WEEKLY DISCUSSION 2.0 #11 - David LaChapelle

<p>Denny, in this list of most sold artists in 2015 (Artprice) LaChapelle is number 277. He has sold 33 of his works during the last year (or collectors have) totally 671 thousand dollars of sales. The highest price he has received for one of his images is $75.455. Who buys? You can find a short list of nine museums and foundations who have bought works of LaChapelle <a href="https://www.artsy.net/artist/david-lachapelle/collections">here</a>. Among them: The National Portrait Gallery in London as mentioned earlier above and the Bayerische Staatsoper Portrait Gallery in Munchen.</p>

<p>By the way, in the list of most sold artist 2015, LaChapelle has company of Francesca Woodman, who is number 273 in the list with prices almost the double of LaChapelle.</p>

<p>OK.....I never would have guessed that.<br>

Thanks</p>

<p>Before someone gets the good idea to tell me, that this is just the marked of people and institutions with money to invest, let me immediately confirm it. Whether each one of us actually like the work of LaChapelle is a total other story. The "why?" is what is interesting - in both cases.</p>

<p><em>... National Portrait Gallery in London ...</em><br>

I had to give them mine for nothing [sob].<br>

<em>... most sold artist 2015, LaChapelle has company of Francesca Woodman, who is number 273 in the list with prices almost the double of LaChapelle.</em><br>

Woodman is of course the classic tragic heroine due to her unfortunate suicide - here as elsewhere, we see higher prices being paid for the work of dead artists.<br>

<em>I never would have guessed that</em>.<br>

You might not feel his work is worth that much, but I would put LaChapelle up with the likes of Jeff Koons in terms of being a purveyor of trinkets to the moneyed classes.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"....in terms of being a purveyor of trinkets to the moneyed classes"</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well put.</p>

<p>In fact that seems to be the opening of the door for many photographers. Don't blame the poor commercial photographer (even those who suggest they are doing fine-art) as they are just trying to make a living. The society gets what it wants and values and often readily accepts the hyperbole.</p>

<p>"trinkets to the moneyed classes"<br>

It is surely often something seriously more interesting and than that. Beside the "trinkets" one find also among the most prized artists : Jean-Michel Basquiat, Peter Doig, Cindy Sherman, Anselm Kiefer and even Mark Tansey who is playing somewhat the same <em>hyperbaroquesubversive </em>ballgame<em> (</em>without the homeshine!<em>) </em>as LaChapelle who we are discussing here.</p>

 

<p>I painted at Macy's San Francisco for 2 years in the Mid 1990's. I saw all sorts of ridiculous prices for clothing:<br>

300 dollar scarves<br>

500 dollar tennis shoes<br>

50 dollar shoe laces<br>

600 dollar bathrobes<br>

150 dollar T-Shirts<br>

100 dollars for a small, EMPTY bottle of perfume.<br>

etc etc<br>

I was friends with the manager of The Womens Building while I was there, and I asked her:<br>

"How can Macy's sell this crap for so much money.?"<br>

I will never forget her answer....."If people are stupid enough to buy it, Macy's is smart enough to sell it to them."<br>

No manufactured goods, including photographs, is exempt from that protocol. :)</p>

<p>The problem with being a "purveyor of trinkets to the moneyed classes" is that it sits extremely badly with a claim to be producing "hyperbaroquekitschsubversivehomoshinypop" (Fred. G's phrase of course, not La Chapelle's, but a fair description IMHO of how LaC. would like to be perceived). The difficulty is with the "subversive" bit - rich people like it if buying art makes them look radical, they really don't like artists who seriously challenge their position at the top of the heap!</p>

<p><em>"rich people like it if buying art makes them look radical, they really don't like artists who seriously challenge their position at the top of the heap!"</em><br /> <em><br /></em>Really ? Are you sure ?<br /> As least it is the generalization of the day !</p>

<p>And actually LaChapelle sells very well for relatively high prices. </p>

..I was friends with the manager of The Womens Building while I was there, and I asked her:

"How can Macy's sell this crap for so much money.?"

 

Yeah denny, it is interesting what people collect. Coprolytes for one are collectibles and sell to rock hounds. A random thought to this critical analysis. After one peels all the layers of an onion do we still have an onion or an essence of one. And what is the essence of onion. And how describe it to one who has never sampled one.

<p>In the <a href="http://www.davidlachapelle.com/video/artnet-news/">ARTNET INTERVIEW,</a> LaChapelle talks about the disparate influences on him of Georgia O'Keeffe and Andy Warhol and Botticelli in the same breath with no irony whatsoever in his voice. It's kind of fun to half close my eyes and scroll through a google page of O'Keeffe flowers and then do the same and scroll through a google page of LaChapelle photos. Eye-opening. The barrage of color is quite similar. Squinting extremely as I scroll through each allows other similarities to emerge in the works of the two. Now, of course, the subjects are very different and the refinement of O'Keeffe gives way to the icono-stylishness of LaChapelle, but I can feel that progression from refined to outrageous. It actually has me looking at O'Keeffe's flowers with a little more excitement as I start to see some of the smoldering expressiveness in the potential of her colors and shapes. Though O'Keeffe resented certain readings of her paintings, her flowers and some sense of female sexuality seem to go hand-in-hand, intended or not. LaChapelle adds religiosity into his obvious and implied sexuality, and he doesn't have to go far to add it. There is a plane on which particularly male sexuality has that religious overtone and LaChapelle capitalizes on that.</p>

