I believe this is the ultimate truth of Diane Arbus and her work. To label it exploitive or voyeuristic requires denying who she was as a curious human being who simply found her world fascinating, and sought to reveal what she found unusual.
Arbus Retrospective Draws Criticism
-
A
- Thread starter Arthurwg
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale FS: Sinar P2 8x10 Metering Back & Bellows
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Leica 90mm f2.5 Summarit-M
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
-
Sold Minolta 7000 (Refurbished) w/ 50mm f/1.7
- Started by Acere
-
For Sale FS: RARE Nikkormat FS body for Parts or Repair
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
Sold GONE!...FREE for Shipping Cost: Polaroid 110 Pathfinder Camera Body for Parts or Repair
- Started by AnselMortensen
Forum statistics
Hey we all make mistakes
Following this logic would also mean that I would have to deprive myself of the films of Robin Williams.
Not to mention my oh so very found memories of Mork and Mindy ("Nanu nanu!").
And the works of Hemingway, Van Gogh, Mark Rothko, Walter Benjamin, Kurt Cobain, Sylvia Plath, Virginia Woolf, Stefan Zweig, Cesare Pavese, Keith Emerson, etc...
There's great joy and enrichment to be found in peering through the windows of many of these minds, many of them more lucid than many of us will ever be.
Missing the point of Frank's The Americans when the book was first published is understandable. That stuff was new and radical.
With all that's been written about her, with all the references we have, missing the point of Diane Arbus' work more than 50 years after her death is unexcusable.
I think it is entirely possible to understand why she widely recognized as an artist and not much care for her work.
I am in that camp. I find her work technically strong, but I find her worldview most unpleasant. It is because I do understand the point of her work that I don't much like it, I guess.
I have Revelations and it is an amazing book. A must for anybody who has any interest in Diane Arbus.
By the way, the quoted Susan Sontag was very cruel with Diane Arbus work and showed a very deep (and bourgeois) contempt. Proving than Intelligence is not an obstacle to behave like an assxxx.
I am no fan of Sontag, whom I've always found painfully pretentious. But I find myself in some agreement with her take on Arbus' work. Sontag found the work ugly and lacking any real empathy, reinforcing the isolation of it all and spoken from an elitist's perch. It's kind of like Tom Morello becoming a multimillionaire while "raging at the machine" - the very machine that makes him rich.
To some degree, one's view on all this is driven by your sense of what makes great art. For me - and I freely admit this - great art should be a pursuit of beauty and should be an aspirational statement of what humans can- and should be. i.e., It's essentially a Romanticist's view. The 20th Century obsession with misery, loss, and pain, to me, undermines the power of the art, notwithstanding the fact that these are indeed a part of the human experience.
Last edited:
That's fair enough, and your opinion is clearly reasoned, articulate, and works for you, but of course art is a big tent. For many people your "shoulds" up there are actually "cans". I'm drawn to sorrow and pain (and sometimes ugliness) in art just as I am to beauty and aspirational content. Maybe it tickles a different part of the brain, I dunno.
I'm not sure I would describe the 20th century as "obsessed" with misery, loss, and pain btw, but that's just me looking at the brighter side, which I tend to do. Arbus didn't make work that I would want to hang above the sofa, but I appreciate it all the same. Different strokes, of course.
I believe that it is this lucidity that can lead some to the decision to exit from life; the ability to see life clearly and unclouded by silly romanticisms can be difficult to bear, and sometimes costly.
There's a sayin, “only the village idiot has never considered suicide”.
That's fine - I prefer to find something of beauty in art, but I believe more important than beauty, art should reveal and reflect. Many "beautiful" photographs are enjoyable to look at, but they ask little of us and rarely reveal anything other than a pretty view.
I think the important thing that should bind us together in these matters is what that what we like isn't necessarily a predictor of whether something is important art. I don't like Stravinsky's music, but I get that he was a competent and respected composer. In much the same way, I don't like Arbus' work because of her viewpoint and worldview, but I can still respect her as an artist.
Exactly. A person's like or dislike of a particular piece (or body of work) is no litmus test of its art value.
*cough* (whispers "the perfect tomato")
I recently visited the restaging of the 1972 Met show at David Zwirner Gallery in Los Angeles. I have read the estate-authorized books as well as the two biographies that the estate condoned. Doon, her daughter is essentially the estate and carefully controls the publication and display of her mother's work, so she was involved in how the work was shown in Paris and later at the Armory. She does not like the work to be displayed chronologically or grouped by subject.
