Arbus Retrospective Draws Criticism

[snusmumriken]

There is nothing more pretentious than people inflicting contemporary pieties on past art. It is self-involved virtue signaling by the current day critic

I am out of my depth in most of this discussion, so forgive me for jumping on this one point. What is wrong with analysing art in terms of the values pertaining at the time of its creation, and how those differ from those of today? Of course you can listen to Bach motets as though they are instrumental pieces, and they will still be great art; but isn’t it wise to remember the reason for their creation, what the words mean, and the religious convictions in Bach’s environment? Is it unreasonable to do a Marxist analysis of Starwars or Marvel comics, to discover the value system that underpins them? Would it be wrong to do a study of Rubens’ nudes in the light of current views on fitness and health? (ok, there I am being ridiculous to make a point)

 

[chuckroast]

I am out of my depth in most of this discussion, so forgive me for jumping on this one point. What is wrong with analysing art in terms of the values pertaining at the time of its creation, and how those differ from those of today?

This is almost essential so we don't project today's ideas on old work. Understanding work in its time is a tool for grasping its meaning and importance. It's when we try inflict our current ideas onto it that things go awry.

For example, a valid analysis might (or might not) be that Arbus concerned herself with the fringes of humanity she ran into in New York. This might lead to a further discussion of whether she was trying to merely report what she saw, whether she saw her subjects as victims, or whether she was trying to evoke empathy.

Compare that to the review that launched this thread. Arbus is scolded for being "classist" and thus out so very out of date with the modern mind. The reviewer is imposing today on yesterday, thereby adding no real understanding of her work. (Keep in mind that in the postmodern world, nothing is really objectively true except if someone or something is accused of being something-ist. The accusation alone is sufficient for a conviction of the crime.)

Of course you can listen to Bach motets as though they are instrumental pieces, and they will still be great art; but

Well, not really, because the motets support a choir singing. Their absence would be noted.

isn’t it wise to remember the reason for their creation, what the words mean, and the religious convictions in Bach’s environment?

Yes, of course. To understand Bach is to understand his writing in the context of post-Reformation Christianity and his committment to it.

Is it unreasonable to do a Marxist analysis of Starwars or Marvel comics, to discover the value system that underpins them?

In that case, you're taking an old economic theory and seeing if it helps you understand something new. What you're not doing is looking back at Marx and condeming him for not considering the economic conditions of 3CPO and his fellow robots.

Would it be wrong to do a study of Rubens’ nudes in the light of current views on fitness and health? (ok, there I am being ridiculous to make a point)

You're actually not. In Kimball's book, he gives examples of this kind of absurdity and worse that are actual serious positions taken by arts academics and critics.

 

[nikos79]

Compare that to the review that launched this thread. Arbus is scolded for being "classist" and thus out so very out of date with the modern mind. The reviewer is imposing today on yesterday, thereby adding no real understanding of her work. (Keep in mind that in the postmodern world, nothing is really objectively true except if someone or something is accused of being something-ist. The accusation alone is sufficient for a conviction of the crime.)

I have to disagree here, the reviewer fails to understand Arbus work not because he lives on the present and ignores the yesterday's norms but because he knows nothing about photography. I cannot emphasise it more than that.

I doubt the reviewer ever heard about Lisette Model, Diane Arbus teacher. If he knew about her he could understand more Arbus's work.
I don't even know where to start to show that the reviewer does not understand photography:
That he fails to appreciate the unique tight framing of Arbus subjects? The strictness of the square format of the Rolleiflex? The amazing use of a form that presents her subjects just for pure depiction, free of any emotional charge such as irony, empathy, or pity? The amazing simplicity of her photographs which paradoxically make them more complex?
Am I the only one seeing that?

Anyway Arbus was an amazing photography teacher too:

“A photograph is a secret about a secret. The more it tells you, the less you know.”

“The more specific you become, the more generally you speak.”

“Lately, I've been impressed by how much I like what you can't see in a photograph.”

