I saw the infamous show in 88...did he ever manage to get that whip out of his ass or was he buried with it still there?
"the demonization of the gay man"

Well, this photo certainly helped. Maybe the Log Cabins are onto something.
The Christie's link is broken for me
This is why copyright law needs to be updated: it's absurd that "estates" and "foundations" control art they did not create (cf. the absurdity of dealing with James Joyce's heirs).
Link doesn't work.
Yeah, the Christie's link is broken. Symbolism?
Ooooh, try removing the
from the end of the URL. It should show just fine.
Yes Simac, you should be able to get other people's stuff for free, even if they didn't will it to you. Can I have your address and make myself at home to some of your belongings when you die? Not the whip, that you can keep.
That is what you get for giving veto power to a source. Why don't you just steal the image off the net like everything else you use?
Ha. That didn't work...the comment box read that as HTML.

What I meant to say was, delete the break from the end of the URL. The characters look like "< br / >".

Or better yet, just go here:…
Dan looks sort of like Mapplethorpe. Why doesn't he recreate the bullwhip picture for slog?
The Mapplethorpe Foundation's belief is that the artist wasn't trying to make a statement about the demonization of gay men or any overt political, social or artistic comment on the status of the gay male in our heteronormitive culture; Mapplethorpe was just really, really horny that day and the whip felt damn good up in there, especially when he wriggled it around.
Apparently Simac has the same view of copyrights that Erica has of wine.

So where do you hang a photo like this? The foyer to greet guests or is this something you save for the master bedroom?
Because surely you, more so than the Mapplethorpe Foundation, know his intent...
Yeah, feed the trolls, Jen. Good one.
12 Really makes a fellow appreciate being hetero.
"more so than the Mapplethorpe Foundation, know his intent"

Well, 1). he willed his work to the Foundation, so his intent was that they decide 2). Mapplethorpe never gave his work away for free to anyone who asked while living. 3). Maybe he could only pay people to hang this stuff?
Copyright should expire at death, dammit.

The foundation never did fuck all for Mapplethorpe when he was alive except get him a tax deduction.

As for "taking his stuff", the prints belong to whomever owns them or was willed them. What sucks ass is copyright.
"The foundation never did fuck all for Mapplethorpe when he was alive except get him a tax deduction."

Didn't they help pull the whip out?

"the prints belong to whomever owns them or was willed them"

So just steal them Fnarf. Afterall, private property is obviously only something you and your spawn should enjoy.
I'm sorry, Stupid, but you appear to be stupid. I don't want to steal them, and I believe in private property. The prints belong to whomever paid for them. It's the COPYRIGHT that's a joke. But you're stupid, so I guess you'll never get the distinction between the two.
"The prints belong to whomever paid for them. It's the COPYRIGHT that's a joke"

Copyright is a joke? As someone who produces copyrighted work, I can tell you it isn't a joke. I hold onto mine aggressively and will pass the ownership onto my kids. You try and take it from them for free, they'll sue your dumb ass.
So now that Cobain is dead, can I take some of his music and sell used cars on TV with it?
If you're like most Archie Bunkers (and I'm not detecting anything original here) your kids will work hard to be nothing like you, if for no other reason than spite for having to listen to you bellow their whole childhood.
And if you're lucky Elenchos, when you get old, maybe your kids will appoint you a 'public intellectual' instead of embarrassingly having to appoint yourself.

This is all going on the assumption that you will ever in your life time produce anything that anyone would remotely want to use after your death, right?
I won't need to die, it happens now with my work, so I'm not too enthused by a bunch of baristas, kinkos employees and other dead enders complaining about how evil copyrights are.
I filter all art through beauty/sexual attraction, so -- that is one unappealing ass, bullwhip or no bullwhip.
Just to throw this out there - it is my understanding of "Fair Use" concerning copyright material, that a newspaper or journal (such as The Stranger) can publish images if it is within a critical context. So, under "Fair Use" the Stranger does not need the permission of the copyright holder to reproduce the image.
Didn't mean to get you so angry, Mr. White Man. Sorry.

And I think all us can agree that Public Intellectual is to weighty a title to possibly be given by oneself alone, so I leave it as an exercise for the curious to discover how I obtained it. If it bothers you, regardless of who you think bestowed the honor, then don't feel obligated to use it; I have never complained about whether or not I was addressed by title or rank. No matter who it was addressing me. My calling requires me to be open to everyone, all walks and all creeds and all persuasions, even those who don't -- won't ever -- recognize my status.
Cobain's work, such as it is, would better serve humanity selling used cars than enriching Courtney Frigging Love.
Fnarf endorses theft. Pictures at 11 of him wine tasting with Erica B.
Someone endorses stealing, you're right Elenchos, I get angry.

"I leave it as an exercise for the curious to discover how I obtained it"

Oh goody, then I'll stop reading my BHK and ponder the wisdom of Ballard's only intellectual.
Sorry, "BHL"...typo.

But you're an intellectual Elenchos, so I'm sure you know which of your contemporaries I'm talking about.
did the Foundation give any clue as to what they thought his intent was? I always thought he shoved the whip up his ass because he had a thing for sadomasochistic sex. Or is that too obvious?
"the whip up his ass because he had a thing for sadomasochistic sex"

Maybe he lost his car keys and was trying to get them back?
@32, 33

You're sputtering incoherently, my friend. Take a little break.
Next time you need a large scan of a Mapplethorpe photograph, just ask one of us art fags who actually owns the book. Ahem.
A gift from your boy scout leader Whippet?
The 1978 photograph was the ideal image to illustrate my article: D' Iffi Cult butt full of meaning.
Hey Jen I suggest you go to Guidestar & look at the Mapplethorpe Foundation financial records -- director Michael Stout & the art dealers keep 90 percent of the money for themselves, giving only 10 percent to the artists and the museums that the foundation was set up to help. Now there's a story.

PS -- you can use the photo with or without their permission -- it's called "Fair Use" -- and you'd have little fear that the foundation would sue. You dummies.
@40 et al: We did consult our lawyer about fair use (duh), and she told us it was a weak fair use case because the story was only tangentially about this single image. She advised us against using it. I've heard from other journalists that we still could have gone with it, but I'm not an attorney and I don't make the calls around here.
If the foundation disagrees with Jen's interpretation of the art, does anyone provide an alternative version? Did Mapplethorpe say it was about the demonization of the gay man? What does the foundation say?

Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.

Add a comment

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.