...much-needed context...
One of the most important albums to me. Pure genius in my eyes, especially considering the environment in which it was released.
[video=youtube;xxygqSTO1lQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxygqSTO1lQ[/video]
he woudn't have amounted to much if he wasn't sam wagstaff's "boy"....wagstaff set him up with equpment, space, darkroom services--finest in the world--and heavy duty connections in the art world and also celebrity/rich folks connections.
Wagstaff got maplethorpe's stuff shown because he threw around a LOT of money in galleries...he was rich rich rich.
Exactly right! Robert Mapplethorpe gained millions of dollars courtesy of Sam Wagstaff to indulge any whim; photographic or otherwise. Given an unlimited budget, the best equipment, best studios, best models, set designers, lighting guys, darkroom services, publishers and publicists, plus guaranteed entry to the most prestigious galleries he could scarcely fail.
Given those resources virtually anyone in APUG who had a life devouring obsession and the energy to match it would do better.
????????????Fabrizio, I actually think this doesn't historically apply to photography. I think the most successful are usually the ones that don't scandalise anyone.
And Bill Henson probably will never work again.
I consider myself to be fortunate to have seen Ms. Smith on the tour she and the group did right after the release of Horses.
The first may be judged as art while the second is deemed erotic, perhaps even worse homo-erotic, whatever that means.
Speaking in general and not of Mapplethorpe in particular, the depiction of the male form has always been judged by a different standard. Take two photographs with the model in the same pose. The first shows a female nude and the second a male nude. The first may be judged as art while the second is deemed erotic, perhaps even worse homo-erotic, whatever that means. Unfortunately, people see what they have been conditioned to see. Is the Picasso painting "Boy Leading a Horse" art or is it pornography? Would a similar photograph by von Gloeden be art or pornography? What if the subject were female?
Is it uncool to view Patti Smith as boring?
I don't know if Maplethorpe's pictures are "porn".or "uncool", but they certainly are a lot of cock
Art and eroticism are far from mutually exclusive, as you paint them here.
You can simply look up homoerotic in the dictionary if you don't know what it means.
Exactly right! Robert Mapplethorpe gained millions of dollars courtesy of Sam Wagstaff to indulge any whim; photographic or otherwise. Given an unlimited budget, the best equipment, best studios, best models, set designers, lighting guys, darkroom services, publishers and publicists, plus guaranteed entry to the most prestigious galleries he could scarcely fail.
Given those resources virtually anyone in APUG who had a life devouring obsession and the energy to match it would do better.
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?