WEEKLY DISCUSSION 2.0 #11 - David LaChapelle

<blockquote>

<p><em>“Of all the photographers inventing surreal images, it is Mr. LaChapelle who has the potential to be the genre's Magritte."</em> <br />—Richard Avedon</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I'm not very impressed by current photography. There's a lot of pornographic pictures taken by the young today. A lot of the nudity is just gratuitous. But someone who makes me laugh is David LaChapelle. I think he's very bright, very funny, and good.”</em><br />—Helmut Newton</p>

</blockquote>

<p><a href="http://youinplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/tumblr_l1n7ebagms1qbtmjxo1_r1_12801.jpg">David LaChapelle, from<em> The Disaster series</em>, Vogue Italia, October 2005, Models: Heather Marks & Anja Rubik </a></p>

<p>LaChapelle is known for his commercial and advertising work, getting his start working at a young age for Andy Warhol, shooting celebrities for <em>Interview Magazine</em>. In 2006, he began to focus more on fine art photography, minimizing his commercial work.</p>

<p>He combines a sense of classical art history and homage to important historical art figures with a hyper-realistic intensity. His artist friends included Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat. Aside from an outlandish surrealist bent in what is a full-blown-and-beyond inheriting of the Salvador Dali tradition, LaChapelle talks about the influence of the masters Caravaggio and Andrea Pozzo on his work.</p>

<p>His photos and his many series are eclectic (and visually electric and electrifying). I see a collage-like eccentricity, many of his photos having a constructed look (and he, himself, constructs many of the sets) with disparate elements telling a sometimes "perverse" and usually ostentatious story. There is an undulating, opulently-saturated, suntan-lotion sensuality which may be ironic or maybe he’s just plain funny. A sense of humor he certainly shows. And he seems to twist sexuality into a multi-colored, salted-pretzel-like, faux mythical iconicism. There is provocative social commentary knocking on a gilded door. His work comes across to me as fearless. He somehow seems to show glamour in both a respectful and irreverent light . . . simultaneously!<br /> <br /> Maybe his photography could be described as <em>hyperbaroquekitschsubversivehomoshinypop</em>.</p>

<p><a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=la+chapelle+photos&client=safari&rls=en&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMI6KCAnu3OyAIVV-FjCh3eYw88&biw=1440&bih=802">LaChapelle photos</a></p>

<p><a href="http://www.davidlachapelle.com">David LaChapelle Website</a></p>

<p>I think Fred you have said it all. Yes his photograpy is i indeed <strong><em>hyperbaroquekitschsubversivehomoshinypop.</em></strong><br>

<strong><em> </em></strong><br>

In general not my taste !</p>

<p>There are only two of his series that ever have caught my attention: His <strong><a href="http://www.davidlachapelle.com/series/gas/">gas series</a></strong> and his <strong><a href="http://www.davidlachapelle.com/series/k-mart-photo-studio-project/">K-Mart </a></strong>series. Maybe because in these photo series he has left out the hyperkitsch-homeshinypop elements and concentrated on what he is best at, in my eyes, the strong subversive and baroque dimensions of his style.</p>

--------In general not my taste !-------

 

Nor mine either.Yet he is certainly clever and talented in his approach to fashion and models and settings, and he has a mischievous sense of humor. Soft porn, with a style that the millennials are tuned in to more than most of us I think. I have nothing against soft porn, quite the contrary. And when it shows imagination and some diversity, a valid and historical trail for the camera. ( Web searches seem to prove that from Google records) That said, Fred, there is a shock appeal that my imagination could never come up with even if I took hallucinogens. And I kind of give LaChapelle, whose work is novel to me, credit.. Maybe that is the sense I get of some of his works. Pipe dreams or magic mushroom aperitifis ?

<p>Visually stimulating....not deep or particularly special but works in a nice visual manner. <br>

Enjoyable to look at.</p>

<p>My impression is that he is a photo-satirist, a fairly unique niche in photography. Perhaps many of his models and clients simply see fantasy and not satire in the images, and that would likely be what the photographer would desire as a result as he is above all a business person. I see satire or the desire to surprise (a common commercial initiative) rather than any surrealism. Is the former intentional? Some of the images may be a spoof or the ridiculing of current society and values. If so, I think he is transcending the fantasy or kitsch content and suggesting that the viewer reflect on popular lifestyles and culture.</p>

