Joel Peter Witkin talk in Santa Fe

[atenlaugh]

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.

1. I'd rather he ask here, as I find the discussion fascinating. I, for one, am not sure where I stand on the matter, but I like seeing each side, no matter how heated it may or may not be.


2. No, both involve human corpses. Read the post again.

 

[Jorge]

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.

I think it is a fundamental difference Bob. Jose was documenting the process while at the same not participating in it and being respectful of the decedent's corpse. I dont see how you can equate documenting without being a participant and having someone play with body parts to suit his artistic need.

Furthermore, the pig's head shot was one where once again Jose was documenting, I dont recall but when I talked to him I believe he told me he did not arrange the heads, as opposed to W who grabs a horse and binds it in chains and ropes to suit once again his artistic need. He might think there is nothing wrong with this and that the horse is not being harmed, but I would venture to guess that the horse feels differently.

One more difference is that autopsies are a fact of life, in some cases they have to be done and it is a legal procedure to which Jose was invited to document, arranging corpses and playing with body parts without consent of the families is disrespectful and I am sure illegal. In the US it does not matter if the coroner agrees to let you play with body parts, you still need the family's permission, what makes this ass**** think it is any different here in Mexico? If he had done this in the US, not only do I believe there would have been some criminal charges, but I bet you the families would have sued his ass for all he's got.

Then again I am surprised it took some of you so long to mention Jose's project, I was expecting this question much sooner.

 

[jjstafford]

[...]
2. No, both involve human corpses. Read the post again.

I got confused with the Pig Head thread. Thanks for the redirection.

As Jorge said, one was a matter of documentation, the other a matter of manipulation to a vast degree.

 

[Sparky]

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?

Wayne - sorry - I thought I answered your question. It seems clear that he obviously would not be doing ANYTHING if he weren't photographing it. I'm guessing you're imagining other things going on than ARE actually going on - that's what I was looking for clarification on. I doubt very much he'd have anything to do with corpses if the photos did not exist. Your question is highly tautological (look it up). And I'm not feigning anything.

I think this particular exchange between you and I is PARTICULARLY valid - and points to the VERY CORE of the disagreement going on. I SUSPECT that you think that this individual is doing this for perverted reasons, and this has SOMETHING to do with your view of the world. We all have different world-views, Wayne. I, for one, am very disturbed by what I see going on around me. I am disturbed by what we are doing in the middle east, and in alliance with israel and I'm disturbed that people like Kenneth Lay become celebrities instead of going to prison.

The corruption and sickness which is sanctioned by the population of this country is completely unprecedented in my view. I am ashamed. Before you tell me that this has nothing to do with our discussion - please hear me out. I think it's at the very CENTER of our discussion. It has to do with enculturation. My GUESS as to what DRIVES Mr. Witkin is NOT personal perversity - but trying to show what a disturbing place our world is. The first time I saw the photos - this occurred to me. There is a great tradition of this sort of 'pessimistic work'. Look at Meatyard. Look at Arbus. Look at Robert Frank's The Americans. Look at Mapplethorpe's Penis in a mousetrap (or whatever contraption that was). What about Nan Goldin? And countless others...? What would you say about THEIR work? It's not limited to the arena of photography? What about the message given by PUNK ROCK?? And the message in Reggae and Rap?? It's perhaps not my allegiance but is still valid and a voice of MUCH-NEEDED revolution.

This is precisely what I've been trying to get at during this whole thread. Other people do not see the world as you do, Wayne. I am one of them. Other people do not LIKE the fact that blacks have been lynched. That we are complacent with the killing of innocent people - and the jailing of people who want a better world because their views are not aligned with the views of multinational corporations. There is a voice that needs to be heard, wayne. It is a critical voice. A voice that says " these things are NOT okay and in fact are truly horrific!"

So - I'll ask you again, Wayne.... what precisely would Witkin be doing if not photographing corpses? PRETENDING to photograph them? Please be honest with yourself in your response.

Thank you.

 

[Sparky]

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?

