Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Ken, a coupla things:
    
    You got to see the photos, so you got to form opinions.
    
    Most of the NEA brouhaha is about money to fund exhibits, not
    money to fund artists.  A small, but crucial, distinction.
    
    					andrew

    
    I haven't seen the actual exhibit itself (just reproductions of
    the photographs in newspapers/magazines), which might make my opinions
    less credible than the opinions of those who have seen it, but
    since everyone else seems to have a strong opinion on this, then
    I'll contribute mine:
    
    I could understand better what the controversy is all about if the
    "artist" had more talent as a photographer.  From what I've seen,
    his sense of form/composition is primitive, his use of light, shadow
    and texture is poor.  Ansel Adams he's not.  I think he had about
    enough talent to be working at the Registry of Motor Vehicles taking
    driver's license pictures.  I've taken better photographs on vacation
    with my 35mm reflex.  Now maybe this isn't fair, since I haven't
    seen the exhibit itself, but what I've seen in the media doesn't
    stir me to any extent to go see his work.
    
    And about the whole NEA/censorship thing:  I don't think that funding
    artists is a legitimate function of government.  If an artist can't
    make it on private funding or sponsorship, too bad.  The function
    of government is to protect the safety and well-being of its citizens,
    which requires that funding be spent on defense, housing, education,
    and other valid programs that benefit all citizens.  In my view,
    "art" is gravy that's nice to have, but not necessary and certainly
    not a priority for spending public funds, and a hotbed of controversy
    over taste and morality that's best avoided by our public servants.

    re: .0 - I think the impression that the Ginsberg photo was
    Mapplethorpe's work might be erroneous. That one I believe is in the
    Boston Museum of Fine Arts show which "just happens" to be running at
    the same time as the ICA exhibit. The MFA show, titled "Figuring the
    Body" or some such.
    
    re: .3 - the legitimate role of government - I for one WANT the
    government to fund the arts, whether it happens to be music,
    photography, sculpture, painting, poetry, theater ... you name it -
    I'll take some!
    
    Maybe the government should provide for the safety and wellbeing of its
    citizens, but those are pretty basic needs. Once you get past the bottom
    tier of Maslow's Needs Hierarchy, you start bumping into "well-being"
    other than food and clothing. What about mental and philosophical
    well-being? What about setting our sights on some higer goals than the
    day-to-day drudgery or life?
    
    Sure, there are things that fall into the category of "art" that I
    would think to be worthless, there are some that I would find
    offensive, but if you think Michaelangelo worked for the greater glory
    of ART, think again! He was paid by the government of his day, and what
    he did, he made a living from! Pretty crass, right? 

    
    Re .4:
    
         You make valid points.  Art is important for mental and
    philosophical well-being, and without it, life is really a drag.
    I enjoy all sorts of art - music, literature, photography,
    sculpture, painting, theater, dance, and all the others.  Without
    these, the drudgery of the daily grind would be almost unbearable.
    
         My point, though, is that I'm able to provide for my own
    exposure to the art that enriches my life WITHOUT the government's
    help, thank you very much.  I believe that art that has merit will
    survive based on private funding and sponsorship, and "artists"
    that live on government grants are little more than welfare cases
    who produce "art" as workfare.   I don't believe that the government,
    through censorship, should tell me what I should NOT see; but there's
    a converse to this argument, you see, which is that I don't think
    the government should tell me what I SHOULD see, either, and by
    funding specific artists/events and not others, they are (implicitly,
    by making it easier for me to be exposed to artists/events that
    are funded than those that are not) influencing me as to what I
    SHOULD see.  I don't want that, and I think my tax dollars are better
    spent on the necessities before they are spent on luxuries.
    
         You're right, Michaelangelo was paid for his work.  (I thought
    it was by the church, and not the government, but no matter).  That's
    why those who paid for original works like "The Last Judgement"
    were entitled to later have loincloths painted onto the naked cherubs,
    and could legitimately get away with what today would be shameful
    censorship (can you imagime the reaction is someone today suggested
    painting over a Michaelangelo to "improve" it?).  If you fund the
    work, you have power to influence its artistic content and
    presentation.  Do you really want the government to have this power?

I was shocked to read in the paper that the exhibit contains 177 
photographs.  The media, to a large extent, has reviewed 7 of them 
(two pictures of semi-naked kids, and five pictures of S&M).

Most of the pictures are of flowers, fruit, and studies 
in the human body.  Interesting.  

I was going to write a nasty response to "it represents his
homosexuality torturing him," but I can actually see that
interpretation; I get it.  The only other one that I can think of,
before I see the exhibit next Saturday, is that he is being "raped" or
"penetrated" by S&M, almost as if the sexual practice was his partner 
instead of a real human being.

I highly object to the media using the term "homoeroticism" as a
blanket label to describe the controversial pictures.  From what I
have seen, it is the S&M practices that are making the pictures hard
for people to take, not just the fact that two men are doing it.
"Homoerotic" can mean anything from a picture of two men walking down
the street arm in arm, to a picture of two men kissing, to a picture
of a mans fist in another man's anus.  I wish the media would be more
specific in their labeling of what is objectionable. 

Also, Ken, what you wife said about the exhibit is the most insightful
thing that I have read in regard to art that gets people upset.
Seriously.  I think that a lot of folks think that art is supposed to
make one feal warm and fuzzy, like sitting on a warm beach with a cool
breeze blowing over you.  However, art can also anger, depress, shock,
titilate, scare, and generate all sorts of other feelings and
thoughts.  Just like the picture of the guy in Vietnam blowing the
brains out of another person's head (I first saw that picture as a
little kid, and it still bothers me), maybe the S&M pictures of
Mapplethorpe are _supposed_ to elicit strong feeling, perhaps of
disgust and repulsion.  The question then becomes, do you, the
observer of art, use it just to generate good feelings, or do you use
it to generate the full range of human emotions in order to examine
your own responses? 

As for dismissing Mapplethorpe purely on technical merit, the Beatles
sometimes sang off-key in their early songs, Bob Dylan couldn't sing
and wasn't particularly good at playing the guitar, and the Sex
Pistols could barely play their instruments.  Perhaps there was
something else there besides technical merit that inspired their
audiences to examine and to self examine.  The words "enthusiasm,
poetry, insight, timeliness, and passion" come to mind. 

							--Ger

    Funny.  I saw my first Mapplethorpe exhibit in '79 or thereabouts, and
    I never would've predicted anything like this.  My main problem with
    him was that he reminded me too much of Ansel Adams.  Just too
    perfectly lit, too perfectly composed, too "beautiful" - his portraits
    are almost sycophantic.  The controversial pictures are about the only
    ones I like - at least the content has a little grit to it, even if the
    style doesn't. 
    
    Of course, I might think that Ansel Adams's technique was crude if I
    knew him only by newspaper reproductions. 
    
