Maplethorpe/ film choice

[lenser]

I just saw the beautiful floral image in the "The best Image I ever made" post and was reminded of a question I've had for years.

Does anyone know what film and paper combinations Robert Maplethorpe used, especially in his utterly stunning work with flowers. I've always admired the technical expertise in all of his prints that I've seen, but his flowers seem particularly brilliant in their match up of film, exposure and print material.

Tim

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I am quoting from memory now, but the portraits were shot with Hasselblad 150mm lens on Tri-X and many of the flowers too but some with the Linhof Technika 4x5" on Tri-X (and Ektachrome). All the prints were made by somone else on Agfa Portriga paper. This is the information given to us by popular photograpy magazienes in those days. Maplethorpe died 23 years ago at the age of 43.

[lenser]

Thank you very much. In spite of some of his subject matter and all of the controversy surrounding that and his personal life, his loss remains a great one. I have always felt that much of his work ranks him up with most of the great contemporary photographers of the last thirty years or so.

[Gudmundur Ingolfsson]

I on the other hand find Maplethorpe rather kitchy and romantic in the work that has found puplic popularity. His sexually explicit stuff that made him notorios was daring, shocking and very "new" although done in the same style and with the same technique. His printer was great although anonymous.

[Darin Boville]

His printer was great although anonymous.

I believe Tom Baril printed Mapplethorpe's work. No doubt there were others.

--Darin

[lenser]

ROL,

Forgive me, but I'm struggling to understand whether your comment belongs to this thread. Is it possible you were aiming this at another thread? If not, could you please explain the relevance?

Thanks.

Tim

[ROL]

As indicated, the post was meant tangentially, made relevant by your own words. The post has been successfully been expunged from any further critical thinking.

[Kuzano]

I had the chance to see the Mapplethorpe exhibition at the Cincinnati Center for Contemporary Arts shortly after his death. The Center was acquitted for a charge of obscenity in hanging his photographs. It was quite and interesting case. Acquitted in a jury trial in 1990. He died in 1989.

http://www.nytimes.com/1990/10/06/us/cincinnati-jury-acquits-museum-in-mapplethorpe-obscenity-case.html

[Heroique]

All the prints were made by someone else on Agfa Portriga paper.

Since I don’t know a lot about RM’s working habits, this makes me curious. Did he tell his printer, “Here’s what I’m generally aiming for, you choose the paper and printing methods you think best achieves them, and I’ll offer feedback & make final decisions about what you bring back to me.”

He cared about the “scoring,” but how much did he care about the “performance”?

[lenser]

Kuzano,

I remember it quite well as I followed it in detail on the news. My opinion then has not changed one bit over the years. The whole brouhaha could have been avoided had those five images that had the most potentially offensive subject matter been isolated in another gallery with a disclaimer at each entrance stating that they were highly sexual in nature and were sexually/politically charged subject matter. The curator chose to include them in the general show where they were a natural target for a zealot of a local prosecutor and the rest is history. Thank God the jurors saw through the garbage from the prosecutorial side.

I just enjoy the quality of his work and especially of the printing/film relationship.

[lenser]

ROL.

I certainly was not asking you to remove your post, just to explain its relevance to me. I did not understand and still don't, your digital reference to my quest to find info on what his choices and processes were in the film/paper realm. I certainly wasn't aiming for a William F. Buckley kind of thing when I asked for clarification, and I would still like to follow your train of thought.

[Darin Boville]

Kuzano,

I remember it quite well as I followed it in detail on the news. My opinion then has not changed one bit over the years. The whole brouhaha could have been avoided had those five images that had the most potentially offensive subject matter been isolated in another gallery with a disclaimer at each entrance stating that they were highly sexual in nature and were sexually/politically charged subject matter. The curator chose to include them in the general show where they were a natural target for a zealot of a local prosecutor and the rest is history. Thank God the jurors saw through the garbage from the prosecutorial side.

I just enjoy the quality of his work and especially of the printing/film relationship.

I think you are mistaken, Tim, about the details of the exhibit. There was indeed a warming sign posted at the door. In addition, no one under 18 was to be admitted to the exhibit (though I don't know how that was enforced at the margin).

