yourself staring in wonder/horror at the bodies - and what their lives might have been like - and absorb the pathos of it all...?

Jorge said:
His works harms people because it brings shame and discomfort to those families of whom the body parts were used. But of course since you dont know them or can see them I guess this is not a consideration for you.

these people are DEAD! as in NOT ALIVE. Sorry - I'm not a roman catholic. I'm a satanist (how could I be anything else - right?)

Jorge said:
I will put my money where my mouth is when you do so first. You still have not responded to my question about the body parts being from a person in your family. You keep avoiding this issue, as well as ignoring the fact that all of us here are confining the discussion to body parts used illegally.

What do YOU think? I answered this.

Jorge said:
I have an answer ready for you as to how it should be dealt with, but first I am curious to see how you respond if your mother was in an accident and when you got to the morgue you found some a**hole playing with her body parts. C`mon big boy, you are so "unemotional" how come you keep avoiding this question?

YES, please read the prior threads - of course I wouldn't be so crazy about it. But that doesn't BEGIN to compare to how I'd feel if I saw someone harming a family member... now please answer MY question. Fair's fair - right?

Jorge said:
You seem to think morality is good only as long as it fits you and your views, when it does not you discard it like yesterday's bad fish....

See? This is precisely what I would say about you? Different people have different values and a different moral structure to suit. Some things I think are good and some are bad. Much as you. I, for example - fully support abortion - while the harming of a foetus is a sad, sad thing - but the raising of an unwanted, abused child is a much worse thing. So it's a question of minimizing damage.

Ed Sukach · Jul 23, 2005

Guys....

What are we trying to argue here? Morality? "It is only moral to you if it agrees with your views". Well, ... yuh! .. but let us hope that our views are moderated by our morality. Are we trying to fill the role of "Moral Policemen" here? I've been involved in Art long enough to realize how deeply entrenched those moral values - or lack of them - are in artists, and how futile it is trying to change them.

I, personally am disturbed by Witkin's work. I do not particularly LIKE it, but it does serve a purpose; to indicate to me that his subjects are the vision of some out there there, and, no, I don't support or "condone" (try to get another to do the same?) them, but this is "I disagree with what you say, but I will die for your right to say it!"

Why dwell on this so intensely? You all have made your opinions known -- isn't this approaching "dead horse" status?

Let's cool it down a bit .. we are dropping down into ad hominem arguments here, and that is really immoral.

BTW ... I, for one, understand what Sparky means by using the term "sophisticated". He does not mean esoteric or "elitist exclusionary" ... he means to describe those who zealously practice seeing a work from a variety of views ... something I strive for all the time.

This is a web site dedicated to "Policing Morality" - my description. Set you teeth before you acess it - it is not pornographic - to me it is much worse.
[ http://www.reandev.com/taliban/ ]

brent8927 · Jul 23, 2005

Fred Phelps sure seems to understand Christ's messege of love and acceptance... What a wonderful person... So warm and accepting of others.

Jorge · Jul 23, 2005

I was talking about shallow responses to work.

Ah, you mean as opposed to trying to find meanings that are not there. Is this what you call "sophisticated"......I call it pedantic.

I get a sexual thrill out of killing people. really! come on! you're doing really good at nearl provoking me. What sort of fool are you? Yes, sure - I suppose there's a morbid curiosity. Is that wrong? Please point out where I said I was 'sophisticated' and 'sensitive' - I believe I disclaimed that. You are putting words in my mouth again (= taking comments out of context). Come on - do you not find yourself staring in wonder/horror at the bodies - and what their lives might have been like - and absorb the pathos of it all...?

You are the one bringing your sexual hang ups, nobody here has written anything about deriving sexual gratification, but hey if this is you....I am not surprised. That is the kind of fool I am.....

these people are DEAD! as in NOT ALIVE. Sorry - I'm not a roman catholic. I'm a satanist

Ok fine, let me know when your parents die so I can go play with their bodies.....maybe I can become as famous as Witikin.

YES, please read the prior threads - of course I wouldn't be so crazy about it. But that doesn't BEGIN to compare to how I'd feel if I saw someone harming a family member... now please answer MY question. Fair's fair - right?

LOL..is this your answer? that you would not be crazy about it? wow, so I guess if I parade the naked body of your mutilated wife in magazines,books and prints you would not be "crazy about it" huh?..... that does answer my question, clearly for you everything goes and nothing deserves any respect.

As to what should be done with W's pictures, I assure you if he ever comes back to Mexico I will be first in line demanding he makes reparations and I will make sure to find any statues he has violated in order to prosecute him. Fortunately for me I have enough influential friends here where this is possible.

As to your abortion comment, nobody gives a rat's ass what you, me or anybody think. You have to be in the person's situation to make that decision. OTOH I do believe in personal accountability. Freedom carries responsibilities. If you abuse that freedom then be prepared to answer, or you can go to another country and do as you wish, seems this is the route you would prefer to choose.

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

Okay - well reasonable enough... why don't you show what a 'moral' person you are and kill witkin and his family and myself - and anybody else who doesn't have your opinion. I don't really know what else to say. I don't agree with anything you say. I think you are a nasty person and a bully. But hey - what can I do?