    Ray

    I agree with you, Ray.  I saw my first Mapplethorpe exhibit in 1984 at
    the Robert Miller gallery in NYC and there wasn't even a ripple of
    complaint or protest.  I find some of Mapplethorpe's work labored, much
    of it thought-provoking, some of it shocking but NEVER boring.  It's
    next to impossible to view his work without becoming engaged (or
    enraged).  In a world where the bulk of popular culture takes no
    chances, demands nothing of its audience and leaves most people com-
    pletely unfazed ("Die Hard II ... yeah, it was good ...next ..."), Robert
    Mapplethorpe's work grabs you by the throat and says "PAY ATTENTION TO ME!".
    I rather like that.
    
    Larry

I have a question for people who know photography (I don't): how 
"good" is Mapplethorpe?  I just read a Mike Barnacle column in the 
Boston Globe yesterday that said that, without the controversial 
subject matter, Mapplethorpe would not make "the list of the 10,000 
best photographers in the country" and that no one would go to see his 
pictures without the controversy.  Barnacle also claimed that he only 
became famous after he died (which I know is not true).

It just makes me wonder how "good" he was considered to be among 
people who know a lot about photography.  Certainly he was good enough 
to get several large books of his photographs published long before 
his death a year ago.

Anyone have any info. on this?


							--Ger

PS  I agree with the complaint that he lacks "grit."  He definitely 
strove for "glossy."   It is interesting how his vision of "perfect" 
is, to me, "unreal."  And I'm not sure that anything unreal can be 
perfect (unless it is a perfect concept).

    gerry- 
    
    i saw m. a long time ago (85? 86?) at the strong recommendation of some
    of my gay male friends who were swooning about a few pictures (the
    first thing you saw in that exhibit was a garGANtuan enlargement of a
    chippendale-y man, naked, lying down comfortably.  the man's face was
    taller than i am...).  the photos were good but fairly slick; too
    polished for my taste.  i don't remember the lovely pictures we've seen
    of black men and white men together being there before - i find those
    perfect, and if it weren't for the crowds, i'd go to the ica to see the
    originals...
    
    lee

    Mapplethorpe was/is a good photographer.  His stuff is technically very
    good and usually artistically strong.
    
    The design of light, space/unspace, balance of forces, focus is under
    excellent control although sometimes obvious.  (I wonder if at times he
    chose to make it obvious to show that at other times it was not
    providence but skill that created the image.)  
    
    I've seen his work around for maybe 15 years.  The first show I really
    noticed him at he had a few nature shots that had stunning lighting
    that made my first jolt something like: "this photographer is better
    than Weston."
    
    But, while I am interested in photography, my training in art was in
    painting and drawing.  However, I believe that aesthetic judgement can
    extend beyond the orignal training ground.
    
    The photo and artworld generally thinks he's good.  On most
    lists of photographers worth looking at he would be on anyone's top
    100.  (Even, apparently, Dapper O'Neils, if you saw Thursday's Boston
    Globe front page. Good old Dap was strangling on the photo of a black
    man and a white man embracing. -- Photo looks like a high-class
    Bennetton ad to me.)
    
    Mapplethorpe's work IS stylized.  Grittier (and often more disturbing)
    images come from folks like WeeGee and Diane Arbus. I often think of
    Georgia O'Keefe's and Carravaggio's  paintings when I look at
    Mapplethorpe's work.  Stylized, distant, oddly erotic even when
    supposedly a neutral image.
    
    For those wondering, I have yet to see _this_ Mapplethorpe show,
    although I have tickets.

       Margaret

    re: .5 re: .4
    
    	... the "paid by the government" statement was "poetic license".
    Sure it was the church, but the church WAS the power structure, the
    establishment, the government at the time. I think you'd find that most
    of the Popes were there for political reasons, related to the families
    with power.
    
    re: .9
    
    	... is Mapplethope any good?! Tell me, tell me! Do I like this
    stuff!?! Yes, I know you meant 'is he accepted by the profession as
    being one of them?' - seems like he might be from one of the other
    notes here. Remember that the ICA supposedly booked this show three and
    half years ago - and that was certainly before any of the current
    brouhaha (I guess that's the word) arose. So the ICA thought he was
    pretty good - you've got at least one vote.
    
    	I'm off to see the show tomorrow. Dear old Ticketron sez my tickets
    should be waiting for me at the door. They better be there!
    

    	I would guess that the majority of great art has been "government"
    funded. It is just that the form of government has changed over time.
    
    	At the time referred to the Catholic church ruled much of Italy,
    though now it only rules the Vatican. The Parthenon was built by the
    government of Athens. It is only recently that you have the phenomenon
    that people exist who can afford a work of art that takes more than a
    few man-weeks to create and are *not* rulers.
    
    	Up to the industrial revolution there were few people who had that
    sort of money who were not at least princes or dukes, or did not hope
    to use their money to gain that power in the near future. I have
    noticed that even in the U.S. those that have the money to pay for
    major works of art very often also use their money to gain political
    power. The concept that the "president" or "state governor" is not the
    government is a comparatively recent one in most places.
    
    	Many of the more beautiful cathedrals in Europe took more than 100
    years to build. Assuming money was no object, would *you* comission a
    work of art that would not be completed before 2090?

    QUESTION: Who should be allowed to give consent for the photography
              of nude children? 
    
    ( In my opinion, no one. Mapplethorpe was talented, no doubt. But a
      child is not old enough to comprenend the consequences of being
      seen in this type of exibit by thousands of people. It ought to be
      illegal to make money from nude pictures of children. One step
      further: It is exploitive to even TAKE nude pictures of children.
      Freedom this and freedom that! What the hel@ happened to freedom to
      be a child?)
    
    Kate

    
    	If I'm not mistaken, the children in the photos are adults now
    	(and gave their consent as adults.)
    
    	I do agree with you that the ethics of taking these nude photos
    	in the first place is questionable, though.
    

    Suzanne,
    
    I don't know if Mapplethorpe actually held these photos so that no one
    could see them until they were of age. Is that what you heard?
    
    I also think the virtual act of having them pose for such photos is ex-
    ploitive.
    
    
    Kate

    
    	Actually, the only thing I heard is that they are of age now and
    	have consented as adults to the exhibit.  
    
    	I don't know what might have happened while they were still young
    	children.  (Anyone have info on this?)
    

    Nowadays no photo can be published, displayed without a written model
    release.
    This release states the purpose for which the phote was taken and has
    to be signed bu the photographer and the model. If the model is under
    age one of the parents or a guardian has to sign.
    If the photographer wants to use the photo for other purposes then
    stated in the release, a new release has to be signed.
    Photos are usually not accepted for publication or display if there's
    no model release.
    
    Charles

    I don't want my money to go towards funding art......IT IS NOT IN THE
    GOVERNMENTS CHARTER, aside from the fact that it is offensive to me. 
    If it's art,let it stand on it's own merit.  IMHO the Mapplethorpe crap
    is just that.  
    
    
    Mike

    Would a parent taking a photo of their baby taking a bath for the
    family album be considered a form of child abuse?  Would the photo
    be considered 'kidde porn'?  I thought that the human body was
    beautiful?  As the parent of a young child these thoughts have crossed
    my mind, but I havn't taken any photos of my child in the bath. I
    find myself thinking what would be wrong with it given the context
    described in my first sentence?  Granted, children do get sexually
    exploited and those practices should be stopped.  However, I think
    that objections to a photo or two of ones' nude child in the bath is
    taking this matter to absurd extremes.  If one examined a cross section
    of family albums I think one would find that half the parents in the
    country would be in prison for 'kidde porn'. 