<p>As a photographic approach, on the other hand, I feel that the images forgo any quality of subtlety, notwithstanding any intellectual basis of incorporating elements of past artistic works. They don't really shock, just surprise. Amusing. Which is also what we can reap from looking at them.</p>

<p>Although the National Portrait gallery *England) has acquired one of his images of well-known Brits, his fantasy style and highly charged images (more is better?) is also not my cup of tea. And I do not really consider my tastes to be in any way conservative.</p>

<p>I've been to his Hollywood warehouse/studio, and have seen him at work. He apparently makes a lot of money, judging by the square footage of that place. <br /><br />I have to say "not my taste" is an understatement.</p>

<p>I am a massive admirer of that guy. He has his own style, and has found a place to intersect it with commerce, all while retaining his vision. He also works insanely hard. I saw a doc on him and he seems like decent person as well, which is always a bonus and not always the case at that level.</p>

<p>Initial impressions are a trap. Less representative of his overall portfolio, thus incomplete on which to understand him and judge his work. I admit to having been snared in that trap. I more recently looked at his website and the work in his past exhibitions, earlier ones between 1984 and 1991. Some amazing pictures. The link to his photos in the OP yields but one small side of his creatvity. Have a look at some of his work of other years, like 1991. The collages are impressive. Spending a week or a month as an assistant to this man would be very profitable, but it would be preferable to have some art instruction beforehand to be able to better assimilate what he is doing.</p>

<p>Arthur, what "art instruction" in particular are you thinking about would be needed to "assimilate" what he is doing ? Personally I don't think deep knowledge about his inspirational "fathers" (which I think I know more about than I know about LaChapelle) helps to "like" the result. Such knowledge makes his imagerie more interesting and worth looking at for a while, only. </p>

<p>Anders, as an economist (if I am not mistaken) you are aware that a complete appreciation of creative work (research, new theories or principles) in your area of activity requires some familiarity with the base. I can only explain in simplified terms the nature of my own activity and research to those who have not had similar training in high temperature physical chemistry. So it is I think with the work of LaChapelle who has an art education. He may have had practicing inspirational fathers like Botticelli and Warhol, but he also probably studied the writings of Kandinsky, Arnheim and other teachers and has such instruction as a base for his work.</p>

<p>What he does with that is another thing and I like you do not take to his more recent images, whether they are (as I suggested) satirical or simply fantasy with a commercial intent. His earlier images (I have yet to view the intermediate period following 1991) may give a fuller idea of what he is capable of and what art fundamentals he has used in making them.</p>

Seems to me he is parodying himself and his models, and his and

their business. Interesting constructions, say if, Hieronymus Bosch

worked for Mad Magazine in the 70s.

 

Awesome Photoshopper.

 

Love the Shell gas station in the rainforest. That's kinda serious.

 

That one set with the jet, I am curious if that was the set from the

most recent War of the Worlds.

<p>Great imagination and use of colors, props and design. </p>

http://s3images.coroflot.com/user_files/individual_files/original_187697_kbxbAqt68ypWK4aELnHo_3Hq2.jpg

 

Love that one.

 

Anyone notice the catch?

 

That tells me a LOT about David.

Also note, substantial scalpel/laser art done to his own face.

 

That would be cool to do a food dyed colored eye candy carmel POP-corn series on plastic surgeons, anesthesiologists, nurses, et al,

especially those who have worked on his models, and himself.

 

Homage tribute to unsung artists of a finer art.

<p>Glancing at LaChapelles work makes me think where photography is to go in terms of use of color? Did he maxed out the use of color? Does color have a meaning in photography?</p>

http://www.davidlachapelle.com/video/

 

Awesome links to on set, look behind the curtain, stuff he does. Cameras, lights, computers, tricks, techniques,,assistants roles, etc.

Check the PhazeOne Land Scape vids. Wonderful.

 

I like him, I need more time with him, but I think I am going to really like this guy and his work.

