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.
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 “was completely non-judgmental of people. It didn’t mean she didn't think some people were awful, but they were entitled to be…the photograph was just a record of something that was.”
Hey we all make mistakesI believe the initial reaction to Robert Frank's" The Americans". was something like that as well. Among those critics was Ansel Adams.
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?
Following your "logic", why would anyone want to read 'The Old Man and The Sea', since Hemmingway died by suicide??
I believe the initial reaction to Robert Frank's" The Americans". was something like that as well. Among those critics was Ansel Adams.
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.
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.
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.
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.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 Romanticists 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.
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.
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 Romanticists 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.
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 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")
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.
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 Romanticists 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.
It is no wonder that the review cited is negative: it is one person's opinion. After all, that is what a critic does
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.
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.Missing the point of Frank's The Americans when the book was first published is understandable. That stuff was new and radical.
I believe that it is this lucidity that can lead some to the decision to exit from life
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.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.
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.
We both read Camus, it seems.
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.”
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.”
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.
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?