Opinions about exploitation

[paulr]

"I think this is what this thread is about, the underlying intentions of the photographer. If all we are going to do is talk about his work without any other consideration then lets stop boring the rest of the forum members and say that you like his work and I dont....simple as that."

I did in fact discuss my impression of his intensions.

"Funny though, that you are willing to see all these extra things in his photographs yet you refuse to consider what he does to get them. How convenient....."

Jorge, please read what I wrote. I do consider what he does to get the pictures, and in some cases I find it troubling. My points are that 1) his working ethics and the value of his work are both worthwhile subjects, but of different conversations. And 2) while I agree that he crosses a lot of lines and that he's not my favorite person in the world, I don't think he's just about sensationalism, shock, or money.

[paulr]

"Paulr wrote "He believes very, very strongly in the work that he does, and believes in the importance of it being made."
So - what is the "importance" of the cadaver photos that was made by Witkin?"

which cadaver photo? there are many.

one thing i get a strong sense of in all his work is one of personal complicity ... an identification with the subjects, however freaklike or even dead. i get a sense of "welcome to my inner world" from his pictures. and a sense of both the horror and alienation of that world, and of the elaborate means used to make that world formally, texturally, metaphorically, and even art-historically coherent. Even beautiful.

next time you look at his work, consider this: it's only partly photography. the photograph is the finished product, but witkin's work is concerned every bit as much with sculpture, installation, and performance. this places it pretty far outside the bounds of the kinds of straight photography that most people on this site (myself included) spend most of our time talking about, so this suggests to me that it's worth more than a cursory look if we're going to understand it. it's very easy to quickly dismiss something, but not always illuminating.

[Alex Hawley]

"Take for example Eddie Adams picture of the execution. Yes, it was deplorable and I feel really bad for the person. The right thing would havebeen to ask permission from the family or another vietnamese elder. "

You see Bob, this is the type of exploitation I was talking about. You have a story behind this photo that you have read/heard and believe. I can tell you that the version you recount is not the context of the event at all. Reading from Eddie Adams' own account, and from what I remember being published in Life Magazine at the time, that "poor" Viet Cong had just killed a large group of school children and their teachers. He mowed them down on the sidewalk as they were walking into their school building. He was immediately apprehended and delivered to the South Vietnamese Colonel. Being martial law was in effect at the time, the Colonel WAS completely in his authority to execute the VC on the spot. There was no doubt that this person had done what he did. Adams was there and saw it first hand. The guy wholly deserved what he got.

Sure, it won him the Pulitzer prize, but he hated how the photo was used and interpreted past its publication in Life. It was blown into something he never intended it to portray nor did he agree with what it became.

Same war, the other iconic image winning a Pulitzer was that of the little girl on fire from the napalm attack. This photographer purposely went out with the intention of documenting such an event for the purpose of garnering the Pulitzer and becoming an icon of the Anti-War movement. What gauls me the worst is he purposely let the girl run by his self, on fire, doing nothing to help her, just to get his picture. Luckily, there were some GI's a few more yards down the road that saved her. A US Army combat photographer, with the GIs who saved the girl, got the whole incident on movie film from the other side of the road. You can see that guy lining up his shot and following the girl with his camera, and doing nothing to help her.

Was that ethical? I highly think not! However, to some, it apparently is. So there; two photos, two Pulitzers, two forms of exploitation, one intentional, one not. And two differing stories of what happened in the two events.

[Nick Morris]

Hello.

I'd like to re-enter the discussion. I was not familiar with Wilkin's work until this thread. I googled him and viewed the work being discussed. I am reluctant to trash someonelse's work, but I don't care for it at all. To me, it is like the bondage and the sado-masocistic photos from the 40s we've probably all seen. Mapplethorpe went for it some, and Helmut Newton became a famous fashion "photog" with it. It attempts to appeal to the the baser elements and dark side of human nature. Maybe the work has a legitimate point to make, but I can't see it. Perhaps Wilkin is attempting to make an artistic statement, but with the way he has utilized human remains, the work is void of any humanity.

Expoitation is difficult to discuss. Apparently Wikin has an appreciatitive audience. Some of the photograhers I cited in my earlier post have been both commended and condemed for their work. Wegee often photographed the recently departed in his on-going story of the New York streets; Gene Smith depicted the dead and deformed (Spanish Wake & Tamura's Bath), but those works retained their human connection, their humanity.

Nick

[paulr]

I'd strongly suggest to anyone who sees nothing in Witkin's work (or nothing but exploitation, bondage photo-remakes, sensationalism, etc.) to find one of the books on his work at a library or b&n and spend some time with it. Any simple, knee-jerk reaction to this work is missing the point. I'm not suggesting everyone's going to like it, but you have a chance to discover some depth, and at least to understand what it is you like or dislike.

[Nick Morris]

hello paulr,

Like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder. I'm not unaccustomed to looking beyond the surface of an image. Shocking images do not normally disturb me, and it's the "shock" aspect that I first responded to. I made a photo of a decaying bird carcas that has a deeper meaning to me, but some people who have seen it, do not like. The eye of the beholder.

I have seen work like Wilkin's, but using manaquen or animal (please excuse the mis-spellings) parts rather than human body parts. Though I'm not familiar with his work, I will accept that he is, by some, a respected artist. As an artist, I assume his work is intended to make a statement - asthetic, social, political, etc. I sense he is attempting to make a pyschological statement, expressing an inner vision.

Oh, I guess I can ramble on. I just don't really like his use of human remains and parts. It doesn't feel right. I can't look at the work and say "I wish I'd made such an image". Unless, the departed left a will saying "use my remains as a color or texture in a work of art", I think doing so, more than exploitaion, is unethical. But, that my opinion.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

to find one of the books on his work at a library or b&n and spend some time with it



Why? so I can read some psycobabble?...no thanks.....

Jorge, please read what I wrote.



Apparently you did not read my response either. You cannot separate the artist from the work. To say just look at his picture and find the "deeper meaning" without taking into consideration how the pictures were made is a cop out. If all you want is to consider the pictures without any regard to what was used to make them then as I said, it is very simple, some like me find his work has no readiming value, some like you think they are seeing....whatever you think you see, and you like them...no need to argue anymore.

[paulr]

You're still compressing the two points into one point: you're saying you don't like the work, which is fine, and you're saying you disapprove of how it was made, which is also fine. But this quick dismissal that lumps the two ideas together doesn't really answer either question.

Hypothetically, what if you discovered (and it would have to be from some source besides the art itself, because no such information is available there) that the cadavers were given to Witkin with full blessing from the families, and that they were in fact left to witkin for this purpose in the wills of the deceased? Would this change your perception of how exploitive the work is or not?

Or look at the Egyptian pyramids. For centuries it was believed that they were built by slave labor; by tens of thousands of people living from childhood until death under the burden of enormous stones, simply to build death monuments to the pharoas. I don't know anyone who wouldn't consider this to be a pinnacle of exploitation in the history of the world. Does any of this, however, diminish the pyramids' beauty, grandeur, mytycism, or historical fascination? Does it suggest that they should have been razed, banned, or ignored? And now that we no longer believe that they were built by slaves, should our perception of their beauty or their worth be somehow changed?

These are just open questions.

[paulr]

I want to follow up with something that might clarify my position on this issue.

I believe that a lot of art (certainly not all) comes from a place of pain in the person who makes it. The art often serves as a partial cure, or a palliative, or at least as a process for placing that pain or its source in a more affirmable perspective.

Pain is also a common cause for bad behavior: meanness, coldness, rage, lack of empathy, disrespect, betrayal, treachery. This is why it comes as little surprise that a good number of artists (again, certainly not all) have had some history of behaving badly. Picasso, Hemingway, Van Gogh, Mingus, and Stieglitz come to mind. I say this not to glorify or even condone any bad behavior, only to try to empathize with it, and especially to understand the ways in which might be related to their work.

If the making of the work comes the source of that bad behavior, or even if it can be seen as a product of bad behavior, I am going to be much more interested in trying to understand and learn from the work than I'm going to be interested in condoning or condemning it. All I can get out of judging it is a sense of righeousness. But if I open myself to the work, try to understand it, and to understand the pain and even the human failings that led to its coming into being, then my life will be richer for it.

[Kirk Keyes]

paulr - you are saying that playing with cadavers was theraputic for Witkin, and therefore we should look the other way because he is now a better person for it??? Sounds like more of the psychobabble.

So that's the "understanding" you have gained from looking at his work? And that benefits you as well somehow?

And if that's what makes this important, that seems like a rather lame excuse. I agree with Jorge that this activity would have been handled very differently had it occurred in the USA - I suspect he would have been charged with abusing a corpse.

I love the "modern" attutude that all judging is bad... Sometimes there is a right and a wrong, but some people refuse to see it.

Finally - What if Witkin was doing this and did not happen to take any photos?