A "new" discovery

[jimgalli]

Another book to look for! And it's EXPENSIVE!

What I see from my perspective is exactly what people in Rural Arkansas would expect to see. You walk into Disfarmer's studio, there's a piece of canvas hanging from the ceiling, and he says "stand over there". He rolls his ancient studio camera where it needs to be and makes a picture of you for a fee. Just as simple and straight forward as mid plain's farmers would expect and never question. Photos of my family from the same era are much more refined because they lived in Southern California.

I would DEARLY love to see his equipment. He obviously had a lens of superior quality. I can't help but wonder what it was. Looks like Cooke Aviar perhaps. Or maybe a Heliar.

I think the attraction that drives the value is obvious. We've lost our virginity. We'll never be "that America" again, and in his pictures it just shouts.

 

[Troy]

I agree with Mr. Galli, we will never be THAT America again. Disfarmer's pictures are little time capsules. They leech more meaning as time goes by.

 

[JBrunner]

Jim speaks eloquently, and has thumbed the convolutions of my brain.

 

[JBrunner]

I like this one, it speaks if friendship and innocence lost long ago to innuendo and stupidity.

http://www.disfarmer.com/gallery/detail.asp?g=&p=1093&page=10

 

[CBG]

I stumbled across a book of Disfarmer's work a couple of years ago after reading a brief mention of the discovery of his work quite some time previous. The book is wonderful. It's like a time machine back to an agrarian society and a lost America. I suspect Disfarmer had no idea portraits might be seen as "Art", but from my vantage point, they qualify. One critic came up with one description of an artist - someone who creates a world for you. Disfarmer fits.

For folks who might want to see why very plain portraiture can remain interesting, check out August Sander, who made a very extended portrait of the various trades and people of Germany... Google image
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=August+sander&gbv=2
yields many of Sander's best known.

Another photographic project following a subject through many permutions: The Bechers:
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&svnum=10&hl=en&q=Bernd+Becher

Karl Blossfeldt too:
http://images.google.com/images?gbv=2&svnum=10&hl=en&q=Karl+Blossfeldt+&btnG=Search+Images

Best,

C

 

[Richard Boutwell]

Disfarmer is soooo two years ago. Here is a NY Times article about it. There were two or three New York galleries showing the work concurrently, and there were also a couple of books on him around the same time. I also remember reading in B&W or Photograph about Mattis sending a team of people to Arkansas to get vintage prints.

I am conflicted about the new interest in the work. On one hand the photographs are incredibly beautiful and display in museums is not entirely inappropriate, but on the other, they are pieces of people's personal histories. I feel the pictures belong in old family albums, and not on some New York collector's wall (or flat file). The way the pictures were treaded as nothing more than a "commodity in the name of great art" by a small group of dealers is almost disgusting.

But, how different, really, is Disfarmer from Southworth's and Hawes's collectability and their recent show at the Eastman House and ICP? Like I said, I am conflicted.

 

[JBrunner]

Disfarmer is soooo two years ago. Here is a NY Times article about it. There were two or three New York galleries showing the work concurrently, and there were also a couple of books on him around the same time. I also remember reading in B&W or Photograph about Mattis sending a team of people to Arkansas to get vintage prints.

I am conflicted about the new interest in the work. On one hand the photographs are incredibly beautiful and display in museums is not entirely inappropriate, but on the other, they are pieces of people's personal histories. I feel the pictures belong in old family albums, and not on some New York collector's wall (or flat file). The way the pictures were treaded as nothing more than a "commodity in the name of great art" by a small group of dealers is almost disgusting.

But, how different, really, is Disfarmer from Southworth's and Hawes's collectability and their recent show at the Eastman House and ICP? Like I said, I am conflicted.

Interesting. One wonders what Disfarmer would have thought.

 

[40oz]

IMHO, the trade in old family portraits is humorous, not scandalous. Disfarmer's story is not significantly diferent than anyone else's. He supposedly hated small town farm life, yet never left and even spent his life shooting portraits of his neighbors. And as much as he might have felt himself artistically gifted in ways the rubes surrounding him could never grasp, he supported himself by giving them the best he could.

I like his portraits, but honestly find it less than remarkable except for historical value. Yes, they are nicely lit and pleasant to peruse, but then, that was his job. They are supposed to be nice pictures to look at, and he did his job well. I guess if someone doing their job well is now a rare commodity in the art photography world, he's a goldmine

 

[Alden]

He called himself Disfarmer to distance himself from his parents. He did not want to be a dirt farmer, but as a photographer he was so shy that he took his pictures from behind a wall with a hole cut out, which might account for the disconnect of the expressions. Deadpan art portraits have been art world art fodder for more than 20 years now, so dis guy would've been a Soho celeb, if he could've made it to town.

 

[cahayapemburu]

I find Disfarmer's portraits poignant and sincere, and despite all the talk about disconnected and deadpan expressions, I see a lot of smiles, and vibrancy in the expressions and body language of his subjects. Whether it's "Art" or not, I can't say, but I never tire of looking at these portraits, and to those who say this kind of work is common, or "too easy", I say "show me". A simple approach executed masterfully can often appear "easy", and I can't count how many times I've heard photographers and laypersons alike claim "anyone could do that" in galleries around the world, when presented with some of the greatest photographic works in history. If some of you wonder whether portraiture is art, that's another discussion, but portraits have been collected as art for as long as ther have been portraits, and in my personal opinion, Disfarmers are as good as any, and better than most.

 

[Uhner]

I wonder when Disfarmer was ”first” discovered, or how many times his work has been forgotten? There is a short article describing him and his work, written by Julia Scully, together with five pages containing eleven Disfarmer photographs in the fifth issue of the Swedish photo magazine Foto from 1977.

I really like his work; it even interested me when I was a kid.