Helmut Newton :: Sex & Landscapes

Hypo-Kunsthalle has the Helmut Newton exhibition "Sex & Landscapes" on right now.
This is the complete "Sex & Landscapes" theme, not just the partial show to be seen at the Helmut Newton Stiftung, Berlin.
Please Note: this exhibition contains a significant number of nudes, many of which are sexual in nature (I'm writing very primly aren't I?).
One example, published by the Süddeutsche (warning: contains nudity)
Location: Theatinerstraße 8, Perusahof/Fünf Höfe
U4/U5: Odeonsplatz
U3/U6: Marienplatz und Odeonsplatz
S1 - S8: Marienplatz
Tram 19: Theatinerstraße
Bus 100: Odeonsplatz
Opening times: 10am - 8pm
Entry:
Regular: € 8,–
Groups (10 People+) and Pensioners: € 7,–
Schoolkids/Students/Jobless (with ID): € 4,–
Half price entry on Mondays (if not a bank holiday)
Katrina
PS there are also some previously unpublished photographs in this month's Playboy (German edition)

I love the quote from Newton as a header to the Hypo article:

"The camera never lies; mine always does"

Aah: Mr Newton - the man who turned pornographic pictures of thin women into "art" through the snazzy use of lighting and leather.

I'm surprised kiddies are allowed.

Where's me Razzle?

oooh, can't wait to go see this!

Here's looking at ya MTV

MTV, Newton's work is about power not about porn.
Does they offer season tickets?

He's right about the thin women though.

That may well be the case, K. However, not all Newton punters are as ecclectically-minded as your esteemed self.

But I agree with you that the man is a genius, whether its thin birds with little on, or the schittstelle between power and sex/gender that floats one's boat.

Maybe I'm just way too shallow.

Burp.

You're right though - if people who are actually interested in Art instead of just Akt want to see this, please go outside of the Wies'n time.
Because you can just imagine the hoardes of tourists having a good old perve/outrage at this.
Guess it fits though because a biserl' Leder braucht mal jeder...

I dont know what you like, but I personally would not prefer to see over cellulited-dimpled fat women in his photos, especially in patent leather. Lighting is important but it doesnt perform miracles.

(btw. I know that comment is going to score me a shit load of neg. karma...sorry, but its honesty)

I will be going to this exhibit for sure. Helmut Newton was and is my favorite fashion photographer. Thanks Katrina for posting this.

No, that's where Photoshop comes in.

Toronto

2 qu.s:

1. Why should your honest opinion score you -ve Karma?

2. Why do you care?

I know you are in the fashion bizz, and I am interested to learn from qualified people (ie. you) the true artistic merit in his photos.

@mtv. the karma thing was my way of apologizing to the people dealing with their 'extras', since Im not prejudice against...fat. Well I am, but only on myself.

Helmet Newton was one of the first photographers to show sexuality with fashion. Fashion as the art form (not the pratically side of it) is about fantasy. what you see in magazines and runway shows is like what you see as a concept car at the autoshows. Its an idea and inspiration.

Newton's photos exposed the world to images female enpowerment and female sexuality. Before this, we had happy fashion models that smiled all the time, that looked like they were perfect housewives. He is one of mine and the industry's biggest influences in design and life...gives us a fantasy to start inspiring from.

How does being in the fashion industry make one a good judge of artistic merit? I'd wager that it detracts rather than adds.

That's a good question. Toronto?

Not playing Devil's Advocate at all. Just interesting in getting the inside track on something I don't know a thing about. Despite how I may come across, I really don't want to be a boar.

(I can swap you running tips)

I have to argue on this. Art is about aesthetic. Designs is about aesthetic and function. Photography is art. Fashion is Design. And when i talk about fashion Im talking about Haute Couture, not the Gap.

Art and Design both follow the same set of elements and principal of designs when it is refering back to just the aesthetics...and both rely on creativity and thought.

THat question really pissed me off... it underestimates everything i do and believe in for a living. please,if you are not open minded enough to understand this, then you are not worth me wasting a breathe on.

Therein lies the problem. Art is not merely esthetic. What you see as art is. There is a whole realm of beauty that the fashion industry ignores. My argument has nothing to do with size.

My attack was not on you, nor the fashion industry. The fashion industry serves a purpose, embraces one aspect of what art is. Perhaps you should be the one to open your mind.

That I can dig. Don't get pissed off Toronto. You are the only fashion guru on this site I think, and those of us who still think whalebone is cool need you.

My little bro' was at the RCA. I called him a "F-Artist" for years until I went to his graduation exhibition which was quite a revelation. The brilliant ideas were the height of functionality, as well as being aesthetically pleasing.

As for aesthetic, one of my best mates is in art-dealing and Gallery management. I called him a F-Artist too until he retorted snappily, "for god's sake, without art you wouldn't have this frigging coffee table." The message stuck.

