Actually, the book was poorly received when it came out.
Seems that even his daugther called it the work of a male chauvinist pig.
I agree. In today's standard Winogrand would have been canceled as a misogynist especially his book "Women are beautiful"
Being an artist–or calling oneself one–has nothing to do with sales. As a matter of fact, most photographers that are considered artists don't sell as much or make as much money as commercial photographers.Calling themselves artists is a way of raising the price for their photos.It;s a rather modern thing to do. Einstein called himself a physicist, not a scientific genius. Benny Goodman was a clarinetist and a band leader, not an artist. The word artist has been thrown around to raise the price of photos, oils, and song albums. A photographer calling themself an artist when they've never sold a single photo is rather presumptuous, don't you think? Shouldn't we let others decide their artistic talents?
You probably would have liked to meet Oscar Peterson as well, and to have made the same request .....
Hmmm - I wonder if the two Canadians knew each other?
EDIT: apparently they met briefly, but also had some other indirect connections: https://www.tvo.org/transcript/496408
Actually, the book was poorly received when it came out.
Seems that even his daugther called it the work of a male chauvinist pig.
His family was bitter with him because his biggest priority was to photograph.
Not his best work but i don't see the point against him. He was fascinated by women, Arbus was fascinated by freaks. He just photographed what atrracted him
Many in this thread have a problem with judging older work using today's standards and finding it lacking for whatever reason. The Arbus review that started this thread is a good example. But what about the opposite? Can anyone think of an example of judging old work with today's standards and finding it improved, and if so do you have a problem with that as well?
This worries me because it means I have a possibly unhealthy fascination of dilapidation and tree stumps ...
Of course. Like with the praise to Robert Mapplethorpe for reasons other than photographic
I don't find it a problem you have to show me your photos
His family was bitter with him because his biggest priority was to photograph.
Not his best work but i don't see the point against him. He was fascinated by women, Arbus was fascinated by freaks. He just photographed what atrracted him
As with almost all artists for hundreds of years painting for the church, the ruling class and wealthy merchants.his intent to produce propaganda/agenda, not just art.
For those that want to read the referenced article: https://hyperallergic.com/1022003/massive-diane-arbus-park-avenue-armory-exhibition-does-so-little/
So, that response tells me that we shouldn’t take you seriously. That’s fine with me.
When they state what seems like a pretty baseless opinion as fact, I do, yes.
They're still my friends, believe it or not.
And quite a few of my friends are artists and call themselves artists. They make very little money, and they are quite simple and modest people, believe it or not.
As with almost all artists for hundreds of years painting for the church, the ruling class and wealthy merchants.
I like to think of my own work as carefully considered snapshots.
Critics can turn snapshots into expensive works of art. We just need the right connections.
It reminds me for some reason of an apocryphal Miles Davis story. Apparently, he hired some new, young payer who didn't fully know the evening's set list. At some point, he leaned over to the kid and growled, "If you don't know the tune, play the melody."
Yes but with one exception:As with almost all artists for hundreds of years painting for the church, the ruling class and wealthy merchants.
My point is you got it backwards. Winogrand's book was considered misogynistic back then, not today.
If one can even find an affordable copy today...
Many in this thread have a problem with judging older work using today's standards and finding it lacking for whatever reason. The Arbus review that started this thread is a good example. But what about the opposite? Can anyone think of an example of judging old work with today's standards and finding it improved, and if so do you have a problem with that as well?
Indeed, but with one important difference. The art produced for these groups was decidedly not for the purpose of "social change" or "confronting [one's] own biases. To the extent that art was as agenda-driven it was to preserve the status quo, not confront it.
If you can do that, I'll hire you as my agent.
sy.
Seems to me that attempting to help save the souls of all mankind has a "social change" component to it.
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?