I have avoided this post for a while now. Initially it seemed too easy, but now I am no longer sure how I feel about the work.
I have mentioned before how I consider Jan Saudek an influence on my work. I am influenced by Saudek, Saudek is influenced by Goya, therefore am I influenced by Goya? Goya directly influences many artists’ work. His influence is one of the reasons he is in the history books. Can you take influences and subject matter, and interests and draw parallels? Does stating obvious parallels to great artists of the past make your work more significant, more artistic, more acceptable?
Goya painted La Maja desnuda
|
|
|
||
(More so than normal, the rest of this post is not safe for work.)
Then in reaction to outrage of Spanish society, and in part refusing to paint clothes on the aforementioned work, he painted La Maja vestida.
|
|
|
||
Especially for the time period of this work, there is some very serious commentary and social critique in these works, and the circumstances under which they were produced. I feel that the intentions of the artist are significant to the work, not overpowering what is physically there, but important to consider. Goya did not set out to create a diptych. The second painting was clearly a response.
Back to Goya’s influence on Saudek: Since Goya did not set out to create a diptych, are Saudek’s diptychs simply inspired by viewing the work of Goya, rather than influenced by Goya, or is this too fine a distinction to attempt?
|
|
|
||
Timothy Greenfield-Sanders is a renowned portrait photographer, who is currently a contributing photographer for Vanity Fair magazine. I think his Art World portraits are wonderful, and I envy his opportunity and recognition of it. His most recent work is XXX: 30 Porn Star Portraits, which is exactly what it sounds like. In this body of work, he has two portraits of each model/star, one clothed and one nude. Timothy Greenfield-Sanders explains the origins of the idea:
“Unsure how to shoot him, I thought of the famous Goya paintings, The Maya Clothed and Nude, and suggested we copy the clothed pose…in the nude, like Goya had a few hundred years ago.” from thinkingXXX.com
Again, maybe I am attempting to make too fine a distinction, but perhaps he misunderstood the origin of Goya’s The Clothed Maja.
Whatever the inspiration/influence, the marketing is slick and brilliant. Greenfield-Sanders has tremendous legitimacy within the art world, he has tapped into this porn as pop culture zeitgeist, he created enough hype to get HBO to make a documentary about the photos, he enlisted Lou Reed for the sound track, secured a publisher for the book before all the photos were even taken, and has 15 famous authors or celebrities contributing their writing on porn to the book.
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
The previous diptych is of two gay porn stars, who are also a couple. Greenfield-Sanders inclusion of gay porn stars is one of the more commendable qualities of his book. He also does some interesting things with the nude shots, especially with the female stars. No matter how casual, or how little makeup appears in the clothed shots, for the nudes they are “done up” the same as they would be for an adult film. The scale of the actual works is so great and the original medium of capture so detailed that no flaws, hairs, or scars can escape scrutiny. (The images were made with a large format studio camera, and printed 88″ x 58″. However, John Berggruen Gallery also displayed some pieces that were 20″ x 32″.)
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
||
Reportedly, Greenfield-Sanders has said little about the meaning of his work. He is even conspicuously closed mouthed in the documentary about the making of the work. Perhaps some meaning can be drawn from the essays in the book, but whatever it is, it will not be cohesive. The portraits are good. He still shoots with film. I have to respect him. I still have this lingering feeling that he is simply a talented businessman who saw an opportunity, and just happened to take some pictures. Grrenfield-Sanders credits Warhol with advising him to document in as many forms of media as possible, but it just sounds like an excuse for all of the spin-offs from the work (a DVD is now available through his website).
Edit: The rest of the images which formerly accompanied this post are avaialble here
I saw this book in the store a little while ago. I flipped through it but didn’t pay too much attention. I think I was more curious about which porn stars were in it then I was about the meaning behind the work. I initially assumed it was simply an outgrowth of the recent porn as pop-culture phenomenom.
I guess that is a large part of my point, I think of this as capitalizing on the pop-culture and connections, rather than creating art.
Well, from the pictures I see here, I get more of a “Look how uninteresting these people look with clothes on…do you really care about them being naked now?” And the truth is…I don’t.
