El santo de la morgue....Peter Witkin !

Joel-Peter Witkin nacido el 13 de septiembre de 1939 en Brooklyn, Nueva York
Nacido de padre judío y madre católica, sus padres se divorciaron cuando era joven debido a sus irreconcialiables diferencias religiosas. Trabajó como fotógrafo de guerra e en la Guerra de Vietnam. . Estudió después escultura en la Cooper School Of Fine Arts de Brooklyn donde consiguió un título en artes en 1974. Después de que la Universidad de Columbia le concediera una beca terminó sus estudios en la Universidad de Nuevo México en Albuquerque donde consiguió su Master en Bellas Artes.

THE PHOTOGRAPHER IN THE MUSEUM

It immediately catches the eye, then, that this photographer only hesitatingly inscribes himself in the history of photography. Few are his references to other photographers. On the one hand, he contrast his own 'strange people' with Helmut Newton's 'very interesting photographs of beautiful people'*. On the other hand, he situates himself in the tradition of Diane Arbus* after whose example some of his photographs are conceived - think of "Man with Dog" after Arbus' "Naked Man Being a Woman" (1968)

With all the more emphasis, Joel-Peter Witkin eagerly inscribes himself in the history of painting. To begin with, it is painters from whom Witkin pretends to draw his inspiration: Bosch, Greco, Goya en Blake. I must confess that I do not precisely understand why: apart from superficial similarities in subject matter, the relation with the spirit of these masters is not at all evident. Further, many of Joel-Peter Witkins photos are made after painting of renown old masters like Botticelli, Raphael, Rubens, Velasquez, Goya, Géricault, Odilon Redon and Seurat. And, finally, the majority of his photos are not 'found reality', but rather emphatically staged dramas, just like many traditional paintings. But, otherwise than good painters, who knew to brush away the artificial pose of their models, Witkin rather seems to cherish the often artificial character of a 'tableau vivant': perhaps because such 'staged photography' looks more 'artsy' than true to nature snapshots.

But precisely such flirting with painting betrays the photographer in Witkin. From the very beginning of photography, photographers, in their endeavour to lend their art the status of true art, have drawn their inspiration from painting. From the eighties onwards, such 'pictorialism' takes the form of 'references': think of the photographed staging of classic paintings by figures like Larry Fink. Such' referring' is itself borrowed from the traditional art scene, where 'referring' was endemic in the post-modern era. With the same intention: activities that were - justifiably (see 'Mimesis and Art') - denied the status of art, were eager to adorn their works with the aura of the masters in the muse. Just think of Jan Fabre, who deems it sufficient to refer to Jeroen Bosch's 'Heaven of Delight' to elevate his purely decorative 'Heaven of Delight' to the rank of genuine art works like the Sistine Chapel.

 

ARTIST?

No saint, then, but sadist. No painter, but documentary photographer. A great artist perhaps?

Again, we should no be misled by appearances. To begin with, even Witkin's most fervent aficionados will have to admit that his oeuvre is rather one-sided, if not monomaniacal. Formerly, artists used to be judged from the multifacetedness of their oeuvre, as well from the point of view of subject matter, as from the technical point of view. During the twentieth century, the market has decided otherwise: increasingly, artists become brands, and their works logos: just think of Jan Fabre's beetles or of Luc Tuymans' washed-out palette - and that phenomenon announced itself already with Mondrian, Rothko or the late Bacon. You can recognise them from miles away. Not like you recognise a Shakespeare, a Mozart or a Rubens - as the one single spirit that hovers over countless waters - but like you recognise a brand: by the flag, not by the freight. The artwork as logo. That goes especially for Witkin. There is nearly no development in his oeuvre, not formally, not contentually.

The work of Witkin suffers from more shortcomings. We already discussed the deeper meaning of Witkin's widely praised compositions. Let us now have a look at them from an artistic point of view. As long as Witkin handles only one figure or body part, he occasionally makes stronger photos like 'Story from a book' (1998). But, paradoxically enough, Witkin seems to have more problems when he has to combine more elements. Paradoxically enough: because precisely the staging of photos opens possibilities that are out of reach for the photographer of found reality. Nevertheless, Witkin seldom succeeds in composing an organic whole - or, which comes down to the same: to make the anorganic really anorganic: his compositions always partake of the artificial character of tableau vivants or photo collages. That is not so conspicuous in his still lives. But, in his compositions of human figures, he mostly makes a poor show - especially when, in addition, he paraphrases paintings, like in the bluntly ridiculous 'Gods of Earth and Heaven' (1988) after Botticelli's 'Birth of Venus'. Not to mention 'John Herring posing as Flora' where an aids patient appears on a cloud 'in order to show his elevation above life and existence', without however really coming off the ground. 'Artsy', to be sure. But great art? No!

Whatever merit Witkin's work might have from a formal point of view is spoilt by the content. Everybody is absolutely free in the choice of his subject matter. But the critic is also free in making a judgment. And when I have to choose between sadism sold as compassion, and the crude variant, I choose for the latter: a pure question of truth. In this respect, photos of say a Goran Bertok are far more outstanding than those of Witkin, were it alone for the fact that his images are unadulterated photos, and not documents in the guise of paintings, like those of Witkin.

Leyendo la entrevista que puse arriba comprendí más sus obras...Porque al ver sus fotografías uno piensa que sadomasoquista o que tipo de ideas tan extrañas o grotescas puede retratar, pero en realidad es alguien que con sus fotos quiere cambiar la opinión de todas las persona de lo bello, o de lo atractivo, porque él en sus fotos retrata personas deformes o muertas y te das cuenta que lucen como tiene que lucir en la foto , hermosas, el dice "¿Porqué no amar al no amado,al margiunado, al no vivo ? ".


Se me hizo interesante la propuesta que le hace Witkin a la reportera  "La invito  a beber la pus de los leprosos...que le parecería? yo o haría por quitar ese paradigma tan estúpido" 
EL se me hace asombroso por lo que retrata en sus fotos...la muerte vista por otros ojos , algo sublime e interesante.


Muchos de los fotógrafos le dicen el santo de la morgue pero en realidad el no se considera algo así, en sus fotos retrata pasajes de la biblia y la persona en la que se inspiró fue en el artista Griffin el cual es del siglo XVI el cual retrataba lo sangriento que ocurría en esa era.


Me encanta las obras de este fotógrafo por  lo que representa, la gran dedicación aunque sean fotos armadas, el también maneja un tipo de revelado donde rasga el negativo.




Páginas en las cuales leí


http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel-Peter_Witkin
http://www.cristinaarce.com/biografia_fotografo_witkin_joel.html


http://d-sites.net/english/witkin.htm aqui está la entrevista