(BTW he got a First Class Degree in Business Management.)

For me the most interesting part of Newton's work is that so many of his photographs have captured the dynamics of a situation. They aren't action shots but you feel that something is on the cusp of happening.

Many of his nudes, imho, are as tense as a strung crossbow. The nudity is present but it's balanced or even overshadowed by the tension or the energy.

I might of course be talking utter bollocks there but I still think he's a great photographer.

Bugger. I'm gonna have to go now as well!

Katrina??!!

@eurydice- so what you are commenting on is the meaning to art? is that the concept that you are suggestion the fashion industry ignores?

Yes, art is about meaning, evoking feelings and emotions , and even provoking at times. But this is a recent development. Art started in 20,000 B.C is altamira Spain, and Louscau, France, as a way to remember how to kill buffalo marking their territory. And in the end some of the world's greatest masterpieces were commissioned to decorate the walls with family potraits or documentated the wars and religious stories. It was about vanity, and practicality. What about the kouros sculptures in Greece? Nude young males.

So, really the aesthetic portion of the art, is what makes it art. Their are exceptions especially in the last 50 years where art is not about aesthetic but expression, for example Dan Flavin's light scultures (which is just a bunch of strategically placed floresent lights)

In the end, fashion, art, dance, theatre,... photography, we rely on one another to survive and give new inspiration for new ideas and creativity.

To suggest that the fashion industry is not art is ludicrious. You have to understand we go to GREAT lengths to start with themes, inspirations and deeper messages. THe clothing is later translated from the original msg. The end consumer, never really get it...but to us, it is art, and design (because function is very important) And art is fashion. Art has trends too, to suggest it does not, is wrong. Movements like impressionist and popart are all trends in their own right.
Helmut Newton is an example of art collaboration with fashion.

Theatre, painting, industrial design, sculpture, fashion, new media, film and photography, all all forms art and design that rely one another for inspiration and to continue creativity and pushing ideas to new realms.

Okay Im starting to repeat myself. Ill shut up now.

I'm a huge Helmut fan, going to his Stiftung in Berlin (and the bar that carries his name) was a must for me and I try to catch every exhibition of his that I can.
I have a poster in my hall at home from the "Sex & Landscapes" exhibition in Berlin, the photocraph at the top of this thread in fact.
So if you're really scared MTV, I'll take you (because I'll go more than once).
Hey Toronto, patent leather can work well over cellulite, if it covers enough, because it is the love handles dangling over which aren't so tasty. But head to toe patent leather would be a bit sweaty, especially in this weather I guess...
*winks*
And MTV, whalebone is timeless.
Exhibit A for the defence:

Case rests.

Helmut can do corsets as well:

Toronto, it is not my intention to offend nor demean the artistic value your industry does give to society. In fact, I agree with many of your assertions and am myself a fan of Helmut Newton. What I imply is merely that exposure solely to that which you describe as art hinders your ability to see beyond the realm of (as you have ascertained) esthetics. Can you see the beauty in imperfection as well as perfection?

This sort of bias is present in many areas and certainly not limited to the fashion industry which is why my question was how merely being a part of an industry can makes one a judge of artistic value. I repeat, the attack was not on you or your work.

Toronto, one question.

If the end consumer never really gets it (which I doubt) doesn't that make the whole exercise a failure ? Other than the selling of the garments.

a classic example of art, which is not exactly aesthetic yet is regarded as one of the most intriguing portraits of all time: the Mona Lisa. If you were to classify art by aesthetic only, this striking portrait could not be classed as such. It is not her beauty and aesthetics which have made the Mona Lisa a classic.

if you're buying haute couture, you might get it, or pretend to. but i'm guessing the majority of the public buy at the gap (or a version thereof) and is interested in practicality not what message the designer was trying to suggest.

fashion is an artistic expression of design. but can you wear it?

You can wear it, it just might not be a very good idea.

So if I find any of the above sexy, what does that mean?

Is that still allowed?

Except for the Grace Jones pic MTV ! That's the control question in this experiment.

seems to me eurydice is not saying what Toronto does is not an art form, just that it is an art form that relies more heavily (too heavily? don't know) on aesthetics than other forms. peace, people, peace.

anyone that's seen a runway show, either live or on tv, can see that it is art. as Toronto pointed out, those are concepts that John Q Public is not expected to wear, but to see as art and as an inspiration or influence on what we might ultimately consider wearing (at least I think that's sort of what she meant). Haute couture and Gap have two entirely different objectives and shouldn't be compared.

@eurydice- I agreed Mona Lisa herself is not aesthetically appealling to me. But it is not her as a woman that is beautiful...it is Leonardo's painting and skill that is fantastic. In fact, if you take away all the Dan Brown appeal to this painting, it is still one of Leonardo's best works of art. Sfumato is fantastically used, and the composition itself is based on a pyramid shape that leds the eye to all corners of the paint...sort of a visual manipulation. It is also one of the first uses of imaginary landscape in a potrait. I can go on and on about it (i was a former art history fanatic). But this is not the point.