Arbus was a complicated person with some obvious psychological problems. Born into money and privilege, she abandoned that life to seek out subjects on the edges of society. That makes some uncomfortable and some view it as exploitation. Her work has drawn raves and harsh criticism from almost the beginning. It is no wonder that the review cited is negative: it is one person's opinion. After all, that is what a critic does, not try to find some sort of consensus.
Arbus was a complicated person with some obvious psychological problems. Born into money and privilege, she abandoned that life to seek out subjects on the edges of society. That makes some uncomfortable and some view it as exploitation. Her work has drawn raves and harsh criticism from almost the beginning. It is no wonder that the review cited is negative: it is one person's opinion. After all, that is what a critic does, not try to find some sort of consensus.
Another example of this is Riefenstahl's "Triumph Of The Will". Without hesitation, I condemn the message, the messenger, and her open willingness to do this kind of work while still acknowledging it's importance and artistic execution.
But - let me get in REAL trouble now - I don't think propaganda qualifies as art. Ditto advertising. They can have artistic content but they do not work as art in its own right as I see it. I struggle with this because I so love the Avedon elephant picture ...
Last edited:
The 20th Century certainly produced plenty of misery, loss and pain, and that is well reflected in the art of the period. Abstract Expressionism, for example, developed out of WWII.
I recommend you to find the time to read a book like Revelations. There you will find that Diane Arbus didn't feel any pity towards her subjects or saw them as anything close to grotesque. On the contrary, she believed that they were remarkable and unique human beings that everybody should get to know and not left behind. She thought it was completely unfair that some people were hidden in our society for just being different, and she was trying to even things out. So pretty much the opposite of what Susan Sontag saw and you mention, and what Diane was trying to fight against.
If you want to listen to Arbus talking about her work, here's a rare audio interview
www.wnyc.org
Expressing their opinion about the works they are looking at is what bad critics do. Expressing ideas about the work they are looking at is what good critics do.
A good critic is trying to understand, and good criticism is about this quest, sometimes about its difficulty, and sometimes about its failure.
Sometimes it does start with an opinion. But an opinion only has value if it is informed — clearly not in this case —, and only if used as a starting point for a reflexion.
Diane Arbus: A Rare Interview | WNYC | New York Public Radio, Podcasts, Live Streaming Radio, News
Diane Arbus would have been 100 years old this year.
Expressing their opinion about the works they are looking at is what bad critics do. Expressing ideas about the work they are looking at is what good critics do.
A good critic is trying to understand, and good criticism is about this quest, sometimes about its difficulty, and sometimes about its failure.
Sometimes it does start with an opinion. But an opinion only has value if it is informed — clearly not in this case —, and only if used as a starting point for a reflexion.
Perhaps it would be more constructive of me to confine my comments to subject sthat concern me where my post may be more constructive. I never was a fan of her type of photography. Plus I know a little bit about someone close killing themself. A poor choice for a remedy.
Yes, for sure. My point was that great, profound work, initially or later, can meet with derision. They didn't like Van Gogh, or Thelonious Monk either, for that matter. I wonder what they'll say about Cezanne in the future.
If you want to listen to Arbus talking about her work, here's a rare audio interview
Diane Arbus: A Rare Interview | WNYC | New York Public Radio, Podcasts, Live Streaming Radio, News
Diane Arbus would have been 100 years old this year.
Expressing their opinion about the works they are looking at is what bad critics do. Expressing ideas about the work they are looking at is what good critics do.
A good critic is trying to understand, and good criticism is about this quest, sometimes about its difficulty, and sometimes about its failure.
Sometimes it does start with an opinion. But an opinion only has value if it is informed — clearly not in this case —, and only if used as a starting point for a reflexion.
Many critics famously do (or did) not like the work of some artists and made no bones about it. And a critic has no obligation to be fair or “informed.”
Certainly true, but the question is whether art should just be reflecting the times, or aspiring to show us a better way to elevate the human condition. I realize everyone's experience is different, but I've never found that artists wallowing misery generated art that moved me much, aesthetically or morally.
We both read Camus, it seems.
I'll bet he was a lot of fun at parties ...
I agree they do not. But they do have an obligation to place their criticism in context. They "why" they hold their views is as important as the views themselves.
...and that's why I said there are good critics and bad critics.
A guy giving me his uninformed opinion is just another guy giving me his uninformed opinion. I'm not saying he hasn't the right to. I'm saying he is totally, completely, utterly, incommensurably useless to me as a source of better understanding the art work, or artist, I'm interested in.
And that should be the sole point of criticism: helping me understand the work or the artist.
A guy giving me an uninformed opinion is just helping me understand him as a guy too lazy to enrich, or confront, his opinion with information that could validate or invalidate it.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |