I like that analogy.
Perhaps, perhaps not. From the rest of his work his language seems to aim for that feeling. On his controversial photograph I get something completely different. It's still in his language but just barely. Then again, it has to be so. He must be very careful because he is treading water at the child pornography line. It's only for that reason that he's getting serious attention (or so I think). The other images in his portfolio don't announce anything grand or life-changing.
I'm forced to release a prodigious "meh" at him, and here's why.
Photographers are not artists. The things they capture are only amazing to the sight deficient.
All of his photographs desperately try to choke the last bits of air from a small movement that has always been in it's death throes.
Finally as to his being creepy, I must disagree. He's an economist. Past any "artistic" motivation, he's receiving more attention now for approaching that line than ever before.(as far as I'm aware, and I've seen a Borris Vallejo collection).
In short, that feeling you're getting is what he's driving for. Just offensive enough to evoke some sort of reaction, not offensive enough for punishment. It's only when we start feeling ways about things, that things get screwy.
All universal moral principles are idle fancies.
-Marquis De Sade |
|