Jorge · Jul 23, 2005

Sparky said:
Okay - well reasonable enough... why don't you show what a 'moral' person you are and kill witkin and his family and myself - and anybody else who doesn't have your opinion. I don't really know what else to say. I don't agree with anything you say. I think you are a nasty person and a bully. But hey - what can I do?

LOL.....why am I a "bully?" because I say you lack a moral compass? Hey men I am just being honest. After your previous response and telling me you "would not like it much" I understand why you like Witkin's work. I have no respect for you and your view that nothing is sacred, but I do see why you like it and see no problem with him playing with corpses.

Sparky · Jul 23, 2005

Were you beaten with a corpse as a child?

that is your opnion and it and your message of intolerance and exclusion should be kept to yourself and not foisted upon others. Jorge, I'm sure you have redeeming qualities - I'm sure you're a nice guy on some level - though I have not seen it here. I do not wish to quarrel with you. Clearly you won't be satisfied until I state that I am a morally corrupt individual and this is therefore the reason I admire the guy's work. Please think about your actions. If you are so concerned about what you call 'morality' then you might want to think about the way in which you have been behaving on this forum. I myself have crossed over the line of what I consider acceptable behaviour myself here.

I will discuss these and other issues no further with you. I am sorry. Good luck with everything, okay?

Wayne · Jul 23, 2005

You still didnt answer the question.

Jorge · Jul 23, 2005

Wayne said:
You still didnt answer the question.

Yes he did Wayne. Here it is:

YES, please read the prior threads - of course I wouldn't be so crazy about it.

It just occurred to me that perhaps we are arguing with someone very young. Given the arguments presented and the way they were presented I should have seen this before continuing this thread. Ah well, it passes the time while I develop my test strips.....thank god for Jobo processors.....

jjstafford · Jul 23, 2005

Sparky said:
If you are so concerned about what you call 'morality' then you might want to think about the way in which you have been behaving on this forum.

I hope the essense of my posts were philosophically challenging - that is an attempt to fathom photography today. Perhaps I pointing to you too directly. I appolgize for that.

But I think you will agree that it seems absurd to suggest that it is immoral to challenge the promotion of the manipulation of corpses in order to photograph them for 'art' purposes.

Wayne · Jul 23, 2005

Jorge said:
Yes he did Wayne. Here it is:

Oh, yes...ROFL....my mistake! Here is another question for Sparky-how would he feel about what JPW doing what he does does if he werent photographing it? Does the photography somehow justify it?

jjstafford · Jul 23, 2005

Wayne said:
Oh, yes...ROFL....my mistake! Here is another question for Sparky-how would he feel about what JPW doing what he does does if he werent photographing it? Does the photography somehow justify it?

I am not Sparky, but will close with a repeat of my assertion and a question

It is critical that the works were done by photography because of one of photography's few unique characteristics is that an object is in (usually) front of the camera. In this case the fact colloaborates with all the manipulations of the corpses the photographer made (or exploited) and this makes it self documenting. The picture points to the photographer and what he did.

Now consider the former inhabitants of these bodies. They are made to be worthless except as they serve the photographer's needs. Why are these corpses not as respected as others in history? Is possible that the photographer believes they lived or died without nobility and therefore they are mere objects? Are they objects of a cultural or racial separist's idea of 'art'? How do we know they aren't? How do we know they won't become exactly that by the promotion of the works for commercial ends which try to anonymize and neutralize uncomfortable realities.

Too thoughtfull?

Sparky · Jul 24, 2005

Wayne said:
Oh, yes...ROFL....my mistake! Here is another question for Sparky-how would he feel about what JPW doing what he does does if he werent photographing it? Does the photography somehow justify it?

Wayne - why would one ever do such a thing? People tend to do things for reasons. And what is it that Witkin does? Arrange bodies into previctorian tableaux?

Bob Carnie · Jul 24, 2005

Jorge
A while back , I entered the critique gallery and saw an image of Pigs heads , about 15 of them , all happily smiling for the camera , I was immediately offended and stated so on the site. Jose , came back and basically justified this image with his images of an ongoing series of images some shot in a Mexican morge. I have to say that though disturbing *images of bodies being dissected* I was satisfied the Jose was not a one shot wonder and he was working on a series of work that involved a somewhat contraversional subject matter.
Here is my question to you, JPW went into a Mexican Morgue and took the body parts and arranged them into extremely abstact or visual forms* I am thinking of the two men kissing for example. ( I personally find this image in Bone House to be the most offensive) why I can't explain.
But when I look at Jose images I am disturbed as well , at about the same rate.

Jorge , I ask you , what is the difference between these two bodies of work as I find this assault of Sparky not warrented

I would not in either case JPW or Jose want my brother, sister, mother displayed . but I think attacking Sparky is not the answer but maybe the source of the imagery, he is reacting to it and you, I and others will feel totally different to this type of imagery.

Wayne · Jul 24, 2005

Hmm, 0 for 2. Yes, Sparky, I will take the bait as you feign ignorance of the question- I'm curious how would you feel about his ummm..body work... if he werent photographing it?

jjstafford · Jul 24, 2005

Bob Carnie said:
Jorge , I ask you , what is the difference between these two bodies of work as I find this assault of Sparky not warrented.

I take it you aren't really asking Jorge exclusively because you can use PM for that.

What's the difference? One is of pigs. The other of humans. I find it astounding that the difference is not clear.

Joel Peter Witkin talk in Santa Fe

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency