Opinions about exploitation

[paulr]

good grief.
i'm suggesting it's possible to have the intellectual rigor to separate judgement from understanding.
judge all you want. condemn all you want. it if it makes you feel noble and righteous, so much the better. but guess what? it's pretty easy to do. and you're not likely to learn anything while you're doing it.

these condemnations remind me of a kid in a literature class i took, who couldn't fathom why we were wasting our time reading Crime and Punishment. "Raskolikov's just a murderer, a total worm! They should just lock him up!" Our professor couldn't convince him that Dostoyevski indeed wouldn't have written the story if there was nothing more to it than that.

why would i bother getting into what's interesting to me in Witkin's work? would you honestly care, or are you just waiting tell me that whatever i say is bullshit? and Jorge, yes, I already know you think i'm hallucinating when I say that I see something. your blanket opinion has been duly noted, so I won't bother.

it would be more interesting to let you answer the question for yourselves. Do you really think this man spent decades of his life doing this incredibly difficult work (time consuming, expensive, full of beaurocratic hassles and the constant need to persuade collaborators and get permission, laborious sculpture making and prop building, working under endless scrutiny of a judgemental public condemning him as a deviant) if his goals and his commitment were superficial ones? And if indeed he's up to something substantial, isn't possible that there's something interesting there?

Again, I wouldn't expect everyone to like the work. And i don't think it's a stretch to think that ethically, he should not have made some of it or even much of it. But neither of these conclusions have any bearing on whether or not there's something there worth looking at.

[paulr]

As an aside, here's where I might find an ethical dilemma with witkin's work: if i were a curator.
I would be faced on the one hand with my curatorial duties, which are tied to the artistic and art-historical relevence of the work, and on the other hand with my ethical responsibilities, which might tell me that this person and his working methods should not be condoned or supported. This could be a difficult position to be in. In order to resolve it, I would want to know more than I do know about how he does what he does.

[Peter Galea]

Witkin's "work" is garbage. If viewing corpes and portion of corpses tittilates you and makes you search for meaning, that's your perogative. Trying to convince others of it's artistic value is ludicrous.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

good grief. i'm suggesting it's possible to have the intellectual rigor to separate judgement from understanding. judge all you want. condemn all you want. it if it makes you feel noble and righteous, so much the better. but guess what? it's pretty easy to do. and you're not likely to learn anything while you're doing it.



Well, I figured I had written all that I had to say and I was done with this, but your last post really takes the cake. This thread is about exploitation, NOT about art appreciation. Witkin's motives and his approach is as much part of his photography as his "product". You say it is easy to judge, it is far easier to rationalize immoral actions on behalf of a "higher" purpose. According to you and your line of reasoning it is no big deal what the Nazis did, after all they contribuited to many sciences while waging WWII. There are no dictators and tyrants, only misguided people wrestling with their demons....what a load of BS.

If you cannot recognize when something is wrong and on order to dismiss it you have to rationalize it and give examples of previous wrongs to make your point, you are morally bankrupt. As the saying goes, evil flourishes when good men do nothing, and Witking crossed the line.

Kirk asked you what was so "important" about the cadavers work, and all you answered was "which one?" I am going to answer your question. ANY OF THEM, what is so important about any cadavaer picture that you have to rationalize illegal and immoral behavior and say: "ah, never mind how he got them, what is important is the expression of his inner demons"......

Apparently to you the ends justifies the means, so why dont you go shoot babies and take pictures while you do it...no big deal!.....

[paulr]

there is a serious reading comprehention issue going on here.

jorge and kirk, do you still think i'm saying that "the ends justify the means," or that recognizing artistic value equals ethical approval? if so, you're missing the only point i'm trying to make.
and Peter, what does it mean that "trying to convince others of its artistic value is ludicrous?"
maybe that's a message you should send to the editors at 21st publishers, and to Peter Galassi and the other major curators in the world. They're the ones charged with doing most of the convincing.

Actually, I'm discovering that trying to convince anyone of anything ludicrous.

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

or that recognizing artistic value equals ethical approval?



You are right, there is some serious reading comprehension here. As I said before, read solwly...this thread is about exploitation and ethical behavior within photography...nothing was said in the original post about "recognizing artistic value"....It has been told to you by many here, "artistic" value is on the eye of the beholder and all the curators you mention are exactly what is wrong with the art world. They put crap in a pedestal because it is "different" or "contemporary" and tell us "we dont get it"...apparently you have bought their line of BS hook, line and sinker.

If you remove the cadavers and mishapen bodies from witkin's pictures and replace them with man made props or normal bodied people, nobody would give a rat's ass about the photographs. The only "value" they have is because they show what they show.....and as such the purpose is to shock, he is a charlatan hiding under the "artist" label and his work has no "artistic" value unless you start talking about "seeing deeper"....which for many of us are the code words for getting ready the hip waders and brace for an onslaught of cow manure......

BTW, we are all still waiting for you to explain to us why the cadaver work is important. Take your pick, any damn picture and tell us why is the picture "important" and why it is so good. Hell, forget the cadavers, tell us why tieing a horse in placing it in a bizarre position is "good" and has artistic value. Anybody can do this bullshit, I can tie one of my dogs upside down in a dark room with some props and cut her throat and take pictures while she struggles and bleeds to death....is this good photography just because I took the time to make some props and arrange them and then took pictures of an animal suffering?....no it is not IMO.

I am not trying to convince you, all I am telling you is that if you try to tell us what is sooooo good about witkin's work without using art speak BS or methaphysical psycobabble (and yes I purposely omit the h in psychobabble) I am sure you cant.

[paulr]

"nothing was said in the original post about "recognizing artistic value""

Many responses within the thread, yours included, brought up the issue of artistic value, and tied them to the ethical values concerning exploitation. These are what I responded to.

"all the curators you mention are exactly what is wrong with the art world. They put crap in a pedestal because it is "different" or "contemporary" and tell us "we dont get it"...apparently you have bought their line of BS hook, line and sinker."

So I'm to gather that you, Jorge, are the arbiter of what is good and worthwhile in the world of art, and that everyone who disagrees with you is full of crap? And that the measure of anything's meaning is whether or not you, Jorge, get it?

"I am not trying to convince you, all I am telling you is that if you try to tell us what is sooooo good about witkin's work without using art speak BS or methaphysical psycobabble (and yes I purposely omit the h in psychobabble) I am sure you cant."

If you are in fact sure that I can't convince you, then you're right. I can't. It's not possible to convince anyone whose mind is made up to the point where they only listen to disagree. If, however, you are open to the possibility that there's more to these pictures than you suspect, let me know. I'll be happy to talk about them if you're actually interested in listening.

[paulr]

and if the original poster thinks this discussion would be a hijacking of his thread, then we can start another one.

[Kirk Keyes]

Paulr - as Jorge has pointed out, you did really sidestep my question. I figured it was such a simple question, that you would realize that I really was leaving it up to you to pick one. I figured this would allow you to pick what you considered to be Witkin's stongest photo for your reply - to give you the best chance of making a strong case for your point of view. But since you sidestepped it, I figured that if someone who is making an aurguement is unwilling to give examples to support the their point of view, then trying to convince them otherwise is ludicrous...

paulr "jorge and kirk, do you still think i'm saying that "the ends justify the means," or that recognizing artistic value equals ethical approval? if so, you're missing the only point i'm trying to make. "

I understand that you are not saying the end justifies the means. And I think Jorge and I are both arguing the opposite of your recond statement - "that recognizing artistic value equals ethical approval". I would say that ethical approval should be linked to artistic value. Not that they equal each other, but that one can build upon the other. And that is a problem I have with Witkin's cadavers.

I fully agree with Jorge's hypothetical examples above - although I'm sure someone, would find "value" in the photos even if the cadaver's had been replaced with mannequins.

Paulr- you put a lot of value in the ability to have an artist work through their inner struggles while creating their art. And I know this is a valid technique that is used in a theraputic setting. But I'm sure the therapist would agree that "working" through your issues with corpses is not a good thing. Especially whent he corpses are treated as they are in Witkin's photos.

"it would be more interesting to let you answer the question for yourselves."

That's a cop-out.

" Do you really think this man spent decades of his life doing this incredibly difficult work (time consuming, expensive, full of beaurocratic hassles and the constant need to persuade collaborators and get permission, laborious sculpture making and prop building, working under endless scrutiny of a judgemental public condemning him as a deviant) if his goals and his commitment were superficial ones? "

Yes.

"And if indeed he's up to something substantial, isn't possible that there's something interesting there?"

So you are not really convinced he's up to something substantial either? There's certainly somthing "interesting" there, but I'm still don't see where the substantial claim you are making comes it.

And since Jorge brought up Nazi's, maybe I can invoke Godwin's Law with the following:
We all know that Hilter was what has been called a mediocre artist at best when he was practising art. But I now have to wonder, after all the "working out" of his inner turmoils and struggles, how much better would Hitler's art have become had he survived WWII and again tried his hand at painting? Or perhaps photography?

[Jorge Gasteazoro]

So I'm to gather that you, Jorge, are the arbiter of what is good and worthwhile in the world of art, and that everyone who disagrees with you is full of crap? And that the measure of anything's meaning is whether or not you, Jorge, get it?



On the same vein I can use your argument to say you think you or the curators you mention are the arbitrers of what is good in art. I suspect for the each an everyone of the people you mention I can find 2 or 3 that dont think the work has any value other than shock value. Get it?

Many responses within the thread, yours included, brought up the issue of artistic value, and tied them to the ethical values concerning exploitation. These are what I responded to.



Where? show me one response that ties "artistic value" to this topic other than yours. We are all talking about exploitation and creating prints made for the sole purpose of shocking the viewer and you got upset because many of us thought witkin's pictures are just that....and obviously disagree with your "seeing deeper" bs.

If you are in fact sure that I can't convince you, then you're right. I can't. It's not possible to convince anyone whose mind is made up to the point where they only listen to disagree. If, however, you are open to the possibility that there's more to these pictures than you suspect, let me know. I'll be happy to talk about them if you're actually interested in listening.



Seems to me your mind is made that we all need to see "more" even on the face of disagreement by most here, and that you are the one who will only listen to disagree.....funny how that works and one can use your same arguments aganst you. You very conveniently ignored the part in my post that if these pictures had been done with latex man made body parts (which can be made to look just like human parts, at least in film..hollywood does it all the time!), nobody would give a rat's ass about them, the only reason they are "important" is because they were made with real body parts. That should be an indication to you about the worth of these photographs. You could "see deeper" in the photorgaphs, if that is your intention even if the body parts were man made, but nooooo..you wont accept this...which shows really who is the one who has his mind made up....