2006-09-28 22:07:52 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
They are all technically beautiful, but the real art is in that he was able to blur the lines between filthy perv and artistic genius. No matter what the subject matter they were so beautiful that you couldn't help but look. The delicate petals of a flower, a traditional portrait of a women, or the subtle shadows ans beautifully rendered skintone of one man with his fist up another mans ***....it was all the same.
2006-09-29 03:07:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It seems the general concensus amongst most Americans is that Mapplethorpe was a filthy pervert, and I think we can see that in most Americans bloodlust to shut down the "National Endowment for the Arts". Not to say that Mapplethorpe was fully responsible for this bloodlust, Cerranos Piss Christ did a lot to fuel the fire of debate.
In terms of Mapplethorpes being a genius or not, my feelings towards his work have been lukewarm at best. Some of his nudes in particular his contrasts of skin tone series isn't all that extrordinary, Eikoh Hosoe had a very similar series many decades before his, and in terms of sensationalism I think Jeff Koons does a better job, he not only upsets the average Americans senses as to what is acceptable art but he also challenges the art worlds senses as well.
Fact is this.. in America, art is anything that isn't offensive to the senses or require any dialogue or questioning. Great art in America is Thomas Kinkade paintings and stuffed jackrabbits with antelope antlers glued to their heads i.e, jackalope (America's answer to Rodin's sculpture "the thinker" ) ...but dont get me wrong, Europeans as well as most other people in this world don't have a good sense of art either, so honestly America is no worse than say France.
2006-09-29 05:19:13 · answer #2 · answered by wackywallwalker 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I'm going to vote genius. He's a superb technician and a truly intelligent artist, whose work is consistently both relevant and beautiful.
2006-09-28 23:10:27 · answer #3 · answered by Drew 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Both! Ha ha
Some of his photographs are stunningly beautiful. Others are kinky & a little disturbing. But none of them fail to make an impact. Art is about making a statement & affecting people. He succeeded! I love his work but admittedly some of his photos I wouldn't want hanging in my living room!
2006-09-28 22:18:06 · answer #4 · answered by amp 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As every thing in life it is a matter of taste, I like some of his photos, but there are others that stink and hurt my personal feelings.
2006-09-29 06:10:55 · answer #5 · answered by bigonegrande 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i had a vague idea of who he was so i googled. he's a pervert there is nothing artistic about inserting a foot into a persons rectum.
2006-09-28 23:58:39 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
artistic genius
2006-09-28 22:19:57 · answer #7 · answered by tui 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Direct me to where I can view his work, and I will give my opinion. I truly apologize if I'm inadvertently promoting that which I should not....
2006-09-28 22:22:24 · answer #8 · answered by LYNN MARIE 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think his photos are beautiful, well apart from the fisting ones.
2006-09-28 22:55:23 · answer #9 · answered by sarahlmann2001 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
He must be both or you wouldn't have suggested it to prompt your quest
2006-09-28 23:34:56 · answer #10 · answered by srracvuee 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