Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism. Become a Member »

Support Hyperallergic’s independent arts journalism.

The image from the brochure for “David Lachapelle: Early Works” via Michelman Gallery

David Lachapelle has returned to his career. Much like the similarly-named Dave Chapelle, Lachapelle retreated to a farm after his documentary Rize flopped. But evidently nature wasn’t quite thrilling enough for him, and so he’s back in New York, with a retrospective at the Michelman Gallery and a show of new work at Lever House. I attended Lachapelle’s talk on his new exhibition at the Michelman Gallery, a retrospective of early works from the 1980s.

Lachapelle spoke thoughtfully, choosing his words slowly and with great care for how each phrase would be perceived (a good choice, given the reaction to his recent New York Times profile).  He was gracious, soft-spoken and polite. The gallery’s tiny audience hung on to his every word. I did not. I fell asleep.

I fell asleep at an intimate talk given by one of the wealthiest and most famous photographers working today. He laughed, the audience laughed, my friends laughed and I felt like an asshole.

Mr. Lachapelle, if you ever see this, I apologize from the bottom of my heart. The room was warm, I was starting to get the flu, and my senior year of high school I won “Most Likely to Fall Asleep in Class” by forty votes. It was probably inevitable that I commit such a faux-pas at a gallery on the Upper East Side.

Despite my somnolence, Lachapelle was wholly engaging, offering up keen insights into the New York scene in the 1980s, and what it was, and is, like to vacillate between commercial art and high art, shooting for magazines then showing in galleries. Think what you will of his work, his personal life, his slightly-too-obvious plastic surgery: Lachapelle presented himself as a warm and intelligent man with interesting recollections of the art world.

Images from the exhibit via Michelman Gallery

The key moments in Lachapelle’s lecture (or at least the ones I was awake for) involved his observations on New York in the 1980s, and the judgment of art critics, especially in terms of the giant, Tijuana-like border between commercial and fine artists. “This feels like coming home again,” said Lachapelle, his speech punctuated with soft “um’s” and “ya knows.” “After I started working for Interview and doing magazine shoots, I never thought I would show in a gallery again.”

As someone who moved to New York at a time when things are more than a bit sanitized, I was interested in Lachapelle’s stories of the East Village in the 1980s. He namedropped Andy Warhol, Jean-Michel Basquiat and Keith Haring. His comments on the heavy criticism Basquiat and Warhol received towards the end of their careers could be viewed as a parallel for how Lachapelle himself wishes to be viewed.

“When those collaborative paintings between Basquiat and Warhol came out, the critics were just vicious … they said they hated them … yet after they both died people said the work was genius,” he suggested. The photographer also commented on the intense amount of criticism Basquiat received towards the end of his life, implying that it contributed to his early death. “For a sensitive guy like that, to go from being the toast of the art world at age 20 to being told ‘you’re done’ at 25 … that must have hurt so much.”

Lachapelle’s portrait of Andy Warhol via Michelman Gallery

Lachapelle used Haring as an obvious example of the boundaries between commercial and fine art. Haring opened his Pop Shop , where he sold things like t-shirts and buttons with his drawings on them, and was roundly criticized for “selling out.” Lachapelle pointed out how unfair that was, saying, “It’s not like Keith was even making money with this stuff … and he was able to bring art to kids, skater kids, who wouldn’t normally be interested in it or have access to it.”

Lachapelle discussed Basquiat, Warhol and Haring for a great deal of the talk, and if he was teaching an entry-level art history class, that would have been perfect. But the moderator of the lecture kept suggesting that the criticism those artists received could be applied to Lachapelle himself. While he didn’t say he agreed, he didn’t deny it either. Not only is comparing oneself to three of the greatest artists of the 20th century an egotistical move for anyone, but Lachapelle is an entirely different category of profession.

Haring and Warhol bridged gaps between commercial and fine art, taking commercial philosophies to a conceptual place, whereas Lachapelle did advertisements and magazine shoots for millions of dollars. Showing in a gallery may have been something he wanted to do since childhood, but this is the first time in 20 years that he has made any attempt to do so. There’s nothing wrong with being a commercial photographer, but it is wrong to suggest that his ads for Maybach or shots of Lady Gaga might some day be viewed in the same way as Warhol and Basquiat’s collaborative paintings.

