And now for something really weird. Really. Really. Weird.

The Kay wrote:So, what does one do with a picture like that? Frame it and hang it on the wall?

The Kay wrote:So, what does one do with a picture like that? Frame it and hang it on the wall?

tapu wrote:Meet Joel-Peter Witkin, an artist whose work you might... enjoy... or, maybe not.
Brings a whole new depth of meaning to "YMMV".

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

art:
http://www.artnet.com/Artists/ArtistHomePage.aspx?artist_id=25126&page_tab=Artworks_for_sale

dangrsmind wrote:

The Kay wrote:So, what does one do with a picture like that? Frame it and hang it on the wall?

Probably right next to this one:

tapu wrote:I just thought some people might not be as familiar with him as you are.

The Kay wrote:Photography is really the only type of art I like. I'm not shocked by the picture(s), but what's the point? Usually a photograph shows something interesting. Maybe there are people interested in looking at a headless fat man with a tiny penis. I might not be "deep" enough to "get it." Are some of these done for no reason other than the "shock" value?

blouAngel wrote:

The Kay wrote:Photography is really the only type of art I like. I'm not shocked by the picture(s), but what's the point? Usually a photograph shows something interesting. Maybe there are people interested in looking at a headless fat man with a tiny penis. I might not be "deep" enough to "get it." Are some of these done for no reason other than the "shock" value?

Well we could start to get at the point with a question like "Is it more true that a photograph shows something interesting, or that a photograph shows something in an interesting way?"

dabobkat wrote:

blouAngel wrote:

The Kay wrote:Photography is really the only type of art I like. I'm not shocked by the picture(s), but what's the point? Usually a photograph shows something interesting. Maybe there are people interested in looking at a headless fat man with a tiny penis. I might not be "deep" enough to "get it." Are some of these done for no reason other than the "shock" value?

Well we could start to get at the point with a question like "Is it more true that a photograph shows something interesting, or that a photograph shows something in an interesting way?"

Having once been a professional photographer it is how the shot is framed
I’ve used a Polaroid camera and made the shots look good

blouAngel wrote:

dabobkat wrote:

blouAngel wrote:

The Kay wrote:Photography is really the only type of art I like. I'm not shocked by the picture(s), but what's the point? Usually a photograph shows something interesting. Maybe there are people interested in looking at a headless fat man with a tiny penis. I might not be "deep" enough to "get it." Are some of these done for no reason other than the "shock" value?

Well we could start to get at the point with a question like "Is it more true that a photograph shows something interesting, or that a photograph shows something in an interesting way?"

Having once been a professional photographer it is how the shot is framed
I’ve used a Polaroid camera and made the shots look good

Was that an answer to the question?

blouAngel wrote:

tapu wrote:Meet Joel-Peter Witkin, an artist whose work you might... enjoy... or, maybe not.
Brings a whole new depth of meaning to "YMMV".

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

art:
http://www.artnet.com/Artists/ArtistHomePage.aspx?artist_id=25126&page_tab=Artworks_for_sale

Photography usually bores me. I love JPW though. I guess that stuff still shocks people? Da Vinci and Michelangelo both kept body parts around their studios for reference. Gericault did the same to make studies for "The Raft of the Medusa." He made several paintings of the heads of executed prisoners.

It's the sort of thing that it would take a dissertation or at least a solid master's thesis to really discuss, but Witkin's work intentionally or not raises a lot of very interesting issues where the histories of art, science, and the law converge.

WANG WARNING!, but only mild wangs. Some history, but only a very brief intro.
Andreas Vesalius
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/w/wantz/images/vesdi04.jpg
Vesalius and his fellow students studied anatomy by going out to the places where executed prisoner's bodies were left in piles. He wrote that they learned to identify all of the bones by feel with their eyes closed. He revolutionized the study of anatomy and is a very important figure in the histories of art and medicine.

Julius Casserius
http://www.fulltable.com/VTS/i/imsc/aa/imm/79.jpg

Here be some VERY POTENT WANGS. Not for the faint of heart.
Frederik Ruysch
http://morbidanatomy.blogspot.com/2010/01/announcing-new-virtual-museum-dedicated.html

dabobkat wrote:

blouAngel wrote:

dabobkat wrote:

blouAngel wrote:

The Kay wrote:Photography is really the only type of art I like. I'm not shocked by the picture(s), but what's the point? Usually a photograph shows something interesting. Maybe there are people interested in looking at a headless fat man with a tiny penis. I might not be "deep" enough to "get it." Are some of these done for no reason other than the "shock" value?

Well we could start to get at the point with a question like "Is it more true that a photograph shows something interesting, or that a photograph shows something in an interesting way?"

Having once been a professional photographer it is how the shot is framed
I’ve used a Polaroid camera and made the shots look good

Was that an answer to the question?

Having once been a professional photographer it is how the shot is framed

An example would be taking a picture of an old antique tractor.
I’ve seen the shot done in color and I’ve seen it done in B&W done in sepia tones
It loses something in color

Does that give a better answer?

blouAngel wrote:

The Kay wrote:Photography is really the only type of art I like. I'm not shocked by the picture(s), but what's the point? Usually a photograph shows something interesting. Maybe there are people interested in looking at a headless fat man with a tiny penis. I might not be "deep" enough to "get it." Are some of these done for no reason other than the "shock" value?

Well we could start to get at the point with a question like "Is it more true that a photograph shows something interesting, or that a photograph shows something in an interesting way?"

blouAngel wrote:

dabobkat wrote:

blouAngel wrote:

dabobkat wrote:

blouAngel wrote:

The Kay wrote:Photography is really the only type of art I like. I'm not shocked by the picture(s), but what's the point? Usually a photograph shows something interesting. Maybe there are people interested in looking at a headless fat man with a tiny penis. I might not be "deep" enough to "get it." Are some of these done for no reason other than the "shock" value?

Well we could start to get at the point with a question like "Is it more true that a photograph shows something interesting, or that a photograph shows something in an interesting way?"

Having once been a professional photographer it is how the shot is framed
I’ve used a Polaroid camera and made the shots look good

Was that an answer to the question?

Having once been a professional photographer it is how the shot is framed

An example would be taking a picture of an old antique tractor.
I’ve seen the shot done in color and I’ve seen it done in B&W done in sepia tones
It loses something in color

Does that give a better answer?

Are you the one professional photographer who's never done weddings?

The Kay wrote:Photography is really the only type of art I like. I'm not shocked by the picture(s), but what's the point? Usually a photograph shows something interesting. Maybe there are people interested in looking at a headless fat man with a tiny penis. I might not be "deep" enough to "get it." Are some of these done for no reason other than the "shock" value?

claudicici wrote:

The Kay wrote:Photography is really the only type of art I like. I'm not shocked by the picture(s), but what's the point? Usually a photograph shows something interesting. Maybe there are people interested in looking at a headless fat man with a tiny penis. I might not be "deep" enough to "get it." Are some of these done for no reason other than the "shock" value?

....let them speak to you.
it's not something you look at to decide wether or not you want to hang it on your wall.
art is something that speaks to you emotionally.
art understands what noone else does,it's the best feeling in the world to look at something and think he/she gets it ,this person felt that way and you are not alone.
dead bodies can speak so much clearer to me than a living person.
i can see empty shallow living people walking around all day long.
i can see a dead body and know everything that person felt.