    If the children in the Mapplethorpe exhibit are indeed adults now and
    gave their consent to publish the photos thats one thing.  I do wonder
    how the children gave informed consent at the time the photos were
    taken.  

    Its a tough thing separating sexual exploitation from the artistic
    photographing of nude children.  The distinction is as subtle as
    determining whether a photo of a nude adult woman is pornographic or
    artistic.  It depends on the body language and the context the photo is
    displayed in as well as other subtle factors courts are hard pressed to
    put into words.  Unless, one takes the position that a child is not
    capable of giving informed consent to being photographed nude.
    
    There is a book which is aimed toward teaching ones' children Yoga. The
    children are scantily clad and posing in Yoga poses.  Could this be 
    considered pornographic?   I will bet that some pedophiles would find
    this book stimulating as well as PARTS of the Mapplethorpe Exhibit.

    Should it be illegal to photograph children naked for any reason
    what-so-ever?  I doubt that anyone would doubt the legality of
    taking photos of nude children for specific medical uses.

    I think one should apply a little common sense to the use of the photo
    and the intent of the person taking the photo and the likely methods
    used to obtain the photo.
     
    I think the Mapplethorpe exhibit (I havn't seen it) clearly crosses the
    boundaries of good taste whether it is illegal or not.  

    1st The photo of the Saigon policeman shooting point blank the VC
    	terrorist; He had just been caught red handed KILLING the police
    	officer's wife and children. This only came out a few years ago.
    	Isn't the media wonderful? What would you do.....
    
    RE baby pictures: The young girl was just that, a girl, not an infant
    			on a Bear skin rug. I saw the pix (with the lower
    			area blocked out) and it is (IMHO) child porno.
    			A number of years ago, I saw a pix in Hustler or
    			some mag like it of a girl (18ish) sitting on the
    			steps of a college talking to her friends dressed
    			in a cheerleader outfit w/o underware, just like
    			the little girl. Porn?
    
    RE Urinating/mouth	Again in some mens mag, a woman urinating into a
    			champange glass. To me, not art, but definately
    			not disgusting as with urinating in someone's
    			mouth.
    
    RE funding: The great American way is to get someone else to fund what
    		you want. As I tell my wife (who runs a town theatre group)
    		If there are so many people who feel so strongly about
    		public funding of the arts, let them set up a non-profit
    		organization to fund it. Put up or shut up. Show me in the
    		Constitution where it says something about funding art?
    
    RE his pix: To me, some looks good, but disgusting or porno pix destroy
    		his creadibility. 
    
    Where do we draw the line.....
    
    Now, if you are caught with 'kiddy porn' pix in Boston, do you have a
    great defense?
    
    
    Steve

    Since people are dumping their various two-cents-worth here, I suppose
    it won't hurt to make the pile a teensy bit bigger. I for one have
    always believed that beauty (and ugliness, pornography, etc) are in the
    eye (or more specifically, in the mind) of the beholders.
    
    The two photos of children in question (TWO! mind you from 180 or so 
    on exhibit in the Mapplethorpe show - which I DID SEE this week-end) 
    are perfectly innocent. I'd bet that half of the parents in this country 
    have pictures very much like them of their own children. If the photos 
    come into question, it is undoubtedly in their juxtaposition with
    others, or in ASSUMTIONS that you might be making about the interests
    of the photographer. But the show as a whole is perfectly innocent.
    
    If you consider that the human body is in some way "pornographic" you'll
    have trouble with SOME of the photos. If you feel as I do that a well
    formed human body is in itself a work of art, most of the exhibit would
    be acceptable to you. 
    
    Yes, there are a FEW photos that could have been left at home, but this
    show is a retrospective of the man's work and covers ALL of his life
    and subject matter. Denying that part of his life would certainly be
    intellectually dishonest at least.

    I saw the two photos of the children in the exhibit.  Seems
    to me *pornography* is in the eye of the beholder.  I was
    struck by the innocence of the images.  so I guess it's
    up to the individual.
    
    Richard

    There was an article about the young man whose nude picture
    as a child was a part of the exhibit.
    
    He was the child of some fairly hippy parents and spent much
    of his time at that age without clothing. He had been bouncing
    on the furniture when Mapplethorp came by and proceeded to take
    some pictures of him with his parents present. The picture
    that is in the exhibition had hung in the young man's home for
    years and no one thought anything about it. The young man who
    is begining his freshman year in college was rather amazed at
    all the furior.
    
    Bonnie

    I never used the word "pornographic" to describe the photos of the
    children. That's a very subjective word. I used "exploitive". 
    
    Bonnie: When I was a child I believed, as did my parents, in the Roman
            Catholic Church. I no longer do. If my parents had been
            nudists, I may no longer be. 
    
    Others: There is a difference between taking pictures of your kids in
            your homes and showing them to thousands of people and making
            money from them and subsidising taxpayers for them. Rubbish!!
    
    If someone wanted to photograph you in the nude without your consent by
    using the excuse that 'it's art", would you buy that? Kids can not con-
    sent. Their body-their right. Not their parents.
    
    Wow, I'm beginning to feel right of center. God forbid.
     
    
    Kate

    Kate,
    
    The point of my entry was to add some additional information to
    the discussion, not to argue either side of the issue. 
    
    Bonnie

    Something to think about:  For years I have heard it said that children
    are not capable of making certain decisions.  I wonder if that is
    correct in some cases.  My son is quite capable (at 2.8 yrs old) of
    deciding whether he wants to go swimming or not.  In fact if he says
    no and he often does it would be quite wrong to force him to go
    swimming. I am constantly amazed at how much insight he has at less
    than three years old. He constantly makes decisions about his body.
    Eating, swimming, wearing clothes, going to the bathroom etc. etc.
    
    Whats my point?  I am not so sure that a child, say eight years old
    is not CAPABLE of deciding whether he/she should be photographed in
    the nude. I don't doubt that its illegal, or that publication of the
    photos may very well be wrong.  But I do wonder about whether the
    child is not more capable of making informed decisions than we give
    them credit for.  The fact that the adult man who was the subject in the
    Mapplethrope Exhibit is AMAZED that everyone made such a case of it
    illustrates my point.  I didn't bother HIM, and he was the one in the
    photo.  If HE wasn't bothered then or now it makes me wonder if in fact
    part of the issue isn't our own insecurity regarding our sexuality
    which we moralize about endlessly and put onto other people. 
    

    RE -.1
    
    As I recall, Brooke Shields had a BIG problem with pictures that her
    mother let be taken of here when she was somewhere between 8 and 11.
    
    If the child decides when he/she is an adilt to release the pix, that
    is one thing. Parents deciding before is something else.
    
    Using the childrens decision logic, why not let them sell their bodies
    for sex, pictures, movies, etc.... It is their bodies isn't it?
    
    Steve

    re -.1
    
    and in this case the young man in question did decide as an adult to
    release the picture.
    
    the picture has not previously been on display.
    
    Bonnie

    You raise some interesting points Steve.  "Why not let children sell
    their bodies for sex etc"?  We are comparing extremes here I think.
    One one hand we are suggesting it may be appropriate for children to
    prostitute themselves (so we are clear here I don't think it is ok),
    compared to it being ok to give permission to use 'art oriented' nude
    photos.  It all depends.... there are so many variables.  Taking photos
    of a nude child with the childs permission and holding the photos for
    POSSIBLE later release (when the child is an adult and gave permission)
    is quite different than taking the photos and releasing them
    immediately.
    

 I have a personal belief that taking pictures of children that are nude is
not in the least exploitive when sexual themes are not present. This is the
human body folks- it's natural to see small children with no clothes on. 
Everyone starts out that way, for God's sakes! The hangups people have about
nudity are incredible; how perverse that we think of our bodies as somehow
shameful or "inappropriate to view." If God wanted our bodies to be covered all
the time, he'd have made us with a double-knit skin. :-)

 There is a huge difference between picutres of naked humans and pornography.
I think that some people are unable to make the distinction.

 It ought not matter whether a child is clothed or not. If making money from
a clothed child's picture is not exploiting them, then neither is making
money from an unclothed child's picture (assuming there is no attempt to
attract prurient interest). 

 The Doctah

    RE -.1
    
    Define purient interest.
    
    Look, if the supreme court cannot come up with a clear defination of
    pornography, what makes any sense in these cases. By that I mean how
    can one define kiddy porn? 
    
    Take the little girl on the step: What age is kiddy porn?
    
    3,4,5 10, puberty, 15,17 what, never?

    re. "the little girl on the step":
    
    When I saw this picture after hearing all the uproar over the exhibit,
    my reaction was, "I've seen plenty of little girls in just this type of
    pose, naturally and unashamedly.  Some had on underwear; others
    didn't."
    
    Now I'm a 44 year old gray-haired prude, raised in a very conservative 
    Christian home, a mother, a feminist, and (I hope) a responsible citizen.
    
    Neither of the pictures of children caused me even a second's
    uneasiness over their being exploitative, purient, or abusive to the
    child or to society.
    
    FWIW.
    Karen

As a practicing naturist I believe the only person that can say yes or no
you can or cannot take my picture is the person whose picture will be taken.
I strongly believe that the majority of children are incapible of understanding
exactly how long the picture will last or the many ways it can be shown.
My parents have a few childhood pic's that would cause considerable embarassment
for me if they were to be shown to anyone other than my closet family members
had I known then they woulden't exist today.

BTW- I haven't seen the seen 'art' this topic refers to.

MHO-j

>    Kate,
>    
>    The point of my entry was to add some additional information to
>    the discussion, not to argue either side of the issue. 
>    
>    Bonnie
    
    Bonnie,
    
    I'm sorry if I seemed like I was arguing. I must have thought I was
    in ::SOAPBOX for a minute.
    
    ;^),
    
    Kate

    Sexuality is in the eye of the beholder.  I agree with you for the most
    part Doctah. Well put.
    
    I will bet that most photos of people somehow/somewhere whether a
    delibretely sexualy (pornographic?) oriented photo or not will arouse
    SOMEONE somewhere.  I keep hearing "may arouse purient interests" in 
    connection with the Mapplethorpe Exhibit and not always in the contex
    of just the kids.  WHY is it so horrible if someones 'purient interests
    are aroused' by some of those photos?  HOW are the people in the
    exhibit being harmed by someone being aroused?  Aren't our 'purient
    interests' aroused when we make love to our lovers?  As long as 
    consenting adults are involved SO WHAT? if someone is turned on?
    How is this exhibit different from say Playboy Magazine?  Certainly
    peoples' purient interests are typically aroused by that publication.
    I agree that some of the photos aren't exactly ahem, tasteful in the
    typical context of what many of us are used to.  But they were posed
    by consenting people who are far as I can tell were not harmed.
    
    If you are offended or don't want your kids to see photos like that
    DON'T GO to the exhibit and look at them.

What I don't understand is how a vocal segment of our society considers a 
picture of a naked body "pornographic", but then flocks to see pictures of
people being torn to shreds and brutalized, and calls that "entertainment".

				Steve

    in re .35 Kate,
    
    no appology needed or need for same implied..
    
    ;^)
    
    Bonnie

         Rather than spend so much time and energy focusing on why it's so
important that no one tell us that we shouldn't be allowed to see these
photographs, perhaps someone can inform me why we should WANT to see them.
Where is the appeal in seeing these?  Aren't there images just as powerful,
beautiful, compelling, and artistic to photograph that don't involve subjects
that are quite so controversial?  Or is just possible that the whole 
controversy here is part of the "art" just as much as the photographs
themselves?

         If there's anyone out there who really, truly sees artistic value,
aesthetic merit, and importance (as opposed to shock value or the cheap
thrill of pornography) in photographs of naked children and explicit acts
of homosexual sadomasochism, could you please come forward and explain
to me what the attraction is?  And isn't it possible to fill this need
for artistic satisfaction through photographs, paintings, or other "art"
that isn't so deliberatively offensive to the majority of people?

    > Rather than spend so much time and energy focusing on why it's so
    > important that no one tell us that we shouldn't be allowed to see these
    > photographs,

	"I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the
	death your right to say it."

    THAT is what we're arguing about. That is why the ACLU defended the Nazis
    in Skokie. Inoffensive, bland, "normal" and art doesn't NEED protection.
    Protecting free speech by its very nature means protecting controversial,
    even offensive speech, and that is important. Certainly important enough
    to continue discussing, and spending time and energy focusing on.

    However, your other points deserve attention as well.

    > perhaps someone can inform me why we should WANT to see them.

    I will try. First of all, I don't care if "we" want to see them, *I* want
    to be allowed to see them. If you find them distasteful, even offensive, I
    respect that (reluctantly) but I will NOT let you tell me that I should
    not "want" to see them. I do. I did. I would again.

    > Where is the appeal in seeing these?

    Some are disturbing, some are beautiful, some are compelling, some are
    thought provoking, some are bland, some are boring. Some of the appeal for
    me was the controversy, but once there, I stayed for the photos. If I went
    back, it would be for the photos.

    > Aren't there images just as powerful, beautiful, compelling, and
    > artistic to photograph that don't involve subjects that are quite so
    > controversial?

    No. Clearly not, however I'm confused? Do you believe art should not be
    contraversial? Are you familiar with "Guernica?"

    > Or is just possible that the whole controversy here is
    > part of the "art" just as much as the photographs themselves?

    Yes, it is true. Is that a problem?

    > If there's anyone out there who really, truly sees artistic value,
    > aesthetic merit, and importance (as opposed to shock value or the cheap
    > thrill of pornography) in photographs of naked children and explicit
    > acts of homosexual sadomasochism, could you please come forward and
    > explain to me what the attraction is?

    The photographs of the naked children I believe have been adequately
    explained. They show the pure unselfconcious innocence of childhood. The
    "explicit acts of homosexual sadomasocism" are shocking - yes, but I view
    them on three levels. First as a documentary of a lifestyle, something
    akin to Frank Capra's documentaries of war. Second as a poke in the
    complacency of those who would rather that these things were invisible. If
    homosexuality was "the love that dared not speak its name" then S&M is
    even further beyond the pale. Mapplethorpe forces us to look at those
    impulses in ourselves and examine exactly WHY we find those pictures so
    disturbing. Third I view them as allegory and commentary. In some sense
    they are the counterpoint to the perfectly balanced and composed figure
    studies, the beautiful floral photographs, the stark portraiture. How can
    this man who produced such wonderfully conventionally beautiful art ALSO
    be so obviously a member of this outlaw underground society? As someone
    who likes to play with people's minds myself I found the inclusion of the
    S&M and other sexual pictures a wonderful touch. "You don't know what you
    think you do."

    > And isn't it possible to fill this need for artistic satisfaction
    > through photographs, paintings, or other "art" that isn't so
    > deliberatively offensive to the majority of people?

    No. Great art arouses strong emotion. Art that doesn't arouse emotion is
    suitable only for greeting cards and cracker boxes. Emotions aren't always
    pleasant, pretty, or easily kept in boxes. Some emotions are anger,
    disgust, fear, and hatred. I want to be able to view art that arouses
    those emotions as well as awe, love, and friendship.



	-- Charles

    Charles,
    
    I have never known an artist who creates art primarily to evoke a
    "discust response". If there isn't some beauty in it, it isn't art.
    
    This is in response to your theory on art and not the Mapplethorpe
    exibit.
    
    Kate (an oil painter)
    

    Kate
    
    I diagree, I think Charles's example of Guernica is a type of art
    that was deliberately designed to raise strong emotions including
    possible disgust....it was after all of the bombing of a village.
    
    Not all art is beautiful, Diane Arbus's photographs are not always
    beautiful but are often moving, compelling and powerful. They are
    definitely art.
    
    To say that if it is not beautiful it is not art is to put art in
    too small a pigeon hole...even if you mean beautiful only to the
    artist.
    
    Bonnie

    (IMO)  Having pictures of nude children in an exhibit which also
    includes someone with a bullwhip up their rectum, or someone with
    someone elses fist up their rectum, or a male urinating in someone
    elses mouth DOES NOT indicate innocence and how children are not self
    conscience of their bodies.  It has a perverse message.  It does not
    make any sense to me how people can see otherwise.  If the theme
    throughout the exhibit were that of innocence and trying to show us how
    much easier life would be if we looked at life through our "Child eyes"
    then I could buy it.  Not with the other photos, no way.  Perversion is
    the theme which screams out.  Of course, in my opinion.
    
    Mike

    re: .44
    
    Aha! "perversion is the theme that screams out" - well, that just
    happens NOT to be the case. What "screams out" is that Mapplethorpe was
    a very good photographer, and produced many images which are pleasant
    to look at by any reasonable person's definition. If you took away
    perhaps 6 or 8 of the photos in the show, and took away your knowledge
    of all of the noise in press, I think you'd come to the same
    conslusion. 
    
    This is definitely one of those cases where the jury should be
    sequestered because they can't come to a fair verdict when the din of
    the press reports only the sensationalism being caused by the few
    photos which are objectionable "to the public". Remember, where ever
    this show has appeared, there have been only seven (7) photos that have
    been the target of attempts at removal by legal process. 
    
    I can't tell if the majority of noters here have seen the show or not.
    I have, and wouldn't object to MOST of the material being present on my
    living room coffee table in one of those nice glossy "art books"
    everybody likes to have around. 
    
    IMO, perversion is not a theme that screams out. The theme is beauty and
    character, beauty of flowers and faces, character of interesting people, 
    artists, actors and actresses, dancers; beauty of body and strength,
    character shown by Mapplethorpe's ability to photograph himself with a
    "death's-head" cane, knowing full-well that he only had a short time to
    live. 
    
    I see all of the hue and cry over the seven photos like a call to
    bulldoze a beautiful garden because we know there's a snake that lives
    somewhere under the path.
    
    Let's try to keep this in perspective.

    
    Did Mapplethorpe himself choose which of his photographs would be
    displayed in the exhibit, or were the photographs to be shown 
    selected after his death?
    
    
    
    
    

    RE: .45 If you used mathematics, it would seem that you are saying that
    some people are unreasonable if they don't agree with the way you view
    this issue.  This is in your opinion of course.  It is obvious that
    our tastes in art are somewhat different, which is fine.  I have a
    picture over my fireplace which is a painting of a cabin in the middle
    of nowhere.  It is in the middle of a snowstorm and there is a light in
    the window.  This helps me find peace when the pressures of living in
    the DC area get to me.  (One of my favorite places is West Virginia, so
    this may explain the phenomena)  I think of being up in the cabin
    living the simple life with my family, and nature to contend with. 
    This may be viewed as a simplistic painting without much depth to some,
    but to me it says alot.  (One may draw from this that I'm simple, and
    that very well may be)
    
    My big problem with the Mapplethorpe exhibit is that I do not want my
    tax dollars supplementing it.  Plain and simple.  For that matter I
    don't want my tax dollars supporting art at all.  It is not what
    government is there to do.  Bottom line is that I pay too many taxes
    I guess.  If this exhibit can continue on its own merit then okay, but
    the federal government has no business in this type of business.  IMHO
    of course.
    
    Mike  
                                  

    Mike, if all governments in this country (federal, state, local)
    stopped all support of all arts funding, your tax bill would not be
    affected by one cent -- the proportion of money that goes to arts
    funding in miniscule compared to the amounts that go to other programs.
    All arts funding is a fraction of one percent of their budgets.
    
    You may not agree that government should fund art, that's your right.
    But please remember, we are not talking about a very large slice of
    the pie.
    
    					andrew

    RE: .47 and .48, whether the amount of tax dollars are in the many
    dollars or a few cents/whatever, I agree with .47 that its a waste of
    taxpayer's money to fund such activities. If you want to have "art"
    created, they YOU (not you personally in .48) should become an artist's
    benefactor. But don't expect me to give away my tax dollars to an
    "artist" with no strings attached. For that matter, the NEA is one
    gov't agency that we could easily live without, and the amounts of
    taxpayer's money they spend is not small change.
    
    Though I haven't seen Mapplethorps show, I have seen a book of his
    works. And its true that the vast majority of the photographs are
    totally innocent, but those few that aren't are (IMHO) pure filth,
    there only for shock value, and those are the ones I object to. In
    a book in a private home, I have no problem with the content, but this
    is a PUBLIC show.
    
    Eric

    
    	I don't think that government should interfere with or
    	dictate art.  By contributing to the exhibit but staying
    	out of the matter of what the exhibit contained and how
    	it was presented, the NEA was acting in a responsible
    	manner.
    
