Wednesday, 2 September 2009
Well Hung or Not, But Is It ART?
I was given a book a while ago on my birthday by a photographers work whom I was familiar with. To be fair it was the same old same old I had seen before. Naked men frolicking around with the supposed nuances that this man gets involved with his subjects in some way or another. Being that physique photography is nothing new, I wasn't actually moved by the work. But what bothered me more was that the son of a bitch was in most frames, taking out any mystery and erotic measure, well for me anyway. As I looked over this photographers photos, I couldn't help to think, "Excuse me, but there is a geriatric old age pensioner in almost every fucking frame." Talk about buzz kill, not to mention boner dud.
Tom Bianchi's work to me is not very erotic, nor ground breaking. This is my opinion, because this shit looks like it belongs in Palm Springs' Gay Coffee Houses or Bars. What bothers me is that homie trolls bigmuscle.com profiles to find his subjects. Nothing wrong with that, takes the element of fantasy away by his presence. Guy bending over pulling off nellie looking jock strap, and behold grandpa in the background. Guy flexing in mirror with morning glory, there that fucker is being grabby grabberson. Guy stupidly posed over Harley Davidson motorcycle and garb, and oh yes, he's there too. His photo's only turn any voyeur into a peeping tom of the sexual escapades of hyper sexed Dinosaur. Sorry but that's just how I see it.
When I look at these photos I see a facade, and a bubble that is not real, nor making want to pitch a tent in the hopes of getting hurt for a squirt. Simply pretension of a man's life, who claims to be on a "journey". I've got your fucking journey with snacks underneath. Seriously there is some predatory about trolling the internet looking for cock with the pretence to call these pictures art. Nan Goldin he is not. Nor Herb Ritts or even Bruce Webber whom do it better and leave the viewer to enter a fantasy before he ever did. R.C. Horsch took photos of female heroin addicts whom he admitted to have some sort of liaison with. The fact that this type of behaviour was enabled, with even some of the girls dying of over doses was a little to close to the bone for me. But I still did not call this art. Yet Horsch's other works show a very developed eye and mystery that Bianchi's seem to lack. Still I felt there was a parallel that they sought their subjects for the desired result of what THEY wanted.So for that is will not constitute this as art even low brow art. I would like to like Bianchi's work, but to me it's just flat and all to homogenised for the uppity supposed upward mobile gay. Not to mention that it's supposed that a 64 year old man is to have that type of physique ala natural? Nigga pleeze!
As far as photography goes I favor Nan's work to a favourite of mine whom is Joel Peter Witkin. I think Tom Bianchi has a few detractors for actually being in his work. Sure he is a handsome man, and if I were in a grandpa heat, and trolling Leisure (Seizure) World,I might consider as such, but he's not my type nor ever will be. But still I think it boils to being left to the eye of the beholder. But come on dude do you have to be fucking naked to take a man's photo. evidently not. And because Tom doesn't appear to seperate himself from his subjects, puts me off. I would admire the guy if he said out right, I am just a horny lonely old dude, and just can't live with out a cock in my throat. Then I would feel there was a bit of honesty than palming this off as something other than his own vanity. His photos don'y charge me