Arbus Retrospective Draws Criticism

[MARTIE]

I've searched the article and can see no sign of a single positive comment.

 

[MARTIE]

I've searched the article and can see no sign of a single positive comment.

In answer to my own post.
The more I think about it, the article leaves me with the impression, that the authors mind was already made up long before he'd even set foot inside the exhibition. Then his experience was simply confirmation of his prejudice.

 

[Don_ih]

You don't say "Hey! Mae West! Cool! What's she doing next to these transvestites?". You start looking, going from one to the other, the famous and the "nobody", and start seeing what she saw, or rather what she was trying to see: the complexity of human nature, the ambiguous nature of identity and performance.

Well, to be fair, that's what you see, but clearly not what the writer of the piece in question saw. You go in with an understanding of who she was, what she did - you've seen many of her photos before - you know lots about her. If that critic did not know those things, then he's perhaps a stand-in for the average casual viewer. I'm not saying that his assessment is valid. But it is a bit too demanding to assume an average gallery-walker will be as familiar with Arbus as you are.

But then the guy sounded ignorant from the first line. I guess his idea is that she was a snob? I think he doesn't understand photography - the need for the photographer to pretty much always be the one behind the camera - and how that can result in something impersonal. Although, frankly, I find her perspective cold but not judgmental. I don't think she was particularly sympathetic (I know you like to impart better humanist characteristics on photographers and artists as inspiring or motivating them, Alex) -- I think she was more just curious and interested, with no intention to misrepresent what she saw. I don't consider that "classist". I'd consider it ... clinical. She was there but she wasn't getting her hands dirty.

 

[retina_restoration]

Well, to be fair, that's what you see, but clearly not what the writer of the piece in question saw. You go in with an understanding of who she was, what she did - you've seen many of her photos before - you know lots about her. If that critic did not know those things, then he's perhaps a stand-in for the average casual viewer. I'm not saying that his assessment is valid. But it is a bit too demanding to assume an average gallery-walker will be as familiar with Arbus as you are.

A critic is meant to be the complete opposite of “the average casual viewer” - they should be the knowledgeable and well-informed voice that steps in to provide a well-reasoned assessment of the installation to that casual viewer and offer a genuinely meaningful introduction to the work in question.
To simply walk into a show, decide you don’t like it, and write an opinion piece that illustrates that you 1) don’t know much about the artist, and 2) didn’t bother to do proper research on the work falls far short of the job of a critic.

Perhaps that’s the best we can do in the age of The Internet Influencer. All this oversharing and 10-second content creation has eroded our ability to create or consume anything substantial. It is my opinion that “professionals” should see it as their duty to fight that erosion process.

 

[Don_ih]

they should be the knowledgeable and well-informed voice that steps in to provide a well-reasoned assessment of the installation to that casual viewer

His assessment of the installation is that it offers nothing for the casual viewer. It's disorganized, random, and uninformative. From the description, that seems true.

And, yes, criticism should be informed. But it can also take whatever stance it wants and assess from any chosen perspective. You can generally tell where a critic is from the writing. It's no different with that guy.

 

[nikos79]

I understand the criticism of the article. People don't know anything about Photography. To them Arbus simply photographed the odd and the disability and the freaks.

Little did they understand that she actually photographed her own world those were her own "freaks".
Which she always photographed with dignity and respect

 

[Milpool]

I don't think there is any important and/or material risk here. Realistically, setting the Photrio fury aside few go-to-exhibit/don't-go-to exhibit decisions are going to hinge on this or any other criticism. Photography exhibits are a relatively hard sell anyway.