The right of free speech in the US Constitution allows one to publish what they want. ... That's the point I was making.
Technically, and possibly more correctly... aren't you really referring to PRESS rather than speech?
Speech, press, association, assembly, I think they get lumped under "expression." Photography gets dropped into that since it wasn't around when the Founders crafted that language.
Where is the Like Button.?Just as a point of interest, French citizens also have an absolute right to having Sundays off. That means that if they work on Sundays they are entitled to extra pay, which in some cases can mean double-time.
Holy Cow and no offense.These pictures where in the spectators could be seen, that were used in the book on the Tour de France for which I committed the photography, took weeks of deliberation, negotiations, going back and forth between the publisher and the editor, and finally I had to do a lot of retouching and altering before these were approved for publication.
It costed me an arm and a leg.
So much that I refused the commission the next year...
When carefully interpretering the legal regulations in France, these pictures could have passed to the publication without all this hassle (it is a large mass happening), but the publishing house wanted to be sure and safe.
I think that is always where the line is drawn.Are photographs of said party unencumbered for commercial use? I don't know.
I cannot photo you and your ... devilishly handsome ... family in your front yard,
Many years ago i saw a big Mapplethorpe exhibit with a separate viewing room for the controversial shots. My first thought was "porn" and my second thought was "why would anyone pose for a shot like that?" That was long before today's Internet. Mapplethorpe's models gave permission (he was one of them) and I suppose today's Nude Netizens do too. But maybe not in France
These pictures where in the spectators could be seen, that were used in the book on the Tour de France for which I committed the photography, took weeks of deliberation, negotiations, going back and forth between the publisher and the editor, and finally I had to do a lot of retouching and altering before these were approved for publication.
It costed me an arm and a leg.
So much that I refused the commission the next year...
When carefully interpretering the legal regulations in France, these pictures could have passed to the publication without all this hassle (it is a large mass happening), but the publishing house wanted to be sure and safe.
It's a pitch perfect example of what happens when art gets put into the service of socio-political agenda. The art recedes and the agenda dominates. Mapplethorpe was a capable photographer, but this stuff was horrid. It was just provocation for its own sake in arts drag.
You weren't Mapplethorpe's target audience.
A vast number of others were. And a huge number of them appreciated them, even if they were disturbed by them.
And we understand that you don't like the changes to the world that his work contributed to.
Which is absolutely your privilege.
And we understand that you don't like the changes to the world that his work contributed to.
Which is absolutely your privilege.
Let me provide a different example. How would you judge the merits of a talented photographer whose (very good) output was overtly racist? I see this no differently. It's using the protection of art to flog an agenda (literally, as it turns out, in Mapplethorpe's case
The OP French cite IS ”Legal trouble” as in criminal (the embedded OP link):What I don't know is, should I refuse to do so, can he still sue me and have me in legal trouble the next time I visit France. We would need a French lawyer to answer that...
Regardless of legality, people in France can be more reluctant than most to be photographed in public. What would HCB say?
today would be a different story since he would need releases from those who could be clearly identified.
I have no such objection. My objection was his injection of agenda and pretending it was art. That's always my objection when this happens, irrespective of content.
Are you saying that art should be devoid of an agenda or, as Matt says, “message,” or just his agenda?
Most of my own “art,” is devoid of agenda/message whether it is photography or drawing or painting or mosaic but I have injected a “message” on occasion. I spent about 9 month from the fall of 2022 to late-spring 2023 working on a series of 7 drawings on the theme of “abandonment.” For all but one I used my own photographs as reference and showed various “things” abandoned or cast off. The final drawing (and these are all 15”x22” and done by stippling, several million dots each) I used a photo of a local building that I transformed into a derelict one and added faceless homeless people. The series had a 3 month show at the Northcutt-Steele gallery and were later submitted to our local contemporary art museum as possibilities in their annual auction (which closes these weekend.) The only piece that was accepted was that last one and at the opening reception one of the jurors told me that the main reason it was accepted was that it was one of the few submissions that had social commentary.
Clearly, artists who inject agenda can make good art. But it's a matter of how overt it is. It's one thing to have a point of view - say Salgado - and quite another to beat people over the head with it - Mapplethorpe.
As a different example, Vivian Maier captured her time and place brilliantly without having to resort to the pulpit thumping one sees all too often. Did she have some larger agenda? Perhaps. Maybe. We'll probably never fully know. But, the work stands on its own feet absent knowing any of that.
For me, it comes down to whether or not the artist is primarily interested in creating art or flogging propaganda.
I am sensitive to this because so many of the arts and humanities have been hijacked by socio-political agenda to the detriment of the art itself. It ruins art because art is supposed be first for the artist not a religious tract trying to get converts. When artists go down this path, they will - sooner or later - start pandering to their audience instead of, you know, creating art...
Clearly, artists who inject agenda can make good art. But it's a matter of how overt it is. It's one thing to have a point of view - say Salgado - and quite another to beat people over the head with it - Mapplethorpe.
Some of this depends on the background of the artist. I follow some (political) artists who live under conditions that not many of us would chose and their art just reflects their world. I also think about feminist art, especially from the 70s, that reacted to a male dominated society (and art world.) Some of my favorite art are the screen prints from the Soviet Union from the 1930s, definitely with an agenda. I don’t need to accept or agree with the agendas to judge whether, to me, it’s good art or not.
When you said “It ruins art because art is supposed be first for the artist not a religious tract trying to get converts.” it reminded me of the days I spent in Florence, Italy in ‘22. Most everything I viewed there was religious propaganda of one sort or another and even though I abhor proselytizing of that type (something for the “Pet Peeve” thread), I was able to look at both the art and the message and see how well they worked together, particularly in the context of the time they were created (and who footed the bill.)
I have no such objection. My objection was his injection of agenda and pretending it was art. That's always my objection when this happens, irrespective of content.
Yes, but the Florentine artists were not propagandizing to the public seeking conversions. I rather suspect they saw their work as an act of religious worship and duty. It's a rather different target audience than, say, convincing the peasant to increase wheat output through "inspirational" art.
Some of the greatest art in history was absolutely driven by religious intent, but I don't see it as "proselytizing" but much moreso as a celebration of the artist's faith and beliefs - something that informs all art.
….
“All art is propaganda, but not all propaganda is art.”
George Orwell
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?