    	Personally, I find the use of my tax dollars by the
    	government to fund certain military endeavors far more
    	offensive and obscene than the Mapplethorpe show.
    
    ralph

    RE .50
    
    SHOW ME  in the Consitiution of the US where is says about funding the
    arts?  It DOES state "...to provide for the common defense..."
    
    Again; get someone else to pay for what you want... the great American
    way
    
    Steve
    
    BTW no one answered my question as to what age the little girl would be
    to have that pix pornographic. No one dare?

> Having pictures of nude children in an exhibit which also includes someone
> with a bullwhip up their rectum, or someone with someone elses fist up their
> rectum, or a male urinating in someone elses mouth DOES NOT indicate
> innocence and how children are not self conscience of their bodies.  It has
> a perverse message.

Hmm. I can buy that only if you are telling me that an artist's work must
always be considered in light of their entire body of work, *and* the
surrounding art as context. I think that that is a very hard standard to
adhere to. For one thing it says that you must suspend judgement on a piece of
art until you are familiar with all of that artist's body of work. Like saying
that you can't judge Mozart's 40th symphony until you've heard all of Mozart's
music. The second part - about context - says that a piece of art has no
intrinsic meaning or value, that it must always be considered in some context
I think that to be truly consistent, you must also consider the times and place
in which the art was created. I personally don't follow any such strict standard
in judging art. I first consider the piece on its own merits, by itself, in the
modern context to gain an appreciation of the art's intrisic value (to me). I
then take into consideration all of the other things mentioned above.

You seem to be saying, by the way, that having taken a picture of someone with
a bullwhip up their ass makes you forever constitutionally unable to take a
picture showing childish innocence. An interesting viewpoint, but I disagree.

> It does not make any sense to me how people can see otherwise.  If the theme
> throughout the exhibit were that of innocence and trying to show us how much
> easier life would be if we looked at life through our "Child eyes" then I
> could buy it.  

The theme of this exhibition is a retrospective on Mapplethorpe's work. All of
his work, which includes figure studies, still lifes, "documentary" photos,
contructions, and other works. As such, assigning a single "theme" to all
of the photos says more about the assigner than the photos.

> Not with the other photos, no way.  Perversion is the theme which screams
> out.  Of course, in my opinion.

Precisely. Perversion is what I was hearing screamed at me as I viewed his
Calla Lilly studies. "This picture was taken by a pervert!" It is pellucidly
clear to me that you are fixated on a single aspect of the artIST and cannot
get past it, and that this fixation has poisoned any possible appreciation by
you of the ART.

No problem, as long as you don't try to stop ME from appreciating it.

	-- Charles

    Ralph,
    
    So you are saying there is no need for national defense?  Should we be
    in Saudi Arabia right now?  
    
    
    War is not pretty and I hope and pray that it could and would be
    eliminated, but that is an unrealism right now.  Not saying that it
    isn't something we shouldn't strive for,
    
    
    Mike

    Good point Charles.  One picture does not define an artists work.  I
    agree with you on this point.  Also, I will in no way try to dictate 
    what other people can and cannot see.  I do not however, want to be 
    expected to help fund it with my tax dollars.  I guess it is hard for 
    me to believe that someone who has taken some of the (What I consider 
    to be) extremely offensive pictures, to have taken the "innocent" 
    pictures of nude children without underlying non-innocent motives.  
    Of course this is IMO.
    
    Mike

    
    	Re: .53
    
    	My earlier reply said nothing about national defense.
    	
    	I was referring to wanton, needless, and idiotic military
    	expenditures (and since you'll probably ask), such as
    	the Stealth Bomber and SDI, for example.
    
    	My point is that the flagrant rape of my tax dollars to
    	fund projects such as these is obscene and objectionable
        to me.  The contribution of the NEA to the Mapplethorpe
    	was a neutral act of funding.
    
    ralph

    I suppose this is another note, so I won't persue the matter of defense
    spending, however, it is good to remember that (at least) part of your
    salary is a direct result of defense spending (ie: Stealth bomber and
    SDI)
    
    
    Mike

    
    Re. .55:
    
    I respect your opinions, Ralph, on the priorities that the
    government should have when allocating its budget dollars.
    I disagree with your opinions, but I do respect them.
    
    The problem I have is with what I see as hypocrisy, when
    some people feel free to voice opposition to specific programs funded
    under the defense budget that they find objectionable, but don't
    see it as valid when other people voice opposition to specific artists
    or events funded under the NEA that *they* find objectionable.

Folks, could we steer this back to discussing Mapplethorpe specifically,
and away from political arguments?

					Steve

    I would ask:
    
    Is there such a thing as child pornography? If so what is it?
    
    Correct me if I am wrong. Does some of the profit go to Mapplethorpe,
    or in this case his estate or designated charity?
    
    Suppose I take a pix of a 13 year old girl ala Mapplethorpe. Suppose
    her mother, a drug addict gives permsision. Suppose I sell these pix in
    an 'art book'. My right, right? I have the childs permission, the
    mothers (guardians) permission, and after all I called it art. Right?
    Don't dismiss this. It is a very likely senario especially if the
    courts find nothing wrong anyplace else. I am sure the book would sell
    to a large 'art' audience.
    
    Steve

Why see Mapplethorpe's pictures?

	To better understand human nature.  An unexamined life is not 
	worth living.  (I suppose the counter argument is, Ignorance
	is bliss.)  I think that it is important to thoroughly 
	understand and relate to someone that you condemn; it's only
	fair.  Otherwise, the judgement is based on theory and not
	on actual experience.

Did Mapplethorpe have a hand in picking the pictures for the exhibit?

	Yes.  I heard that he did on some radio talk show.

Is the theme of the show "perversion"?

	No.  I'd like to hear how the dozens of floral shots fit into 
	the perversion theme.  How about the portraits?  Any chosen
	theme needs to encompass all the pictures in the exhibit (if 
	the exhibit was put together well).

	The Boston Globe came up with an over-all theme, but I can't 
	remember exactly what they called it.  It was something like 
	searching, learning, and seeking the Perfect Moment.  The 
	Perfect Moment being the split second of peak life experience,
	a split second in which the photographer has to capture the
	essence of the experience.

	I think it all comes down to whether you think that peak life
	experiences are always calming, peaceful, beautiful, and 
	euphoric.  I don't know about you, but some of my most 
	intense revelations have come in the midst of horror and 
	fear.  Some have come in the midst of happiness and bliss.
	Thus, bull whips in the anus and floral arrangements bathed in 
	soothing light.


							--Gerry

    
    Re .60
    
    Gerry -
    
          I'm very curious to learn more about these revelations that
    came to you in the midst of horror and fear.  What kind of
    revelations were they?  Would I understand them if you told me
    about them, or would I have to experience the horror and fear
    also to appreciate them?
    
          Thanks -
    
    

>          I'm very curious to learn more about these revelations that
>    came to you in the midst of horror and fear.  What kind of
>    revelations were they?  Would I understand them if you told me
>    about them, or would I have to experience the horror and fear
>    also to appreciate them?
    
Let me make a note of it and think about it this weekend.  I'll post 
what I think it appropriate next week.

