dimanche 22 mai 2005

Graffiti is way down the Sales Graph... But, if depicting Sex, is it Art? My opening image could be mistaken for a large canvas, by a modern artist, in any city gallery, commanding a high price, and with a convincing critique in a lavish catalogue... but it is simply graffiti by A.N.Unknown, a French artist with a problem, or angst, or both. I photographed the work on a boarded-up shop down a back-street in Tours, central France in 1982. As an artwork it was large being around 22x10 feet... the artist, almost certainly without a ladder, having to reach high on tiptoe - which may account for the more jumbled motif higher up. There is no doubt to the subject matter in the more defined parts of the work... male genitalia. There are various types noted including erect and limp, straight and bent, smooth and wrinkled, circumcised and hairy. Although it's an interesting piece, beyond that my vocabulary becomes limited! However, I see a resemblance of line, innuendo even, in Pierre Alechinsky's "A l'Aveuglette" (roughly translated, I think, as "groper"), a large 6x9 ft work, to the graffiti anonyme. The Alechinsky had a high estimate of $25,000 / 30,000 euros at the Briest sale of Art Contemporain in Paris on 16 Déc. 2000... whereas if the anonymous graffiti artist had been apprehended, found guilty and fined he would have been out of pocket for his noble artistic efforts. But that's the difference between the successful artist - 15 years ago Alechinsky sold a painting for around $2m - and the thousands more who also create, arguably as expressively, but struggle with complete unrecognition... until, that is, a passing photographer in a foreign land happens upon and records their work, hardly for posterity, but at least for a brief "15 minutes of fame" on a daily weblog. But I place the two examples together because of the control of line and design out of apparent randomness. Alechinsky was described in "The Times" as, "A poet of entanglement" which is not far from how I would describe "Anonyme de Tours." The penis is not often seen in artwork - at art college in the 60s any male model hired for life class always wore a G-string whereas the female models bared all. Of course those were the days when homosexuality was illegal in the UK, to see an erection was considered obscene and strippers in seedy night-clubs had to stand absolutely still between casting off the last of the seven veils and the curtain falling. Sculptural male figures such as Michaelangelo's "David" were grossly oversized in the stature department (but not between the legs) and so seen almost as gods... and revered for their beauty. Of course statuesque figures have to be appreciated with the head and eyes inclined... so avoiding the embarrassing downward glances with life size models when looking them "all over." You can see what I mean by that in the Picasso coloured crayon drawing "Junyer le Satyre" dating from circa 1902 when Picasso was only 21 years of age. At the Briest "Art Moderne" sale in Paris on 22 juin 2001 the upper estimate for this charming 37x27 cms drawing was $90,000 / 100,000 euros! I'm not sure what was going through Picasso's mind when he made the sketch but he obviously had a great sense of humour from an early age... the thought of a man whipping his cock out in front of two well dressed ladies during the Belle Époque asks more questions than the participants would probably be able to answer... but as the Prince of Wales of the time used to have regular forays with ladies of the night in the Parisian Bois de Boulogne I suppose anything goes in certain society. Next to the Picasso is an image I found taken by that great American photographer Minor White... a graffiti image, chalked onto a concrete wall in Benicia, California and depicting a homosexual act. As a photographic image it is, to my eye, of no beauty or importance... it is simply a record shot by White because, being bisexual, he saw a very real humour in it. Maybe I'm wrong as I have never seen the photo or read any critique of it - it is reproduced small in the superb book "Minor White: The Eye That Shapes" published by The Art Museum, Princeown University to accompany the travelling exhibition from 1989 through 1991. Because the image is a Minor White it would command a good price at any auction... again, the anonymous originator of the artwork would receive nothing except a reprimand. A very blatant depiction of the penis - well, several actually - is the fascinating sculpture entitled "Oh! Charley, Charley, Charley..." by Charles Ray which consists of eight facsimiles of the artist's own fully naked body... with the eight acting out more variations of homoerotic display than I can imagine... or maybe I've never been to the right party. (Read a transcript of the interview by Dennis Hopper with Charles Ray here). Seriously though, I would have loved to have seen this exhibition... and maybe even wished for a similar scenario to that staged this summer in Austria at an art exhibition of nudes where free entry was granted to any visitor who stripped off on entering the gallery and viewed the nudes... nude. Presumably they were also given a catalogue to cover their own exhibits. I wouldn't be the first to seek a free ticket, but would participate if others were doing so... heck, if everyone stripped off for the expo you would stand out by being clothed. There's only one small problem - I have no hang-ups with male nudity and I'm comfortable with my own - I don't mind seeing a penis, but testicles, balls, cohones or dos huevos simply turn me off. They're the one thing (OK... two) that I don't like about male genitalia... the rocket's acceptable, it's the two bombs I don't feel comfortable with. I've read any number of writings where one sexual partner describes sucking a man's balls... well I'm sorry, but to me that conjures up stuffing two hairy, un-peeled, Kiwi fruits into one's mouth at the same time - possible but certainly not enjoyable when you can be more picky and savour something a bit tastier. But that's what it's all about... taste, or lack of it. We don't have exactly the same taste as the person standing next to us looking at the same art work... but that we have the choice, and that we have the freedom of expression, appreciation and constructive criticism is the important thing. Re: the main image... it is not difficult to find nudity on the net... but it is more difficult to find on the net than "sex" - explicit or otherwise. There are not many images around of normal nakedness... so occasionally I will undress to redress the balance, so to speak. Here are some more examples of "Self-Portrait Nude" photography on this weblog which I have taken relaxing in a French courtyard overlooked by a convent, lying on a brass bedstead in a dark-chocolate coloured room with honey-coloured floorboards somewhere in the North of England, reflected in a glazed door in London, cooling off again in a French garden by taking an impromptu hose pipe shower... and reflected in a French hotel bedroom wardrobe mirror... snapped whilst cooling off in the breeze from an open window during a break in art-studies during the summer of 2006 when it was too hot to be outside in the sun. June 7 2007 Update Here's my latest "art nude" self-portrait in a misty shower taken whilst testing an Olympus E-1 camera to see if it was showerproof as claimed. 3:34:33 PM    comment []