--Darin

[lenser]

Geez, How did we get here. I just wanted to figure out what film he used. Still, it's a fun discussion. Moderators, shift this to the lounge if you think it's more appropriate.

[Cletus]

Would that I could make a photograph, or a body of work that could precipitate such discussion! Alas, I shall have to be content with boring old weathered houses that rarely provoke response, let alone debate.

[Brian Ellis]

Since I don’t know a lot about RM’s working habits, this makes me curious. Did he tell his printer, “Here’s what I’m generally aiming for, you choose the paper and printing methods you think best achieves them, and I’ll offer feedback & make final decisions about what you bring back to me.” . . .

It depends on what period of his life you have in mind and what subject matter. Mapplethorpe's principal interest was in becoming famous and making money. Photography was a means to that end. Once he achieved his goal he participated less and less in making "his" photographs. For example, in the case of the flower photographs Dimitri Levas had been selecting and styling the vases and flowers for years while Mapplethorpe might or might not be involved in other things such as the lighting and actually operating the camera. Eventually he stopped being involved even to that extent and turned everything over to one of two people, Edward Maxey (nee Mapplethorpe) or Brian English. All Mapplethorpe did was approve a Polaroid of the set-up and sign the final print. Once the basic formula for the flower photographs was established churning them out was essentially like running a factory (Levas' term, not mine) though they were still considered Robert's "statement."

OTOH, he took a more active part in photographing other things such as people.

I don't know what film and paper his assistants and printer used. AFAIK he never did his own printing.

Mapplethorpe's career was such a mixed bag in terms of his working methods and subject matter, and changed so much as time went on and especially after his health declined, that it's hard to discuss without specifying a time period and subject matter. Anyone interested in his working methods, photography materials and equipment, etc. should probably start by reading Patricia Morrisroe's biography of him, which was the source of most of my knowledge about him (though I don't remember that book saying much about things like film, cameras, and paper).

[Heroique]

…Mapplethorpe's principal interest was in becoming famous and making money. Photography was a means to that end. …Anyone interested in his working methods, photography materials and equipment, etc. should probably start by reading Patricia Morrisroe's biography of him…

Wow, thanks for the general background, Brian. Your remarks have taken me beyond curiosity – indeed, while having admired a wide range of RM’s work, I never knew, until now (see below), about RM’s “devil may care” attitude about technique, from beginning to end.

Since the points you share about Patricia Morrisroe’s biography make it sound rather hostile to the artist, I decided to consult The New York Times’ review of the book (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/25/books/fallen-angel.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) (from 1995). The reviewer (who characterizes Morrisroe’s biography as “long on gossipy detail” and “short on real engagement with the work”) tells us what the reader might very well begin to suspect about Mapplethorpe at work:


A reluctant craftsman, he never developed his own prints, had only a rudimentary understanding of lighting, for a long while did not take preliminary light readings of his subjects, and, as another photographer quoted by Ms. Morrisroe said, “was really afraid of anything too technical.” “I don't know why my pictures come out looking so good,” he once confided to his brother. “I just don’t get it.”

Here’s an artist who apparently replaces (rather than informs) technique w/ instinct – but is it the “right” kind of instinct? If the claims of this review are true, it smacks, just as Brian suggests, of the instinct for publicity.

[36cm2]

Tom Baril printed Mappelthorpe's works. I purchased the enlarger that Tom used for most of that printing a few months ago by chance. If you're interested in Mapplethorpe's flowers, check out Tom's work. The stuff hanging in his studio was amazing and he was kind enough to let me review his books, which I had never seen before. They really left me speechless. Tom's website is a good start if you're interested, but his book "Botanica" i believe is just awesome.

[36cm2]

I reached out to Tom and he was kind enough to offer this clarification:

"The early flowers, pre '84, were shot on Plus X or Tri X developed in D76, and printed on Agfa paper. He switched to Kodak Tmax films later and we printed on Kodak and Forte papers..mostly Kodak..He shot almost exclusively with the Hasselblad, NOT with the 4x5, I don't think he did more than 10 pictures with the 4x5…. Most all were strobe.
Flowers were never printed on Portriga..only black skin."

I hope this helps.

All the best,
Leo

[lenser]

Leo,

Thanks for the clarification. This is most helpful.