I can only answer you for myself (can you give us your first name so you feel more like a friend and so I don't have to keep calling you MR. Stafford?) -

At any rate, my own belief system forces me to answer this: that it is the height of human self-importance and human arrogance to think there is anything wrong with this act. I apologize if this offends others and their belief system. I do not believe in forcing others to feel as I do. I have great respect for others' belief systems - whether muslim or hindu or protestant - there are usually very good, if somewhat arbitrary reasons for these things taking the forms that they do.

Anyway - getting back to it. Yes, I personally think it is hubris. I think that we attribute qualities to corpses which they do not, in reality, posess. I may believe in a soul. But that soul knows nothing of the body. Otherwise why wouldn't more people object to worms crawling in and out of your eyesockets once you are dead?? The body bereft of life is just MEAT! Do we not prove this when Catholics eat beef or pork? I do not believe that the human is any more sacrosanct in this regard than farm animals or ANY other living creature. I do not concern myself so much with the rights of the non-living. I am, however, EXTREMELY passionate about the rights of the LIVING. Including photographers who catch flack for not taking pictures of puppies and sunsets.

That is how I feel.

 

[Wayne]

So - I'll ask you again, Wayne.... what precisely would Witkin be doing if not photographing corpses? PRETENDING to photograph them? Please be honest with yourself in your response.

Thank you.

Once again you elaborately shuffle dance around a very, very simple question, and ask a question of your own. I'm not interested in why he might (hypthetically) play with body parts if not photographing them. It doesnt matter. There could be many reasons, none of them, including photographing them, being acceptable.

I have seen some (certainly not all) work by all the above photographers and while it may not be my cup of tea none of it is in the same class as JPW. Some people document the real horrors of life. JPW, in his corpse work, creates them, his photography IS THE EVENT!

But I think I understand why you defend his work now. You are somehow detaching the photographing of the event from the event itself. But he is not documenting, he is actively CAUSING, CREATING the thing. His horrific little horrors do not exist without him, and they involve the disrespectful abuse of human remains. Imagine a family member, or friend who stumbles across a photo of their loved one in a JPW photo. Do you not get it? Do you think that is somehow OK? It would be different if he were documenting what some other sicko had done with corpses, but he is the sicko. You somehow overlook that, and think he is just making a statement about it. No, HE IS IT!

BTW, it matters little to me whether he is engaged in some other, even "worse" behaviors. You seem to think I believe that he is, but that hasnt even crossed my mind. The reason for that is nothing else he could do would be worse than what he already does. He cant sink any lower in my mind.

 

[jjstafford]

I can only answer you for myself (can you give us your first name so you feel more like a friend and so I don't have to keep calling you MR. Stafford?) -

You may call me Mister Stafford.

At any rate, my own belief system forces me to answer this: that it is the height of human self-importance and human arrogance to think there is anything wrong with this act. [...]

Anyway - getting back to it. Yes, I personally think it is hubris. I think that we attribute qualities to corpses which they do not, in reality, posess. [...]

A fair measure of humanity is found in the respect it shows the living by giving a certain reverence for people's life work and tolerance for their physical attributes, and the respect is further evinced by how they treat the body after life.

Those who enjoy the opposite of the social respect but do not practice defiling the living and dead have little to risk; they live as voyeurs. Those who practice, advertise, document and profit from the same are simply psychopaths by definition.

 

[Wayne]

I do not believe that the human is any more sacrosanct in this regard than farm animals or ANY other living creature. I do not concern myself so much with the rights of the non-living. I am, however, EXTREMELY passionate about the rights of the LIVING. Including photographers who catch flack for not taking pictures of puppies and sunsets.

That is how I feel.

I would agree that treating the dead with respect is primarily for the benefit of the living. But playing with the dead is not respectful of the vast majority of the living that you claim to care so much about.

 

[jjstafford]

My GUESS as to what DRIVES Mr. Witkin is NOT personal perversity - but trying to show what a disturbing place our world is.
[...]

If Witkins wants to show what a disturbing place our world is, he can choose to do it in ways that most people truly identify with. His only crusade is to make lots of money.

 

[Alex Hawley]

Answer this one Sparky: Why can't Witkin do what he does using artificial human parts rather that real ones illegally obtained?

