Robert Mapplethorpe, Classicist

Like a crackhead in Amsterdam, the art world is generally known to suffer from a nearly crippling case of ADD. Today's shocking sensation is tomorrow's freshman dorm decoration and it's easy to look back on past controversies and not be able to see what all the fuss was about. Once avant-garde Impressionism is now mundane enough to be found on everything from magnets to postcards, while the stunts of more recent artists like Jeff Koons and Damien
Hirst now often just seem, well, a bit stupid.

A case in point for all this is the work of Robert Mapplethorpe. Once shocking enough to be deemed "obscene" by the city of Cincinnati back in 1990, Mapplethorpe's photographs are now accepted enough to be compared with Classical art, in the Guggenheim's current exhibit Robert Mapplethorpe and the Classical Tradition: Photographs and Mannerist Prints.

While many people focus on sexual and purposefully shocking aspects of Mapplethorpe's work, in reality his photographs are often also highly skilled explorations form and of the sculptural uses of light. Rather than attempting to ignore prior artistic practices, Mapplethorpe realized that much of his works power could come from placing transgressive images and people within the larger history of art.

In this exhibit, the Guggenheim makes this dialog explicit by placing Mapplethorpe's photograph's next to Mannerist engravings and woodcuts by Hendrick Goltzius, Jan Harmensz. Muller, Jacob Matham, and Jan Saenredam, as well as near selected sculptures from Classical antiquity.

The connections between the various artworks are quite interesting and the show, which is open through August 28th, is well worth a visit. However, we have to see it's also just really nice to see Mapplethorpe's work being considered for more than just its sensational value.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Branwen Buckley in Arts and Events on August 18, 2005 8:57 AM

Comments [rss]

EQB

Hey Jean,

Being that (as you say) he was attracted to black men, why would it surprise you that he made more photographs (and more graphic ones, as you also say) of black men than other races?

Further, if someone such as Mapplethorpe was so generally obsessed and intrigued by sexuality, wouldn't it also make sense that he would focus on "certain body parts" more than others? (I'm assuming that you're just too shy to say that he liked to photograph pricks and anus' -- which he was quite happy to do).

Lastly, what is the issue with focussing on the objects of his obsession and desire (and I specifically use the word object, since it appears that you're reacting to what is commonly called 'objectification')? He was often quite involved with the people he photographed. And people seen as objects can be quite beautiful, and photographs of people objectified gives us all an opportunity to relish the beauty and sensuality that we all possess.

Cheers

--e--

rory

I thought the post's contention was that the art world has ADD: "once deemed 'obscene'... Mapplethorpe's photographs are now compared with Classical art."

I'm saying, ok so what, isn't that just the case because his work was objectively more controversial then? And more recent work is less explicit thus allowing critics a chance to focus on the classissist aspect.

Jean

eebmore, Mapplethorpe was hugely attracted to black men and reportedly enjoyed using the n word while having sex with them. In terms of his photography of black men, they are generally more graphic and more focused on certain body parts than those of white males.

reg

you can't really seperate out the works, rory. when mapplethorpe was so controversial--the "perfect moment" exhibition--the touring show included everything from calla lilies to pee fetishes to major-league butt-plunging. he was a classissist then as now.

rory

um ... doesn't this post totally miss the fact that his previous highly criticized works focussed much more on intentionally shocking raunchy sexual subjects while his current revered stuff is in fact more tame in this regard?

MT

I wonder if the same will someday be said of artists like Madonna. She was roundly condemned for the shocking quality of her work, but maybe someday we'll be able to see it in a rounder context and be able to better see it as an artistic expression.

eebmore

Jean, is it your belief that Mapplethorpe’s portrayal of the black male body is more fetishistic than his portrayal of the male body of other races? I can’t say I’ve ever seen evidence of that.

paul

I think the post is right on. Every semester I do a guest lecture on art and censorship at a Catholic college in Minnesota. After a rundown of "offensive" art classics--Serrano, Ofili, Renee Cox, Ron Athey--I get to Mapplethrope. The work that always gets a rise out of the classes isn't the fisting shot or the bullwhip self-portrait, but the two photos of nude/seminude children. And the issue is always manipulation, not sex. So I think that the more out-there sex-related content has lost some of its outrageousness (although, in agreement with John, it's hard to see the fisting shot, cropped so close as it is, and parse the formalist aesthetic nuances). The classisist take on Mapplethorpe seems pretty dominant. Richard Flood, outgoing chief curator at the Walker here in Mpls and incoming chief curator at the New Museum, mentions it in the Twin Cities GLBT publication this month: http://www.lavendermagazine.com/artman/publish/article_1145.php

Jean

I'd have to agree with you John...Mapplethorpe's work is still highly problematic. The whole fetishizing of the black male body always disturbs me. I tend to think of his works as somewhat racist and insulting.

john

I'll have to disagree with your view on Mapplethorpe; my opinion of him came when i opened his book and say a photo of a man double-fisting himself.