In general, I was saying that I've felt pain and discomfort at times 
of change and revelation.  Not always, but sometimes. 

Let me do an inventory, and I'll see what I come up with.

							--Gerry    

    May I point out here again, that the two pictures of children were
    taken by Maplethorpe in the children's home with the permission
    of the families, and that both pictures were kept by the families
    (the one of the boy was hung on his living room wall for years)
    and neither were exhibited until the then adult children gave
    permission for them to be used.
    
    A picture of a naked child is not ipso facto pornographic, and
    a person who takes pictures of playboy centerfolds can also
    take pictures of small children in the bath without it's being
    child pornography.
    
    Bonnie

>WMOIS::B_REINKE 
>    
>    A picture of a naked child is not ipso facto pornographic, and
>    a person who takes pictures of playboy centerfolds can also
>    take pictures of small children in the bath without it's being
>    child pornography.
>    
>    Bonnie
    
    
    Bonnie,
    
    I agree with this point ,Bonnie. We have hundreds of people in this
    notesfile. Not 2 can really define what pornography is. We can't even
    decide on whether being nude is an embarassing state. That's why, to
    me, it is so important for children to have to be of age. I would never
    want to have my naked likeness associated with this exibit. Even if the
    portraits were perfectly lit and my body was a 10. I am glad that the
    children's portraits were not hung without the model's adult consent. I
    don't think children should be taught to be ashamed of their bodies. I
    just think their consent is important. Do you agree?
    
    Kate                                                
    
    
    

    in re .66
    
    The point I was trying to make was that the pictures were apparently
    taken as more or less 'family portraits' by a friend, not something
    done in a studio and intended for display or sale by the photographer.
    
    Of course the location and the parents permission would not have
    mattered if the children had been molested.
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    
    Something to think about, maybe...
    
    What would happen if some artist displayed an exibit of his 
    photographs in a public gallery, but among the usual still-lifes,
    portraits, landscapes, etc., there were a half-dozen or so
    photographs of naked children, plus a shot of a man urinating
    into a *woman's* mouth, a shot of a *woman* being "fisted" by
    a man, and a shot of a *woman* with a bullwhip in her anus?
    
    Think it would still be called "art"?
    
    

 Yeah, patri-art. :-)

    
>          I'm very curious to learn more about these revelations that
>    came to you in the midst of horror and fear.  What kind of
>    revelations were they?  Would I understand them if you told me
>    about them, or would I have to experience the horror and fear
>    also to appreciate them?
    
I thought a lot about this this past weekend, which was opportune,
since I saw the Mapplethorpe exhibit on Saturday.  I keyed in a
lengthy response yesterday, but I lost it due to a lost node
connection and some careless noting on my part. 

First, let me say what I mean by "revelation."  What I mean by that is 
some keen insight into my nature as a human being.  My revelations 
haven't necessarily been along the lines of the meaning of life, but 
more like, "Oh, I never really knew that about myself."  I am of the
opinion that most people are operating out of decisions about life
that they made when they were very, very young (3-10), and that the
only way to rework this firmware is to challenge our own attitudes,
assumptions, and reactions.

Most of the revelations that have occurred to me in the midst of fear 
(at least the ones in my most recent memory) have been during sex.  
Most of these revelations were about my controlling nature, my fear of 
letting go, and my fear of letting someone else be in charge.  My 
feeling frightened in certain sexual situations gave me an insight 
into my controlling nature that has helped me to be more effective 
(less controlling) in the office, with my friends, and with my family.

I don't often feel horror in my life, but I'll bet that there were 
times in my childhood when I was terrified and I managed to learn 
something from the situation.  Maybe other people can pitch in with 
their experiences.

I don't want to go into anymore detail about the revelations I've had
during sex, because I want to keep them somewhat private.  However, I
can go into more detail about revelations I've had while watching 
films and reading books.

I have this fascination with Vietnam, and I'm not 100% sure what is 
going on there.  I was 9 years old in 1970, so I'm not approaching the 
topic from the experiential aspects that a veteran would, or that a 
man who was draft age in the late sixties would.  But, still, why am I 
so affected by Vietnam when my brother and sister barely remember or 
care about it?  

I also tend to go to movies a lot.  So, whenever a film about Vietnam
comes out, I usually go to see it.  A lot of strong emotions get
stirred up for me.  And, as a result, I learn about what makes me
tick, what pushes my buttons, indeed, who I am as a human being.  It
also gives me a human connection with the artists who wrote, acted,
and directed as part of the film.  It also gives me a human connection
with the men who fought in that war (more on this later). 

I've watched the film "Full Metal Jacket" about 4 times.  At the end 
of the film, I am horrified and am usually reduced to a crying jag.  
Yes, I understand that this film is not the most realistic film made
about that war.  But, for some reason, that film more than any other
Vietnam film gets to me, digs into me, makes me squirm, makes me want
to cry out, and horrifies me.  I haven't completely figured out what
the story is with me and this movie, but I think that it is a
combination of these issues: men and masculinity, my attraction for
men, the unfair dismissal of Vietnam Veterans as being "weird" and
"psycho," and my long standing belief that "good" people aren't
violent.  Mix all that "stuff" together, and you get a blubbering mess
of a Gerry Fisher at the end of "Full Metal Jacket."  It monkeys with
(challenges) my long standing set of ideas regarding what is beautiful
(men), what is good (peace), and what I long for (men, who just so
happen to be getting blown away in these movies).  

I still need to do more thinking about why Vietnam pushes so many 
buttons for me.  But the key here is that I am learning about 
myself--about how I act and react in my job, with friends, with 
family, in the real world--by subjecting myself to movies that horrify 
me and tear at me emotionally.  The movies become a mirror by which I 
look at my inner self.  I do this by examining my reactions.  Notice
that the reaction has more to do with the person than it has to do
with the movie: I react strongly to "Full Metal Jacket," and most
Vietnam Vets seem to react more strongly to "Platoon"; we are coming
at the subject from very different places.

When I  react strongly to the Pulitzer-prize-winning picture of the
guy who is about to be executed, when I react strongly to one of the
main characters in "Platoon" getting bayoneted, when react strongly
to the book of photography about The Wall in Washington DC, when I
react  strongly to the father's death in "In Country," and when I
empathize  sooo strongly with Tom Cruise when he drunkenly and
verbally assaults  his family--all the while them accusing _him_ of
being "disturbed," I  learn about myself and grow.  And this learning
happens during times of horror and fear.

Another example is how I reacted to reading the Edmund White novel,
"The Beautiful Room is Empty."  There is a scene in the book, set in
the late sixties in New York City, in which a young man and his
boyfriend were attending group therapy together. Although the
boyfriend was the best friend and most gentle lover he had ever had,
the two of them decided that they wanted to enter therapy together to
try to convert themselves to heterosexual.

There was an older Russian immigrant in the young man's sub group,
and, every time the man spoke about his boyfriend, the older man would
interrupt with, "What about de goils???  I want to hear about de
GOILS!"