David Lachapelle’s “The Light” via Michelman Gallery

The work itself that was shown on the walls of Michelman is from Lachapelle’s first two exhibitions in New York, before he started working at Interview and transitioned into a wholly commercial career (until now). The images reflect his oft-criticized house style: they are loud and garish, with colors bright enough to induce a migraine. Rihanna videos notwithstanding, I haven’t always been a fan of Lachapelle’s work. But I enjoyed these images far more than his digital photography. The colors and themes are similar, but film softens him, taking away the some of the tastelessness that so often permeates Lachapelle’s work. One particularly touching series, entitled Angels, Saints and Martyrs, deals with the AIDS crisis. Lachapelle represents the afterlife through naked bodies surrounded by beautiful light. It’s kind of an obvious tactic, but it remains moving nonetheless. And as an amateur photographer myself, I could appreciate Lachapelle’s use of complex darkroom techniques.

I enjoyed hearing David Lachapelle speak. Hearing about the East Village of the 1980s was great. But it doesn’t matter if he is a commercial or a fine artist, whether he gets paid a million dollars per shoot or works out of a cardboard box, because his work is garish and a great deal of it doesn’t appeal to me. I did enjoy this particular show and hearing about the prolific artists of the eighties from someone who actually knew them was fascinating. But I do wish that his insights had gone deeper than something any undergraduate could have come up with. The questions of the differences between commercial and fine art that he explored were nothing new. I appreciate that he didn’t mock me for sleeping. But in the end, my favorite thing David Lachapelle has ever done will always remain this classy, understated piece of filmmaking:

Now that’s fine art.

David Lachapelle spoke at Michelman Gallery at 23 E 74th St. on June 6. His exhibition David Lachapelle: Early Work, ended on June 15 and is now available to view by appointment. His exhibition of new works is on display at the Lever House at 390 Park Avenue until September 2.

The Latest

Opportunities in December 2021

From commissions to residencies and fellowships for artists, curators, and teachers, a list of opportunities that artists, writers, and art workers can apply for each month.

Jocelyn Silver

Jocelyn Silver is a 2011 Hyperallergic summer intern originally from San Diego, California.

5 replies on “I Fell Asleep in Front of David Lachapelle”

  1. I was at the same talk—guess everyone guffawed at you after the speech was over because I didn’t notice a sleeping soul or a reaction to one from the audience or LaChapelle. It’s rather hurtful, at least to me, to read almost constant deriding for LaChapelle. I understand you may not enjoy his work, but I feel your readers could have learned more by reading a recap of the lecture rather than how much it sucked for you.

    1. I certainly didn’t mean to constantly deride LaChapelle. This article was intended to be a mixed review, one that stated how I was impressed with the show and the way LaChapelle presented himself, but that I didn’t agree with everything he said and that I don’t usually enjoy his work. It was designed to be a critical article, not merely a recap. And I don’t think phrases like “LaChapelle presented himself as a warm and intelligent man with interesting recollections of the art world” really imply that the lecture sucked for me.

  2. Why on earth did you say RIZE was a flop? It was critically acclaimed and I thought one of the best hip hop docs ever made. You do trash him and your scribbles will be long forgotten while his work -books videos and exhibitions will be giving inspiration to people like myself for years to  come i wasn’t at the lecture you were at but have heard him talk and was very moved why do you bother to get out of bed you obviously are tired and should rest till your jealousy and bitterness dissipate into the void from which you came

  3. David LaChapelle never left his career, so from the first sentence of the putrid smut you call an article you paint a false egocentric misrepresentation that couldn’t be more flawed. When David communicated the simultaneous existence of his career to several other respected, extremely talented artists he was not egocentric – you writing an article about yourself, however, is painfully egocentric – Jocelyn, the intern, get a grip. Even the first word of the title reveals your beguiling intentions – you are only thinking about yourself, as most “ironic” people in Williamsburg. Its not about you Jocelyn – why would you even begin to premise your article about YOU falling asleep?  Your asinine attempt at trying to convince us that your subjective truth is objective truth failed miserably and you obviously have done no fact-checking whatsoever. Amongst other logical atrocities, RIZE was far from flopping and was released in 17 different countries. David’s art has already gone down in history, so in that mode of reality he is already able to be compared to Warhol and Basquiat, currently, as we breath and you bask in an embittered sense of immature false-accomplishment in your own paltry insipid observations. 

Comments are closed.