FWIW, I thought the article was worth reading.
In particular, the criticism of the current day curatorial choices.
It is, after all, primarily a review of a current show, not primarily a review of Arbus' work in the context of its own time.
IMHO that includes how a show is staged. If the show is not faithful to the artist, it deserves a smack. But if it's not faithful to today's precious oh-so-important pretenses, it simply doesn't matter.
For those that haven't read the article, it includes such non-pretentious observations as:
The result feels like a real-life doomscroll, where untitled photos of unnamed people with disabilities captured with deer-in-the-headlights expressions on their faces appear right next to handsome, well-composed actors and writers such as Jayne Mansfield, Mae West, Norman Mailer, and Germaine Greer. Absent are wall labels with useful information about these pictures: who many of these subjects were, how she met them, and what they thought of her photographs of them."
So that, basically.Bloggers gonna blog.
I find this a distasteful comment, really, since it projects your ideas of the feelings underlying a dramatic decision onto people who are no longer in a position to comment it. It's a charged subject to begin with, of course. What's more, your view, if people would make the unfortunate decision to act upon it, would result effectively in erasure of people from history. Maybe it's best to keep some things to yourself.If somebody kills themself they meant for everything they ever did to be erased.
"Despite their volume and scope, reflecting several periods of the artist’s development, the prints are displayed in no particular order, neither chronological nor thematic. Visitors wander through a dimly lit maze of randomly hung photographs, carelessly bundling together distinctly different subject matter — a mélange of Upper Manhattan bourgeois couples, carnival workers, nudist hippies, and “woman impersonators” — with zero context apart from a terse timeline of the artist’s life on a wall outside the exhibition.
The result feels like a real-life doomscroll, where untitled photos of unnamed people with disabilities captured with deer-in-the-headlights expressions on their faces appear right next to handsome, well-composed actors and writers such as Jayne Mansfield, Mae West, Norman Mailer, and Germaine Greer. Absent are wall labels with useful information about these pictures: who many of these subjects were, how she met them, and what they thought of her photographs of them."
The era of Diane Arbus’s cold, classist gaze is dead. It belongs to an America that no longer exists and to an artistic school of thought that has run its course.
Absent are wall labels with useful information about these pictures: who many of these subjects were, how she met them, and what they thought of her photographs of them.
You people sure are angry about this.
The stupidity of this is dumbfounding. Written by somebody who has absolutely no photographic culture whatsoever, and very little knowledge and comprehension of who Diane Arbus was, what she did and why she did it. That's just unforgivable laziness. If this incompetent amateur had bothered to open books about Arbus such as Documents or Revelations, he would have found a lot of the info he felt he was missing.
But wait, there's stupider:
What the hell does this mean? We should dismiss all artists from the past who looked at the world differently than we do know? F*cking Après moi le déluge indeed! "Hey, all you pre-15th-century painters, the era of looking at the world without perspective is dead. Sorry, you belong to an artistic school of thought that has run its course."
I can't wait for the artistic school of My Generation Invented Everything to run its course!
Oh, and someone, please tell me which "artistic school of thought" Diane Arbus belonged to? Cold-classicist-gazeism? If so, missed the day when it was seen in art history class.
Now this one is rich. I can play that game too: "Absent from the Mona Lisa are labels with usefult information about this painting: who da Vinci's subject was, how he met her, and what joke he cracked to make her smile like that."
This type of amateurism in criticism is the reason I stopped reading many arts blog, including Hyperallergic. Thankfully there are some intellingent and insightful critics out there.
If somebody kills themself they meant for everything they ever did to be erased. It's a mental illness or defect that would lead somebody to do such a thing. I know nothing about Dianne Arbus' pictures, and don't want to. Why would I want to peer through a window into things that a diseased mind found interesting?
It's typical "cancel culture" nonsense. This is just another one of a million bloggers trying hard to sell their product. It shouldn't be taken as some kind of "legitimate review'.The stupidity of this is dumbfounding. Written by somebody who has absolutely no photographic culture whatsoever, and very little knowledge and comprehension of who Diane Arbus was, what she did and why she did it. That's just unforgivable laziness. If this incompetent amateur had bothered to open books about Arbus such as Documents or Revelations, he would have found a lot of the info he felt he was missing.
But wait, there's stupider:
What the hell does this mean? We should dismiss all artists from the past who looked at the world differently than we do know?
Hyperallergic shouldn't be taken seriously, IMO. That "review" is amateur drivel.This type of amateurism in criticism is the reason I stopped reading many arts blog, including Hyperallergic. Thankfully there are some intellingent and insightful critics out there.
It's typical "cancel culture" nonsense. This is just another one of a million bloggers trying hard to sell their product. It shouldn't be taken as some kind of "legitimate review'.
Hyperallergic shouldn't be taken seriously, IMO. That "review" is amateur drivel.
If somebody kills themself they meant for everything they ever did to be erased. It's a mental illness or defect that would lead somebody to do such a thing. I know nothing about Dianne Arbus' pictures, and don't want to. Why would I want to peer through a window into things that a diseased mind found interesting?
Your comment is colder than any photo Arbus ever took. The world is full of artists that you have no access to with that kind of guiding principle.If somebody kills themself they meant for everything they ever did to be erased. It's a mental illness or defect that would lead somebody to do such a thing. I know nothing about Dianne Arbus' pictures, and don't want to. Why would I want to peer through a window into things that a diseased mind found interesting?
Selkirk’s prints were initially featured in Arbus’s 1972 retrospective at MoMA, which received scathing reviews from certain critics, who claimed that Arbus’s work was voyeuristic, grotesque, and exploitative.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?