Discussion invited - David Penprase

<p>Link:<br>

http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=David+Penprase&espv=2&biw=1366&bih=643&tbm=isch&imgil=Mh84kK7V1o5z1M%253A%253BgSIgy4Zo4v7EfM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.dp.talktalk.net%25252Fpages%25252Fsales2.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=Mh84kK7V1o5z1M%253A%252CgSIgy4Zo4v7EfM%252C_&usg=__rA-qwt8y8HB1fRgMckx4jB-2FB4%3D&ved=0ahUKEwiiiafdkPzJAhWEtBQKHWMOCLMQyjcIMA&ei=gOV_VqLJFYTpUuOcoJgL#imgrc=6McWeFETOP-WUM%3A&usg=__rA-qwt8y8HB1fRgMckx4jB-2FB4%3D<br>

No further info or comment (apologies to Julie!).</p>

 

<p>Slider art. He's working all the sliders to eleven. Especially the titillation slider.</p>

<p>No further comment.</p>

<p><em>Bleagh</em>.</p>

<p>Please, please rewind to <a href="/casual-conversations-forum/00debl"><em><strong>Anders' immediately preceding thread.</strong></em></a></p>

<p>Or at least to <a href="http://www.marclagrange.com/themes/senza-parole#intro"><em><strong>this page</strong></em></a> on that thread.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Lannie, could you amplify your response? It may be that you are saying you don't think much of DP (in which case you may :-) not be alone in this view) and you think ML did this kind of thing better, but I would be interested in a fuller opinion.</p>

<p>My memory of being three is rather vague, but I think I should be using an iPad rather than a desktop to see the Lagrange images.</p>

<p>It is probably best to first read a bit about the intended artistic approach of Penprase before looking at his art. Very richly embodied images - what a contrast to the visual communication of a Kenna or Brandt - Penprase images are what I would refer to as neo-baroque photography. Sorry, that is to my knowledge not an accepted phrase for the photographic intelligentsia, but one that I coin as my feeling towards his approach and work. I wonder if he could not say the same (whatever that may be) without all the baroque embellishment? Is that a means of rendering the photographic image more noble, more art in nature? More saleable to the bourgeoisie?</p>

<p>Maybe I should ask myself why I react negatively to this type of imagery?</p>

<p>OK, I got that off my mind. To be a bit more open I sought some sort of indication of his approach on the web. He uses body painting, which in itself is an art (or craft, whatever) and involves many other photographers and artists as well (It would seem less effective if body painters had their work recorded by painters rather than photographers?). This is interesting as it permits the human subject to transcend to other levels of representation, mood or insertion into a scene. For those interested in what and why he photographs, the following is an interview with him in 2014 when requested to judge the 8th Digital Lightroom Competition: https://thedigitallightroom.wordpress.com/tag/jan-penprase/</p>

<p>Arthur Plumptono wrote: "This is interesting as it permits the human subject to transcend to other levels of representation, mood or insertion into a scene."</p>

<p>I don't think they "transcend" anything. They don't even move a millimeter, even under a magnifying glass. The guy was so busy loading up with chrome and leather, he forgot to put an engine in his confection. It's all condiment and no hotdog.</p>

<p>At least Lagrange's stuff squeaks and buzzes cleverly, even if it doesn't go anywhere.</p>

<p>David, I think that Arthur said it best: "Maybe I should ask myself why I react negatively to this type of imagery?"</p>

<p>Yes, I do prefer LaGrange to Penprase, without saying that either would be among my favorites. Are they doing the same sort of thing? Well, sort of the same sort of thing. . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>Julie, I am also not moved by the images but by transcending I was simply referring to the effect of body painting and the altered representation of the human body by the superposition of (symbolic, baroque, fantasy?, whatever...) added elements. Not a transcendance that I normally find very convincing, but as Lannie says, I think it is important to determine why one reacts negatively to this imagery, possibly in other ways than simply finding it superficial.</p>

<p>We are often still in sync with what we were viewing before the present one. In my case it was Dirk Braeckman (see Printing and Finishing forum if interested) whose low key images add enigma, mood and questions, whereas that is for me much harder to find in Penprase. </p>

<p>I love Braeckman.</p>

<p>Over-the-top, in-your-face can be done with intelligence -- see Mapplethorpe. But this guy, Penprase, is just dumb. Mapplethorpe hits you with what he hits you with for a reason; he's <em>never</em> dumb.</p>

<p>[i'm not a huge fan of Mapplethorpe, but he's too good not to command respect, IMO.]</p>

<p>Conjures visions of mud wrestling far more than body painting. Ghastly and trite.</p>

<p>Despite all the negativity here (wow) I find on casual glance that Penprase's work shows a lot of imagination and creativity. It does not instantly put me to sleep like the great majority of so called "conceptual photography" that is out there. </p>

<p>Not my cup of tea I'm afraid. Very Gothic, might make good album covers.</p>

<p>Thanks to everyone for their most interesting comments. I started this thread as the consequence of a train of thought leading from the mention of Marc Lagrange and his sad premature death. I have not heard of ML but viewed some of his work. As I said, I would categorise this as high-end erotica - when I view these pictures, I am constantly aware that they are of the photographer's fantasies rather than of the models as people, which reduces their interest for me. At the same time, I am forced to admit that ML works in a tasteful and (by present-day standards) restrained and respectful style, and his models are of course highly attractive and seem to enjoy working with him. One model in particular featured in the video on ML's website tells of her amusement on hearing she would be required to ride an elephant!<br>

This led me to David Penprase, of whom it should be noted that he is apparently a darling of the British Royal Photographic Society and a successful seller of books and prints, while also achieving numerous successes on the international salon circuit. I felt moved to invite PNers to compare and contrast ML and DP, seeing that they are both photographers of art nudes, are both highly-skilled black-and-white printers and also have other minor similarities, such as recourse to body make-up (occasionally in the case of ML, far more with DP). I have to say that, despite these apparent parallels, my personal reactions to these two workers could not be further apart. As a general principle, I try very hard not to be vitriolic about photographers whose work I do not like, but I have to say I find DP's images objectified, dehumanised, I would even say misogynist in the extreme, notwithstanding that they are apparently produced by DP and his wife working as a team, the wife being entrusted with the application of the body paint (!).</p>

<p>The real question is who is entrusted with hosing them down after the shoot is over.</p>

<p>Holden Caulfield?</p>

<p>I'm sorry, David. I can see that I should have taken this thread more seriously. Even John Peri told me once that it might be better if I did not do the kind of work he does. I am clearly not fit for some kinds of artistic pursuits--and I mean that sincerely.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p><em>The real question is who is entrusted with hosing them down after the shoot is over.</em><br>

My grandfather. The money's not much, only $5 an hour, but it's all he can afford to pay. </p>

<p>I wasn't very impressed by most of this stuff, which has a kind of "seen one seen them all" feeling, and as Marc Todd suggests, might make good album covers but not much more. </p>

<p>However, before tossing out the whole lot, one ought to look at some of the less glitzy portrait work, which I think is a good bit better when the contrivance is kept to a minimum. I like some of the pictures of fishermen and their families. </p>