I don’t know if it meant as a commentary or not, but I like the idea of showing something out of context to screw with your perception of it.
Nice job on the review. I feel more informed.
I think I wanted them to be more interesting with clothes on, but I’m not sure that all of them are uninteresting to me . . . there are many others . . . 24 more actually. Don’t form an opinion based on my ramblings, check out the book.
i’ve actually heard a great deal about this book/art/project. i think NPR had a bit on it, if i recall. i saw a copy once, i think over the holidays, but never got to take a look.
Hmm…as for the pop-culture connections…would you call this a revitalization? certainly this isn’t new, in light of the 1st era of acceptable, legal hardcore pornography in the 1970s, but since the demise of the porn movie house and the rise of video (and the net) i’d say that it has entered a new stage. I think that ‘new’ view is less about the popularity of porn but the acceptance (acknowledged or not) of the fact that video, Pay-per-view, and the internet has made porn not just widely available but somewhat ubiquitous. moreover the consumption can be utterly massive AND private compared to days past.
hmm…
In related news, a fraternity in California just got suspended for filming porn at one of their parties.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/03/29/life.porn.reut/index.html
I’m really curious about the justifications of their suspension. I wonder if it was because it was on campus or what. How do you make this illegal on campus without making sex illegal? Can you suspend a student that films themselves in their dormroom? Can you suspend a fraternity because its members choose to participate in the same events off campus? I know that universities do do this but how do you justify enforcing morays at a public institution which are not illegal?
i’d imagine there is a thicket of legal issues (consent to film, consent of participants, consent to do a ‘for profit’ action–if it was, hell, visitation policy, etc
Um, Hud, dude. I hope you were looking for feminist/activist porn folks like Annie Sprinkle, in order to ascertain whether or not the book was cheese or cool, ’cause this “I was more curious about which porn stars were in it then I was about the meaning behind the work” sounds like you might be a little bit too knowledgeable about porn stars for my comfort level, me being your sister, and me being of the opinion that porn generally commodofies and degrades women and all . . .
Oh, by the way, I just told mom last week to start reading this blog. Hm. Wonder if she has?
Greenfield-Saunders was commissioned by the Miami Art Museum to take photos of artists in the New Work series a few years ago; my husband was one of them. It was an okay photo, but only that. I don’t feel he’s worth his reputation.
I really hope that your mom is reading this. And in case she is, he didn’t pick up any of his porn “habits” from his old roommate.
Y’know who is a really good photographer? That guy with the dogs, Wegman. I mean that is art. You guys ever seen that? I love the statement that it makes about society and how we wear clothes, but really we’re just like dogs or something. I don’t usually go for “deep concept” art, but that stuff will just make you stop and think. And oh man, I like the pictures of the babies dressed up like animals…wait…whoa…it’s like they are total opposites of each other! Like the two ends of the art photography spectrum! On one end you have Wegman and his dogs dressed up like people and on the other Anne Gettys with her babies dressed up like animals!! And I guess all the rest of the art world falls somewhere in between. Like you have pictures of porn stars dressed up like people and then you have pictures of regular people naked like porn stars!! Whoa. I’m gonna blow my mind if I think about it too long.
Basically, when I was checking to see which porn stars were in it, I was checking to see if Ron Jeremy was in it. Ron being the portly fellow in the Hawahian print that Wah has posted up above. Maybe knowing who Ron is is too much porn knowledge but I tend to think not knowing who Ron is is being culturally disconnected.
I think Wegman and Gettys should get together and do a book with Dogs and Babies! Then Dr. Wagner’s head would explode.
I don’t know why I care, but it is geddes, not gettys.
And anyone else who makes funny posts about the dog guy or the baby lady gets their ip banned.
Haw. See I had intentionally misspelled her named like the city in order that somebody searching for her in a google wouldn’t pop up this thread. But Wegman, you’re on your own.
Did you know he came to our school one time? To do a workshop or something on photography. I missed it.
That does it. Next non-sidebar post will be on Wegman.
“did you know he came to our school,” . . . bastard.
What is art and what is pornographic is quite subjective in my opinion. I have seen very strong reactions from people to what in my opinion was art (or celebration of human beauty).