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.
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 ...
...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.
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.
That's all you needed to express.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.
And still I hear judgement in that statement, and zero empathy.Plus I know a little bit about someone close killing themself. A poor choice for a remedy.
We both read Camus, it seems.
Just wondering if there is a specific reference
We both read Camus, it seems.
Camus' The Rebel (L'homme révolté), his major philosophical, non-fiction and non-dramatic work, opens with a reflexion on suicide. It's an essential part of his version of existentialism—often called "absurdism" to distinguish it from Sartre's existentialism—, and it's also tied to his vision of what freedom is, so its ramifications are not only philosophical, but also political.
Avedon’s Dovima with elephants photos were an editorial assignment, not advertising.
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...
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.
There seems a lot of criticism of the Hyperallergic piece about the Arbus show, to the extent of some accusing the author of being uninformed and his opinion useless. How many of those berating the critic and his piece are informed themselves? Do they know anything about his background in art writing? How many have actually seen the show? I sense hypocrisy and denial because the views do not align themselves with their own.
Hakim Bishara is Hyperallergic's managing editor. He is a recipient of the 2019 Andy Warhol Foundation and Creative Capital Arts Writers Grant and he holds an MFA in Art Writing from the School of Visual Arts in New York.
Hey! David Foster Wallace.
Camus' The Rebel (L'homme révolté), his major philosophical, non-fiction and non-dramatic work, opens with a reflexion on suicide. It's an essential part of his version of existentialism—often called "absurdism" to distinguish it from Sartre's existentialism—, and it's also tied to his vision of what freedom is, so its ramifications are not only philosophical, but also political.
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.
What was she trying to show us?
There seems a lot of criticism of the Hyperallergic piece about the Arbus show, to the extent of some accusing the author of being uninformed and his opinion useless. How many of those berating the critic and his piece are informed themselves? Do they know anything about his background in art writing? How many have actually seen the show? I sense hypocrisy and denial because the views do not align themselves with their own.
That photograph really was a masterwork.I feel better now
His collection of essays, Consider the Lobster, is terrific and one I come back to time and again. So smart, and witty too. Very highly recommended.I'm really embarrassed to say that he's never been on my radar and that I've never read a single line he wrote....
Please clarify, what is it that the critic wrote about Arbus that has you so incensed? I don't say that I agree with what he has said, but I am unsure about why you think he knows nothing about Arbus, her work or photography in general? Beyond the statement the Arbus work is no longer relevant in today's society (as is the work of many artists of the past), I find his opinions are presented as such and valid criticism. His comments about the curation and presentation are not about the work, but he does leave out the fact that the Arbus estate (Doon) is very controlling as far as presentation is concerned. Doon has not allowed anyone to take any photos of the show, nor does she want her mother's work to be grouped by subject or in chronological order. The same was true for the David Zwirner show in Los Angeles this spring.First thing I did was to check out who he was:
He may be an excellent critic in general. He may know a lot about art. But here he blew it. He got lazy. He clearly didn't bother do to his homework and learn a bit more about photography and about Diane Arbus. I've stated that already, and I've state why I think that. No hypocrisy there. Moreover, the guy's young, he'll learn to do better next time.
I couldn't care less if someone's idea didn't align with my own. On the opposite. I've also stated that my interest is better understanding, not to confirm what I already know, or think I know. For that I need ideas that enrich my own, and they may do so at times by contradicting my own. That's a universal lesson.
I didn't see the exhibit. I don't know if it's a great exhibit, or just a good one, or if it falls short. But I don't need to see the exhibit to state that what the critic said about Arbus — which is what I attacked his writing for — is ridiculous. Again, go back to what I wrote.
And while we're on the subject of paying attention to what is written, I said all uninformed opinions were useless to me, and I stated why I thought so. Others are free to think differently and find the Hyperallergic piece informative. You do you, I do me.
For some reason people are personally offended by miscellaneous inconsequential ramblings.
His comments about the curation and presentation are not about the work, but he does leave out the fact that the Arbus estate (Doon) is very controlling as far as presentation is concerned. Doon has not allowed anyone to take any photos of the show, nor does she want her mother's work to be grouped by subject or in chronological order.
Please clarify, what is it that the critic wrote about Arbus that has you so incensed? I don't say that I agree with what he has said, but I am unsure about why you think he knows nothing about Arbus, her work or photography in general?
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.
Simple answer? The complexity of human nature and how ambiguous and complex itself is the attempt to reveal that complexity on the flat surface of a photographic print.
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?