Eventually, the boyfriend deteriorates physically and mentally, and
suffers a mental breakdown.  He is committed to a mental
hospital, and he is eventually shipped back to his parents in the
Midwest.  The young man never sees his ex-lover again.  He only
receives a letter from him years later that says that the ex has
settled down with a male rancher, that nobody would ever suspect the
two of them as being homosexual, and that the young man was "much too
gay" for the ex.

In the therapy group, right after the ex was shipped back to the
Midwest, the young man tried to relate the story to the group.  He was
devastated.  In the middle of the story, the old man breaks in with,
"What about de goils???  I want to hear about de GOILS!"  The young
man leaped onto the older man, and tried to choke him to death.  It
took the whole group to loosen his grip and to pull him off the old
man.

And the terrifying thing to me is that I was right there with the
young man, choking the life out of that old man, using every ounce of
strength and hope in my body to make sure that he never took another
breath again.  I'm not talking about me "empathizing with the young
man."  I'm not talking about me "kind of understanding what the young
man was going through."  I'm talking about feeling as if I was
committing the act myself.

I was horrified.  I like to think of myself as the type of person who
would never "hurt" anyone.  However, this book put me in touch with
the fact that I was perfectly able to commit murder.  It also put me
in touch with a great pool of anger and frustration that I have over
heterosexual people flaunting and pushing their sexuality down my
throat, while my brothers and sisters and being carted off to mental
institutions, dying of diseases that people don't really care about,
falling victim to suicide, and generally self-destructing around me.
I'm so angry I could kill.  And people think that ACT UP are
extreme....

In the Mapplethorpe exhibit, they show a videotape with interviews
with Mapplethorpe and with people who were familiar with his work.  It
is really helpful in understanding the unifying theme of the show: The
Perfect Moment.  [I hope I get this right...]  The Perfect Moment for
Mapplethorpe was the split second when everything comes together in
such a beautiful and meaningful way that real things (fruit, flowers,
people) are at once real in their lack of pretension, yet unreal in
their momentary perfection.  It is almost as if the photographed
subject temporarily reaches a Platonic state, and it is the job of the
photographer to record the moment when light, camera, artist's eye,
subject, historical context, and everything else comes together.
Robert Mapplethorpe tried to capture Laurie Anderson as LAURIE
ANDERSON, Donald Sutherland as DONALD SUTHERLAND, two shaved heads as
TWO SHAVED HEADS, and S&M gay sex as S&M GAY SEX.

I saw an irony in the interview in that the only time that the man
appeared cocky or arrogant was when he was talking about his flowers:
"Nobody photographs flowers like I do."  And I agree with him.  In
some sense, his flowers reach that bizarre place in which they are
flowers and they are also so much more than flowers.  There is a
picture of a bowl of fruit that is so...amazing.  At a distance, the
picture looks more like a computer-generated graphic.  However, when
you focus on one piece of the fruit, the realism of the actual fruit
comes through clearly.  Fruit and FRUIT, fruit and not-fruit.  Peak.
Perfect.  But only for a moment, and then it is lost.

There is a section of the videotape in which Mapplethorpe talks about
the S&M photographs.  He said that he was involved in that scene in
the late seventies in New York City.  So the pictures are taken by
someone who is intimately involved with what was being depicted; most
of the models were friends of his.  He made it clear that this work
was done in order to convey the essence of that scene as an
experienced person, not as a voyeur into something that the artist is
set apart from.  He also said that, while he was recording this time
period and sexual sub-group of gay men, he wanted to do it in a way
that was also aesthetic.  He spoke about that subculture as happening
in a time and place; it no longer exists in the same form as it did in
the late seventies, so it is impossible to examine it now.
Mapplethorpe tried to examine it honestly, and search for the perfect
S&M moments.  Fittingly, these shots are grainier than the rest of the
photographs in the exhibit.  The perfect S&M moment would not look
like a glossy Vogue shot.

Also in the videotape, Edmund White gives a very eloquent argument
that virtue without freedom of choice is not virtue; it is a jail
cell.  He said that, without there being the possibility of being
"bad," then "goodness" just becomes someone going through a set of
motions determined by some authority.  Robotic.  Mechanic.

I noticed that the only picture that shocked me was the picture of the
man with a fist inserted in his anus.  Falling in with my previous
writing, I must wonder what that says about me.  Why does that push a
button with me?  _Exactly_ what is so threatening about this one act?
Could it be that the physical pain intimidates me?  What if it
actually doesn't hurt as much as I imagine it to?  Maybe I'm afraid
that it would feel good.  Maybe it's the idea of so much of someone
else being so inside of me.  I hear that during fisting, the fist can
brush against the bottom's heart.  Imagine someone being so physically
close to your heart that they might be able to reach right out and
crush it.  Does this terrify you?  It does terrify me.  What can I
learn from my terror?  What is my connection to those who practice
S&M?  How does this play out when they are outside of the bedroom?
When I am outside of the bedroom?

Anyway, I am very glad that I can go to the ICA in Boston to look at
pictures of S&M, pictures that are taken to illuminate, not to
titillate.  I'm glad that I can use art to get in touch with certain
fears of physical limitations rather than me having to experiment
myself.  I'm really glad that can read a book that puts me in touch
with my capability to commit murder rather than me committing murder
to see what it is like.  I'm really glad that I can work out my
fascination with Vietnam by watching movies and reading  books rather
than actually going to war.  Art provides us the opportunity to go
right to the edge of human experience, of life and death, and to do it
in a relatively safe and controlled environment.  I can understand why
some people would not want to expose themselves to this level of
discomfort, no matter how many self-revelations occur.  All I ask from
those people is to allow the rest of us--the ones who push at our
limits, who test ourselves, and who strive for greater understanding
and empathy with all of our brothers and sisters--to view artwork that
depicts these subjects.


							--Gerry

    This must be a good exhibit if all this disk space is reserved
    to talk about it.  When it comes out this way, Seattle. I'll
    get in line to see all of it.  
    
    -1.  In full metal jacket, the boot camp scenes were not as rough
         as it was in true life. 
    
    "Elvis on Velvet, That's ART"
    

.71> In full metal jacket, the boot camp scenes were not as rough
.71> as it was in true life. 
    
    Amen!  It damned sure stired some memories for me though...except the
    guy in Platoon 238, B Company, 2nd Battalion (my unit) used a .45 as
    opposed to a 7.62 mm...and the damned fool did it on my watch.

    RE: .71  I'm not *positive*, but I believe Boston is the last stop for
    the Maplethorpe exhibit.
    
    Paul C.

    Thank you for your thought ful entry Gerry.  If more people searched
    their souls like you do the World would be a better place for all of
    us.  I am not Gay, but through your entries I have a far better
    understanding of what it must be like and as a result I have more
    compassion for people who are oriented differently from me.  I don't
    know as I am part of 'your solution' but I am not one that hassles
    gay people either.
    
    Regarding the Mapplethorpe Exhibit (I have not seen it) and the photo
    of the guy getting fisted.  I can picture it in my mind I think.  That
    photo of the ones I have had described to me bothers me the most too.
    Why?  Its the only photo that strikes me as sort of violent.  The
    intrusion into the person is so stark. You put it well in your note.
    
    Jeff