Exhibit on Mapplethorpe, curated by Hockney

JLN, Very nicely stated relationship between reality and truth!

If Mapplethorpe (posthumously aided by Hockney) is making a "truth statement" about his subjects--something to the effect that "this is the way they are"--then why does the photographer take such care with his lighting, much of which is from adjusted, artificial sources? Perhaps, without such fine lighting, the pictures would have had almost no life?

Cartier-Bresson was extremely reluctant to tinker with what he caught on the fly with his camera. For very many years, he had the same printer, whose instructions were: please give me an 8-by-10 of each image and do not alter the framing. To my eye, C-B was the very best at reportage.

Agreeing with each post in turn.

If I had to guess, I would suggest that Mapplethorp's tinkering with light (and composition) has little to do with showing us the truth about the subjects. It may be merely an expression of his aesthetic urge. I could understand that very well. I wouldn't want to make an indifferent pot, no matter how well it served as a container. I would also feel the urge to make it beautiful. Someone once said: if it's important it should also be beautiful. This, was I recall, a Latin American international official's response to an Englishman's criticism of his prose (as applied to an international treaty statement) as too purple.
Much of this is just from the top of the head, of course.

Of course.

Well, I think I'll have to wait to say any more until I see some other Mapplethorpe work, as I'm underwhelmed by this exhibit for reasons previously mentioned, but leave room to change my mind.

Oh, no, I didn't mean it, I'll keep talking.
Hockney. I like Hockney a lot, in that we've shared some interests, a little too closely in that he made major work out of things I was fooling with off and on (landscapes in plan or orthagonal view) and I too have done a swimming pool series, and I've designed spriinkler systems ad infinitum so I have sort of liked his lawn with sprinkler...
but I've always thought his work has been... stiff.
Maybe that's an aesthetic choice and I call it stiff and others might call it, er, taut.

<I've mentioned before that I like him personally, from very slight personal experience, and from what I've read about him. He held the door for me to the auditorium at Dickson at UCLA as we were both late and I was running up the stairs. (Thor, I mean Richard Serra, and Frank Gehry spoke. There might have been a third speaker, I forget at this point.)
Anyway, at the least Hockney is a gentleperson.>

JLN, Your "wouldn't want to make an indifferent pot" is a very acute remark. I now agree with you that, although the Mapplethorpes in this exhibition seem static, the lighting is still good because, as a committed artist, the very last aspect of an image that he'd ignore would be the lighting. As you suggest, his attention to the light may be a subconscious expression of his artistic urge. Good argument, JLN!

Ossobuco, How nice that David Hockney holds doors for people in a hurry. To do so, slowed HIM down. To paraphrase the ancient Greeks: In gesture there is character. And this gesture suggests an intrinsically good fellow!

That's what I thought, especially since the talk had already started, with people speaking that I presume he'd have interest in. I remember it, besides the fact that it was him, because I was a moderate distance away rushing to the door, not just behind him.

ah now, Cartier Bresson - a man with a brilliant eye, passionate and witty, understanding light and shadows ... I love his work.

The photographer Robert Frank was often criticized for his muddy, flat images.

When an apprentice printer made perfect prints from his exposures he threw a fit insisting that they were not supposed to look like that at all.

Or so the story goes.

Kind of like HCB's command to not crop.

I've always liked those photographers who are not slaves to "gear" and "technique".

Richard Avedon did wonderful things with light, beautiful things with light. But really, you don't instinctively recognize it as studio lighting. Perhaps this is why his portraits never become still lifes.

Just considered Frank's THE AMERICANS, and I see what you mean, boomerang; however, I'd be inclined to call his work moody rather than muddy. But maybe there's some overlap in the two qualities! I, too, admire photographers who use basic equipment. Cartier-Bresson certainly made out well with just his eye and his Leica. Maybe, some viewers of Avedon's work with studio lighting are unconscious of its presence because it brings out faces and costumes so brilliantly--and one's attention goes directly to them. Only on further reflection does one admire the lighting for itself?

There's a show coming up that I saw mentioned at Yancey Richardson Gallery in New York: it features photography from Ed Ruscha, Robert Frank, and Walker Evans. I didn't see a link, it was just mentioned in the NYTimes art notices. I'll see if I can find any more online.

Ah, here's one link -
http://www.yanceyrichardson.com/content.php?mode=current


The Press Release in the link explains more..

And, hey, I looked up the gallery list of artists, they all seem to be photographers..

Miklos asks, Does one admire the lighting for itself? We might ask the same question of a painter's palette and composition. Can we not admire lighting, coloring, and composition BOTH for their independent quality AND for their contribution to the overall message of the work? I've always loved the lighting of Hitchcock's films for their expressive value, for their contribution to the mood of a scene/situation.

This thread has provided a great excuse to revisit Avedon. I thought this was a striking comparison of images:

Maplethorpe:




Avedon:

I've definitely appreciated sound editing for itself. And yes, certainly lighting. I can appreciate these matters as part of the experience of the film's individual scenes, but I think I can also separate them as part of the flow on their own.

One is velvety, the other incisive...

"Can we not admire lighting, coloring, and composition BOTH for their independent quality AND for their contribution to the overall message of the work? "

That is an interesting comment and one I'm going to spend some time thinking about, JLNobody.

With the advent of affordable digital photography EVERBODY and some of their dogs are now "photographers". Educating them to the things you mention is really job one.

I thought it was very interesting when I posted images to the gallery that the people who responded to liking them were the ones who were more educated (I don't think that's the right word but I can't think of a better one just now) in such things.

Hmmmmm.....

Osso, I would most definately go see that Robert Frank, Walker Evans show if I had the chance. I'm not familiar with the other guy at all but he's keeping good company.

That show (now that I read the press release in the link) is really about how Evans' and Frank's photography had an effect on Ruscha's.

photography means painting or drawing with light so I'd vote the light is a vital component.

Some work exploits the natural light, seeing a moment when things are 'right' and the shadows/direction of light is doing interesting things,

Studio work has the chance to invent the light and done well can create the mood and change the results dramatically - as Osso said, one image above 'velvety' the other 'incisive' - and by design not chance.

I looked at a series of portraits of artists some years ago for a project, They had been photographed with their work and the lighting in each case had been subtly designed to make them look like their work (incisive/velvety etc) it really opened my eyes to the creativity possibilities(not something I truly know how to create or have any real experience of sadly).

My photography is of the first kind, exploiting natural light/time of day/pure serendipity

My adjectives are an amateur's - the first words that come to my head, instead of proper adjectives from the field of photography criticism. I have books on photo criticism. One day I'll have to read one of them.

About appreciating an artwork for its individual qualities AND as a whole, in order to feel its particular pulse of life, I think that Coleridge has the most concise (and, perhaps, the best) observation:

"Multeity in unity. Unity in multiety."

In genuine art--of whatever genre--there's a lot going on (and ever-expanding), and, at the same time, this lot has, and retains, coherence.

Bommerang, Thanks for posting the two portraits! I find the Avedon much superior in every respect, but this may be an apples-and-oranges comparison, because the Mapplethorpe is , I think, a Fire Island series snapshot, while the Avedon is a studio work. When, in my mind, I contrast a studio Mapplethorpe with the Avedon, the quality is much closer. However, in general, I'd give Avedon the higher marks for eliciting personality. Mapplethorpe's studio portraits seem willing to sacrifice some personality to overly-dramatic form and atmosphere. I suppose one could say that Mapplethorpe's work is more consciously stylish than Avedon's--and, whenever one cannot help but see the machinery of an artistic effect, the power of the art is often somewhat diminished. Still, I like a lot of Mapplethorpes!