<p>He talks about wanting to approach the un-photographical, and death is on his mind in this discussion, especially having intimately experienced the ravages and heartbreak of the AIDS epidemic in one of its epicenters, NY's Greenwich Village. How to somehow come to grips with this Utopian haven of gay life and the horror and tragedy of that time. He talks about using bleach on his negatives to achieve a particular kind of glow, about working with a combination of flash and daylight in order to affect color and punch, in order to get something beyond the corporeal. He seemed to want to experiment materially to get beyond the material. The sincerity of his words and demeanor in this part of the interview is palpable as he discusses his affection for a sense of frivolity combining with more serious ideas and social commentary, social commentary on things that were hitting at the very core of his youthful experiences.</p>

<p>Wow! I wouldn't say not my taste, but his use of colors, technique, artistic expression, "photoshop" and imagery is something that I could look at all day but a loss of relevance in that his work is on such a high level I could learn nothing from it or discuss it in an intelligent way. </p>

He says he doesn't use Photoshop except minimally (he mentions cloning out a penis for a transgender project). He

prides himself on creating effects with lighting and various other camera techniques. He shies away from the world of

computer-generated imagery.

I question his veracity regarding not using Photoshop.

 

Unless he is using semantics, say uses Lightroom instead. Maybe has an assistant does the Photoshopping, not himself.

 

How does he stitch his images, the aspect ratio of MF digital is usually 6x4(6x4.5)?

No input or output sharpening?

No increased saturation?

 

 

 

Doubtful.

<p>I'm sure you are right, Black. However whatever LaChapelle meant by declaring, that he did not use Photoshop, it does not really matter. His images is what counts when it comes to his creativity and his "undulating, opulently-saturated, suntan-lotion sensuality" (cc Fred). People don't buy his works because they are convinced, that they are photoshop-free. Im' convinced, that they don't care actually !</p>

<p>And, honestly, I don't generally emphasize to myself whether people buy a photographer's work or not, in terms of my assessment of that work's worth. Its "value" to me is more than monetary. Its art-consumer appeal is not why I look at, appreciate, or choose photos or photographers to discuss here. For me, it's about looking at the work. And it's about looking at the work not just from the standpoint of consumer or viewer, but from my perspective as a fellow photographer interested in understanding how other photographers work, the visual, esthetic, photographic choices they make, and how all that affects whatever it is they're expressing. While many art buyers won't care whether this or that was done with Photoshop (or software), I very much do, not in my role as mere viewer, but in my role as photographer who's here to learn and understand.</p>

<p>I opened Fred's link, and though "mwah.... uhm...., no, not really". Then the first few pages of responses, littered with "not my cup of tea", and thought: "I prefer coffee anyway, so let's have a look again".<br>

And I actually find it really interesting works. Not that I'd easily want these as prints on my wall, but yet, to me, there is definitely something that fascinates me. The overkill, this sensation of enormous gestures, no holiding back, so much "in your face" that it'll make you step back to get some breathing space; almost visually invasive. There is a touch of humour in pushing it this far, sure, but in between the Google overview, it does become rather apparent to me that it isn't all shallow, all fun and laughs. There is too much cleverness, too much the idea that there was precision in the planning and no accidental photo. Yes, it may shout its story, wink and show a grin, but in the details there is enough of a whisper "no, seriously, I mean it, take a second look, it's not that funny".<br>

Fascinating. Not sure if it really is my cup of coffee, but as an approach, style and technique certainly worth the time. Not sure why, but the more photos I see, the more I realise I learn most from those I don't really like at first face.</p>

<p>As photographer, Fred, we are all of course very much interested in the nitty-gritty technicalities of our passion. It is therefore obvious that using or not using Photoshop is on the agenda when photographers look at other photographer's work. <br>

On the other hand, as photographers in general shoot photos for viewers to contemplate and maybe, in some cases, to buy, the nitty-gritty dimension of the craft of photographers becomes less pertinent, marginal or even totally irrelevant for most and the image as such comes to the fore.<br>

So, Fred, surely we can discuss LaChapelle as seen by the photographers we are, or as viewers, which we also are.</p>

Anders,

 

No I don't think most viewers care, or know enough to care.

These are the same people who look at an Ansel Adams print with blackened red filtered burned in "photo-shopped"

skies, and say, "He was in the right place at the right time to capture the sky like that".

 

I admire a great Photoshopper as I do a great red light, wet darkroom, enlarger lit, silver gelatin photo-shopper. The work

is such that some photographers can't tell, and the general viewership certainly can't tell...that is the signature of an

awesome Photoshopper. My noting it was not a disparaging point, but a compliment.

 

I try and appreciate art irrespective of the others in the audience, or the customer base, or the artificial value placed on it

by that audience and customer base. I try to keep the channel between the artist and myself, uncluttered by others'

opinions.