 

[Sparky]

I don't know. perhaps he does. you'll have to ask him. you treat me as though I am some sort of representative of his. I think the effect would be the same. I think the way to do it is to use artificial parts and tell everyone they're real. Could even be what's going on. I really don't know.

Answer this one Sparky: Why can't Witkin do what he does using artificial human parts rather that real ones illegally obtained?

 

[Alex Hawley]

I don't know. perhaps he does. you'll have to ask him. you treat me as though I am some sort of representative of his. I think the effect would be the same. I think the way to do it is to use artificial parts and tell everyone they're real. Could even be what's going on. I really don't know.

Well, when you go trying to defend him, then that assumes a repesentative role at the moment. Thanks for the honest answer.

 

[Sparky]

You may call me Mister Stafford.


A fair measure of humanity is found in the respect it shows the living by giving a certain reverence for people's life work and tolerance for their physical attributes, and the respect is further evinced by how they treat the body after life.

Those who enjoy the opposite of the social respect but do not practice defiling the living and dead have little to risk; they live as voyeurs. Those who practice, advertise, document and profit from the same are simply psychopaths by definition.

Okay MR. *******... Ooops. I mean Mr. Stafford... whatever. I'm over it. Say what you want about the guy. I've given what I consider to be a terrific effort to help you understand ONE defender's viewpoint. I'm tired of your republican rhetoric. It will do you no good here. I really do not know what you want to achieve.... would you like to publicly humiliate me? whatever, okay. I've said my piece. That is my position. I think you've been watching too many christian horror movies.

 

[Sparky]

If Witkins wants to show what a disturbing place our world is, he can choose to do it in ways that most people truly identify with. His only crusade is to make lots of money.

I doubt it. I think he would LIKE to make a living as an artist. Though - to MY mind he shoulda done one or two and called it quits. Just asking for trouble otherwise - this thread will attest to that, right?

 

[Sparky]

Once again you elaborately shuffle dance around a very, very simple question, and ask a question of your own. I'm not interested in why he might (hypthetically) play with body parts if not photographing them. It doesnt matter. There could be many reasons, none of them, including photographing them, being acceptable.

I have seen some (certainly not all) work by all the above photographers and while it may not be my cup of tea none of it is in the same class as JPW. Some people document the real horrors of life. JPW, in his corpse work, creates them, his photography IS THE EVENT!

But I think I understand why you defend his work now. You are somehow detaching the photographing of the event from the event itself. But he is not documenting, he is actively CAUSING, CREATING the thing. His horrific little horrors do not exist without him, and they involve the disrespectful abuse of human remains. Imagine a family member, or friend who stumbles across a photo of their loved one in a JPW photo. Do you not get it? Do you think that is somehow OK? It would be different if he were documenting what some other sicko had done with corpses, but he is the sicko. You somehow overlook that, and think he is just making a statement about it. No, HE IS IT!

BTW, it matters little to me whether he is engaged in some other, even "worse" behaviors. You seem to think I believe that he is, but that hasnt even crossed my mind. The reason for that is nothing else he could do would be worse than what he already does. He cant sink any lower in my mind.

whatever, wayne. you won't listen or consider - fine. I won't either.

 

[Jorge]

whatever, wayne. you won't listen or consider - fine. I won't either.

LOL.....I thought this has been your position from the beguining....talk about the pot calling the kettle black. BTW, if you missed it, Alex asked you a question? One that is usually always ignored by JPW's groupies....

 

[Sparky]

Wayne.

Here - I thought you'd like to see this. This is the guy I used to assist for who makes up to $200K and beyond PER print. I'd be curious to get your reaction.

http://www.columbia.edu/cu/museo/3/jeffwall.htm

 

[Wayne]

My reaction is, what is your point? Please say there is one....

 

[Sparky]

Guess I thought you'd get really upset - I wanted to use it as a means of figuring out where the heck you were coming from. You seemed upset that the dude makes a few thousand for a print. Anyway - okay - test failed. I'll just shut up now. I'm not really ENJOYING the whole making enemies thing. That wasn't why I came to APUG in the first place.