<p>Seeing the rest of his portfolio, it is looks certainly "staged", Phil. Does it really matter ? </p>

<p>A prodigious technician, but with content totally pushed aside by style.</p>

<p>It definitely matters to me if something is staged or documentary. Each tells a very different story, one suggesting this or that actually happened, the other suggesting it was part of a process of creation of the photographer.</p>

<p>While style here cannot be denied or missed, the content, to me, comes through loudly and clearly. I often have a hard time separating content and style, because I think there's so much reciprocity between the two. There are so many ideas swirling around within these photos, it's hard to keep focus. That's conveyed with flare, but it does seem to get conveyed. Often, style will slap me in the face and I will turn from it. Here it keeps slapping until I dare to look more.</p>

<p>I decided a while back with La Chapelle that he had to be beyond taste to be appreciated, almost anathema to it. He challenges my whole notion of taste. He embodies Picasso's famous statement, <em>"Taste is the enemy of creativeness."</em> From the moment I first saw and didn't like his work, there was something about it I simultaneously <em>loved</em>, in an over-the-top, smile in the back of my mind, raise my arms to the heavens, let my wrist go as limp as it could sort of way. This body of work is a food fight of taste. Finally, I just surrender to it and let all the sauces drown me in swirls of taste-forgiveness. As I said, he becomes fierce in his brazenness and I have much to honor in his commitment and unrelenting individuality to both style and these important ideas and social indictments. Whether I like his work or not now seems trivial.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Whether I like his work or not now seems trivial</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree with your sentiment, definitely that of Picasso, and your well presented last post, Fred. His social indictments underlay much of his work and he will likely be best remembered and respected for that, quite apart from the specific way he creates images. Whether the image Cameron Diaz would be in color, as it is, or in relatively tern black and white, the message of the photographer would probably be no different. The industrial scene of a chemical plant is made to look like an expensive Christmas toy. Photography lends itself perfectly to the creation of art.</p>

<p>"It definitely matters to me if something is staged or documentary." (Fred)<br>

Not to me, when speaking about LaChapelle, Fred. In general, it is another story.<br>

LaChapelle is as far as I see and read him not doing documentaries. If he by chance fell over one of the items Phil referred to and decided to make a shot of it, I would still consider the image as "staged" in the sense that was integrated in his portfolio as other images of his. He does not try to document anything. He is in the business of conceptual image-making.<br>

</p>

<p>Phil, I'm not sure LaChapelle would care whether we place his work in the box named "staged document" or the one named: "unstaged document" with whatever definition we chose to use, as long as his image end up in the pile Fred characterized by the term of: <em>hyperbaroquekitschsubversivehomoshinypop. </em>In my eyes his series<em> <a href="http://www.davidlachapelle.com/series/still-life/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">still lives</a> </em>fits well in the lot<em>. </em>I think he never tries to document what happens on the surface of reality. He is always in a process of creation. </p>

<p>Thanks for mentioning the videos about the Landscape series, Black. I wonder if he required his assistants to be thin and shirtless?!! ;-)</p>

<p>Very interesting that he constructs the refineries strictly with materials such as plastic drinking straws and other "found" objects. He seems to want that degree of "creative construction" and artificiality for the refineries against the natural backdrops he scouts. He judges his timeframe for shooting and allows himself very small windows for snapping the shutter, which seems to add a sense of moment and spontaneity into his very planned shoots. He seems to like that degree of adrenalin to be infused into his process, and it certainly seems to get infused into his results. He's especially mindful of the gradient effect he gets in his skies, which adds drama and nuance to his overall scenes.</p>

<p>I noted the extent to which Woodman, a very, very, very different photographer, is director, actor, and set designer (or at least set chooser). Well, La Chapelle is even more so. And he is doing it in a much more technological way, showing incredible precision and control, but also seeming to want that fleeting sense that time will run out quickly once he's shooting and in the groove of actually taking the picture. Interesting that he would set himself up this way.</p>

<p>When I hear him describe the process, I realize that as over-the-top and blatant as his results are, there is a lot of subtlety and care to his method, his choices, and his vision. </p>

<p>Once again my view is well outside the mainstream!<br>

A couple of points. "Staged". I am astonished and totally incredulous that anyone could think these pictures are NOT staged. These picture are what happens when you go to set builders, stylists, fashion designers and model agencies and say "Here's a pile of money, give me WEIRD!" The artisyic depth of these images is barely measurable in microns. <br>

2nd point - style versus content. Content is when I feel someone is trying to say something, style is (or should be) the barely noticed means of doing this. Jumping up and down screaming "ME, ME, ME, LOOK AT ME!" is a sign that style is contrived, superficial and empty. <br>

Third point - Picasso's statement may have had meaning in the uptight pre-1914 world in which he began his career with a desire to shake things up, today without innate taste and intuitive motivation, there is no limit to the depth of s**t into which "culture" can descend. </p>

<p>Who buys stuff like that.? Is it mostly advertising gimmicks that he deals in.?<br>

Magazines, Websites, Brochures, etc.<br>

Thank You</p>