Art is very much like fashion...In the end it was there to decorate walls and floors of the rich. Fashion (Haute Couture) decorates the bodies of the rich. If there is a message or not, the purpose is the same. SO can someone in fashion judge what is art...yes. can someone in art judge what is fashion...yes. can someone in other fields judge either fashion and art. Of course...all is left to intrepretation. And as for aesthetics, what is tasteful and what is tacky (ie. the Grace Jones photo, is she wearing sport socks?)...well...its up to the end consumer.

@yeti- we do about 350-400 pieces per collection, each is connected to a theme and story, when our buyers buy the collection, they buy a quarter of the collection...so the end consumer doesnt get to see the whole story unless they come to the runway shows, but each piece carries part of the story in a pocket detail or the style, etc.. So hopefully, they appreciate that their garment was part of a bigger idea and message...because it was.

Anyhow, Helmut Newton is fantastic, and although i have seen most of his photographs, Im curious to see how they decided to curate this exhibition.

Defining design as art...

Here's my stab: separate the creative act from the object created. When the designer is creating the collection, this is art. When the photographer conceives a shoot, this is art.
Is the fashion art? - only if it sucessfully expresses the designer's concept. Is the fashion photo art? - same. The act of photographing fashion is the creation of art and the application of aethetics. but what may end up in a magazine due to market pressures does not immediately deserve to be defined as art. And what the fashion designer creates for the runway collection is a art and performance, but what ends up in the stores is the by-product.

Went to the exhibition last night and enjoyed it. Each piece is blown-up to huge size (though some are obviously grainy). There were many pieces I had never seen before and that in itself made the entry fee worthwhile.

Two things that made the show enjoyable to me were:

1. The obvious fun that the people who hung the show had. The theme Sex and Landscapes stems from the intermingling of the nudes with still-life/architectural/landscape pieces. It was interesting to step back to the middle of the galleries and take in the placements and the contrasts. Best example in my opinion were two pieces next to each other. One was probably the most graphic sexually, with a woman completely spreadeagle in a seedy hotel room. To it's left was a shot of a gun store. Step back, and all of the automatics are pointing at the woman. Not sure what it said, but someone was trying to say something.

2. Secondly I always enjoy watching people in a gallery. I have had a number of exhibitions of my paintings, and it is fun to be a fly on the wall and listen to the comments. In this case I got a kick out of watching the serious art crowd wandering around and "Studying" the nudes, trying to look non-chalant. It is what it is.

Leaving the thread debating art and fashion, this show is not for everybody, but if you enjoy excellent photography of beautiful nudes, don't miss it.

Went to the exhibition last night, excellent. Great to see his photographs in suitable format. Have you ever had the experience after a visit to a museum of being totally knackered ? Not after this one. Didn't get to see all the documentary shot by his wife so I'll be going back.

Best photograph: Charlotte Rampling in a fur coat or an arial shot flying into Madrid.

Worst: That Naomi Campbell woman looking, as usual, like she was surpressing grainy wind.

Excellent collection, marvellous quotes (including stating that HN photographs were not fashion as fashion is moving and temporary but his work is timeless), perfect curation - yes I'll be going back.
For me, my favourites were the 2002 Munich hotel and Charlotte in Fur.
At 29,99€ the catalogue is a bargain.

And if you are ever looking for an definition of decadence:

It's not in the exhibition but one from the same shoot is.

i went to see this exhibit yesterday, and as expected, I loved it. What i enjoyed the most was the curation of the photographs. It was all set up so that the lines and details from one photo paralleled the next and the next. It was beautiful.

As well, what I always like about Helmut Newtons work is that his nudes are always in stillettos and no matter how the nudes are posed, its always elegant and non-vulgar.

Definitely worth seeing if you are a fan of his work.

i guess i was the only one who wasn't impressed. they photos might not have been so obtrusive or sometimes offensive had they been normal size. sorry toronto, but i felt there were very few elegant photos of nudes.

i laughed at his love of blow-up sex dolls and his comments he wanted to make them look as woman-like as possible, even putting them in stills with "real" models. what a real weirdo.

i especially disliked his portraits of "Eve" or whoever, the rail thin blond in the hotel room, stretched in all strange positions, pressing her pelvis against the mirror, etc. i modestly admired the one of her pushing herself up away from the black car, her body forming a neat line, so if he had removed the hotel room setting, i might have seen these a bit more favorably.

there was one photo which i had actually to look at several times to understand it. my first impression was that she was supposed to represent a corpse (well he was into the blow-up doll thing) because she had such thick mascara making her eyes look huge and her eyes were literally bulging out of her head, but he had taken the photo from her crotch upwards. neat technique.

give me annie liebowitz or ansel adams anyday, but i suppose that is a different kind of "art".