 

[Robert Kennedy]

Wall amkes $2k per print because, IIRC he only makes like 3. One for Europe, One for N. America and one other one.

 

[Sparky]

No - not $2K ... $200K. TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS. Yeah - I'm not sure - I think he makes 1-4 prints total maybe. They're usually VERY large format cibas mounted in these INSANELY precisely made german stainless steel lightboxes. Those cost him about $20,000 alone - PER.

 

[Wayne]

Guess I thought you'd get really upset - I wanted to use it as a means of figuring out where the heck you were coming from. You seemed upset that the dude makes a few thousand for a print. Anyway - okay - test failed. I'll just shut up now. I'm not really ENJOYING the whole making enemies thing. That wasn't why I came to APUG in the first place.

You seem to be very confused. I never mentioned money, and it never entered my mind, just like the other thoughts you atrributed to me that never entered my mind. You dont know where I'm coming from but I have told you flat out, directly, several times exactly where I am coming from-what Witkin does is unacceptable criminal behavior by even the lowest of human standards, and it would be so whether he photographs it or not. You have said (rather obliquely) you wouldnt like it to be done with your own loved ones, yet you deny this same respect to others (by defending JPW, who IS doing it) all the while claiming to respect the living. You're just very confused, and entirely inconsistant.

 

[Ed Sukach]

What was that question again? Correct me if I am wrong .. was it "Why doesn't he use artificial body parts instead of actual dead people?"

First the shield: I don't advocate, support, condone or enjoy Witkin's work, or his methods. Period. I would not make images like that.

I would answer the initial question with a couple of others... "Why doesn't anyone/ everyone use mannequins for figure studies, instead of real models? Or, why do some trek through the roughest of wildernesses to photograph a mountain, when we could, with much less effort and expense, make a model of it, and photograph that?

WHY Witkin does what he does - his motivation - is another question, entirely.
There are infinite possibilities... one that I can remember from somewhere, is that he shares the perceived Mexican fascination with death and the dead.
Whether that is the motive or not, I don't know. Perhaps anyone searching for answers could search the web for a Witkin site... and it might be possible that he makes a defining statement about his motivation there. I have not done that, because frankly, I don't care.

One thing that is ticking me off here are those that make the assumption that whoever does not make the approved choice in their aesthetic appreciation - whatever that may be - is automatically "devoid of all moral fibre". That patently makes no sense.

My opinion .. We are all free to make our choices in art! If we try to restrict or coerce others in their choices, we will, of necessity, confer on others the right to restrict our own.

I would suggest that aesthetics and morality are intrinsically different subjects, Different, but not necessarily exclusive.
Would it not be proper to start a morality thread? There we can discuss the principles of right and wrong ... or are the myriads of comparative religion sites on the web enough?

 

[atenlaugh]

I would suggest that aesthetics and morality are intrinsically different subjects, Different, but not necessarily exclusive.

I think you're right. There are some very attractive things that are morally questionable (or reprehensible). Such is the case with Witkin; while Witkin's aesthetic can be very attractive, that says nothing at all about Witkin's ethics.

A very famous example would be the Nazi party. Very attractive aesthetic, poor record of morality. Not that I'm comparing the breadth of Witkin and the Nazis, both just seem fitting, historic examples of the aesthetic-moral distinction.

On a social level, the patterns repeat. The warrior caste of almost any society, really, tries to posit a particular image. It's what gets young men excited enough to join a cause. All of this entirely seperate from what that army actually does.

Killing women and children is horrible, sure, but boy do those gleaming weapons and finely-built horses look good.

You made me pull out (in my brain) all kinds of thoughts about Bataille, and intimacy (thus all the warrior-speak), but I'll save that for some time more apt!

Also, I'm in no way trying to detract from the humanity and respect being shown.

 

[Sparky]

You're just very confused, and entirely inconsistant.

Of course - you're perfectly right, Wayne... I see it all much more clearly now. I should NEVER have gone off my medication this weekend...!! Goodness me!!

Okay - back to photographing bunnyrabbits...!!

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=888193