![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
purejuiceNSFW: http://faculty.unlv.edu/pkane/ART242X/beauty/son.html:
I saw Robert's X images for the first time scattered across a Pace coffee table at a coke dealer's penthouse on Hudson Street, and in that context they were just what they would be - a sheaf of piss-elegant snapshots, mementos and naughty bits - photos the artist made when he wasn't making art, noir excursions into metaphysical masochism and trading cards for cocaine. As long as they existed in private circulation, they
would remain so: handsome and disturbing images, to be sure, but clandestine artifacts, nevertheless, and peripheral texts at best - like Joyce's diaries or Delacroix's erotica. Today the images in The X Portfolio are "fine photographs" and better for it. They hang as authorized images in the oeuvre alongside their pornological predecessors and ancillaries, and that work is richer and rougher for their company.
Nice wide ranging talk today about beauty, the Regarding Beauty show, Velazquez, Vermeer, Marlene Dumas, Bacon, Freud, Stanley Spencer, Dave Hickey and the idea that beauty is defined not by art but by the market. Are you listening, Kim Kardashian's ass?
Are these pix of Mapplethorpe's art? Beauty?
Bwahahahahahaha.
would remain so: handsome and disturbing images, to be sure, but clandestine artifacts, nevertheless, and peripheral texts at best - like Joyce's diaries or Delacroix's erotica. Today the images in The X Portfolio are "fine photographs" and better for it. They hang as authorized images in the oeuvre alongside their pornological predecessors and ancillaries, and that work is richer and rougher for their company.
Nice wide ranging talk today about beauty, the Regarding Beauty show, Velazquez, Vermeer, Marlene Dumas, Bacon, Freud, Stanley Spencer, Dave Hickey and the idea that beauty is defined not by art but by the market. Are you listening, Kim Kardashian's ass?
Are these pix of Mapplethorpe's art? Beauty?
Bwahahahahahaha.
