Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Joel Peter Witkin

mixedmedia · 09-25-2007, 05:53 PM

It's very strange that I do a search of the forums to see if the photography of Joel Peter Witkin has ever been discussed before and I see that bobby had started one in Off The Wayside just this very month! But I wanted to start another one here that would be more of an opportunity to discuss the implications of and reactions to his art.

I have been slowly savoring a biography of the photographer Diane Arbus and today I was reading about the variety of reactions she received in the early '60s from editors, art directors and her fellow photographers during the formative years of her career as an independent artist and it spurred me to thinking this evening about Joel Peter Witkin and the one conversation I have ever had with anyone concerning the subject matter of his art. In particular of the use of human and animal cadavers in his fantastical tableaux.

There are links here to his photographs:

http://www.edelmangallery.com/witkin.htm

http://www.zonezero.com/EXPOSICIONES...rafos/witkin2/

http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/ar...witkin_01.html

And here is some interesting additional material - differing viewpoints - about the man and his work:

http://supervert.com/essays/art/joelpeter_witkin

http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2...kin/index.html

http://d-sites.net/english/witkin.htm

And a little Wikipedia blurb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel-Peter_Witkin

But getting back to my own thoughts, the one conversation I have had about Witkin's work was with a co-worker about 10 years ago. It has stayed with me all these years because the nature of his objections to what Witkin does was so vehement, it was nearly hysterical. He believed that the photographer's use of the human body (both the living and the dead) approached the level of a unique kind of blasphemy (yes, he was a Catholic) which thereby completely leveled the work from ever acheiving any sort of artistic merit.

Tonight, looking at his work again (especially his more recent photographs), I am wondering what other people see when they look at them. There is no doubt that I see beauty in most of his photographs. Just as there is no doubt that the subject matter of most of his work fascinates me in a morbid, prurient way. But at what point does prurience or exploitation of the bizarre serve to negate artistic merit? In your opinion. Or does it? Can it ever?

09-25-2007, 05:53 PM	#1 (permalink)
mixedmedia has all her shots. Location: Florida	Joel Peter Witkin - Artist or Sideshow Barker? It's very strange that I do a search of the forums to see if the photography of Joel Peter Witkin has ever been discussed before and I see that bobby had started one in Off The Wayside just this very month! But I wanted to start another one here that would be more of an opportunity to discuss the implications of and reactions to his art. I have been slowly savoring a biography of the photographer Diane Arbus and today I was reading about the variety of reactions she received in the early '60s from editors, art directors and her fellow photographers during the formative years of her career as an independent artist and it spurred me to thinking this evening about Joel Peter Witkin and the one conversation I have ever had with anyone concerning the subject matter of his art. In particular of the use of human and animal cadavers in his fantastical tableaux. There are links here to his photographs: http://www.edelmangallery.com/witkin.htm http://www.zonezero.com/EXPOSICIONES...rafos/witkin2/ http://www.artphotogallery.org/02/ar...witkin_01.html And here is some interesting additional material - differing viewpoints - about the man and his work: http://supervert.com/essays/art/joelpeter_witkin http://archive.salon.com/people/bc/2...kin/index.html http://d-sites.net/english/witkin.htm And a little Wikipedia blurb: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel-Peter_Witkin But getting back to my own thoughts, the one conversation I have had about Witkin's work was with a co-worker about 10 years ago. It has stayed with me all these years because the nature of his objections to what Witkin does was so vehement, it was nearly hysterical. He believed that the photographer's use of the human body (both the living and the dead) approached the level of a unique kind of blasphemy (yes, he was a Catholic) which thereby completely leveled the work from ever acheiving any sort of artistic merit. Tonight, looking at his work again (especially his more recent photographs), I am wondering what other people see when they look at them. There is no doubt that I see beauty in most of his photographs. Just as there is no doubt that the subject matter of most of his work fascinates me in a morbid, prurient way. But at what point does prurience or exploitation of the bizarre serve to negate artistic merit? In your opinion. Or does it? Can it ever? __________________ Most people go through life dreading they'll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They've already passed their test in life. They're aristocrats. - Diane Arbus PESSIMISM, n. A philosophy forced upon the convictions of the observer by the disheartening prevalence of the optimist with his scarecrow hope and his unsightly smile. - Ambrose Bierce