Tim

[Brian Ellis]

Wow, thanks for the general background, Brian. Your remarks have taken me beyond curiosity – indeed, while having admired a wide range of RM’s work, I never knew, until now (see below), about RM’s “devil may care” attitude about technique, from beginning to end.

Since the points you share about Patricia Morrisroe’s biography make it sound rather hostile to the artist, I decided to consult The New York Times’ review of the book (http://www.nytimes.com/1995/06/25/books/fallen-angel.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm) (from 1995). The reviewer (who characterizes Morrisroe’s biography as “long on gossipy detail” and “short on real engagement with the work”) tells us what the reader might very well begin to suspect about Mapplethorpe at work:


A reluctant craftsman, he never developed his own prints, had only a rudimentary understanding of lighting, for a long while did not take preliminary light readings of his subjects, and, as another photographer quoted by Ms. Morrisroe said, “was really afraid of anything too technical.” “I don't know why my pictures come out looking so good,” he once confided to his brother. “I just don’t get it.”

Here’s an artist who apparently replaces (rather than informs) technique w/ instinct – but is it the “right” kind of instinct? If the claims of this review are true, it smacks, just as Brian suggests, of the instinct for publicity.

I read the book about 10 years ago so I don't remember it very well. But FWIW, I don't remember it being particularly hostile to Mapplethorpe. It was somewhat "gossipy" I guess but then Mapplethorpe gave a biographer plenty to be gossipy about.

The statement about Mapplethorpe caring about fame and fortune was my conclusion, not anything I remember her saying in so many words. I certainly don't claim to be an authority on him, what I know came mostly from that one book.

[Scott Davis]

There's a couple of books out there on his life, including, IIRC, one by Patty Smith, who was a close personal friend of his. I don't know that I ever heard what materials he used beyond Polaroids in his REALLY early work (1970s), and shooting a lot of his later stuff with a Hasselblad.

[DrTang]

I seem to remember an article with his printer after his death


All I remember was that his negs were lousy and very hard to print.. and he retouched on the negs like they used to with abrassive and pencil

The article was in a photo mag or maybe the New Yorker



The Patty Smith book is really a good read too

[Heroique]

That’s Just Kids, Patti Smith’s personal memoir from a couple of years ago.

It’s an entertaining & informative work – even winning the 2010 National Book Award for non-fiction.

She and Mapplethorpe lived together as lovers for several years in early-70’s NYC, and remained close friends until he died. She praises him as both a person & important influence. I’ve read lengthy sections (browsing in a local bookstore) but not the whole book. Passionate, insightful & articulate. Typical Patti.

[LF_rookie_to_be]

There's also a very informative BBC documentary:

http://ubu.artmob.ca/video/Mapplethorpe-Robert_Arena_1989.avi

[prado333]

Tom Baril Mapplethorpe´s master printer is an stunning photographer in his own. I usually go to his work and its inspiring. Recently i went to a show where there is a print of Louise Bourgeois and the quality is fantastic.

[Brian Ellis]

That’s Just Kids, Patti Smith’s personal memoir from a couple of years ago.

It’s an entertaining & informative work – even winning the 2010 National Book Award for non-fiction.

She and Mapplethorpe lived together as lovers for several years in early-70’s NYC, and remained close friends until he died. She praises him as both a person & important influence. I’ve read lengthy sections (browsing in a local bookstore) but not the whole book. Passionate, insightful & articulate. Typical Patti.

I read the book. It was very interesting but didn't say much of anything that I recall about film, cameras, paper etc.

Before Mapplethorpe became involved with photography his artistic efforts involved printing graphics on tee shirts. I always liked the question Patti Smith used to pose to him when she was looking for something to wear and picked up a tee shirt - "is this art or can I wear it?"

There's a Patti Smith documentary film that's talked about a lot in the book, I forget the title. I bought the video. Didn't like it much. But then I was never a big fan of Patti Smith's music to begin with. Really enjoyed the book though.

[RichardSperry]

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1003113/

[Pawlowski6132]

If he didn't didn't print his own work, I don't think he should get so much credit. It's the final print in fact that you seem to admire. You didn't mention the subject, composition etc. I feel this way about everyone that pawns off the development and print of their own work.