“It’s important to take bad photographs. The bad ones relate to what you’ve never done before. They can make you recognize something you haven’t seen, in a way that will make you recognize it when you see it again.”

“I would never choose a subject for what it means to me or for what I think about it. You just have to choose a subject. And whatever you feel about it, whatever it means, will be revealed, as long as you simply choose a subject.”

“I am not drawn to photographing famous people or familiar subjects. What excites me is that I haven’t even heard of them.”

“Photograph what you fear.”

“Freaks have a mythical dimension. Like a fairytale hero asking you to answer a riddle. Most people live their lives fearing a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They have already passed the test of life. They are aristocrats.”

 

[Alex Benjamin]

but isn’t it wise to remember the reason for their creation, what the words mean, and the religious convictions in Bach’s environment? Is it unreasonable to do a Marxist analysis of Starwars or Marvel comics, to discover the value system that underpins them? Would it be wrong to do a study of Rubens’ nudes in the light of current views on fitness and health? (ok, there I am being ridiculous to make a point)

No path of enquiery is useless or unreasonable because you never know what you're going to find along the way.

Unless, of course, the answer you're looking for is pre-determined by your question. In these cases, the grid you use is pointing you in a certain direction, and you risk missing stuff along the way.

So you have writers who stick to their grids and seem to miss the mark — Adorno on Stravinsky and Schoenberg, for example (still worth reading, I might add) —, and others who have a grid and know them well, but nevertheless can get themselves distracted by a beautiful flower alongside the path — Walter Benjamin being a good example.

It's not cut and dry. You have shools of thought that are strict and rigid, and shools of thought that offer room for imagination.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Who is Diane Arbus? Not was is. She is still alive through her work. Matters not whether it is art or a waste of paper.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

I am trying to think but I cannot recall many photographers that really considered themselves as artists.
Eugene Atget definitely not, neither HCB, neither Andre Kertesz, neither Gary Winogrand.
They called themselves primarily a photographer. In that sense I agree with you that we came to appreciate them through the eyes of the (sensitive and trained) viewer. It would be very sad to create photographs simply for your own sake.

The problem in my opinion is that photography is so simple that people forget how difficult it really is to create an interesting photograph. I am going to elaborate even further:
I don't believe that there exists not even a single photograph in the history of the medium that can be called a "masterpiece". Photography is not painting to call for Mona Lisa, it is created in 1/60th of a second (and 60 years of experience as HCB once quoted). Photography is a poor damn thing. Imho the only "masterpiece" is the artist, when we see his whole work and discover another world, his own poetic language.

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?

 

[Alex Benjamin]

The word artist has been thrown around to raise the price of photos, oils, and song albums.

Would be nice to have specific, historically verifiable examples that prove that this assertion is fact and not just personal opinion. Price of artwork (can I say "artwork"?) before and after the photographer, painter or musician started calling himself an artist would do fine .

 

[retina_restoration]

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?

Once you’ve decided that “Art” is defined by its commercial viability, you’ve fallen into a trap from which you cannot escape.

You’re being very stingy, Alan, to suggest that a photographer isn’t allowed to label themselves “an Artist” unless they are selling work. How did you come to have such a cynical view of creative expression? How do you define your own work??

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Would be nice to have specific, historically verifiable examples that prove that this assertion is fact and not just personal opinion. Price of artwork (can I say "artwork"?) before and after the photographer, painter or musician started calling himself an artist would do fine .

When you have a discussion with your friends, do you ask them for proof when they discuss things with you? This is a photo forum, not a court of law. Make your point and move on. Asking people to do research is game playing.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

Once you’ve decided that “Art” is defined by its commercial viability, you’ve fallen into a trap from which you cannot escape.

You’re being very stingy, Alan, to suggest that a photographer isn’t allowed to label themselves “an Artist” unless they are selling work. How did you come to have such a cynical view of creative expression? How do you define your own work??

Well, I'm an artist, of course, just like everyone else here.

 

[retina_restoration]

Well, I'm an artist, of course, just like everyone else here.

So, that response tells me that we shouldn’t take you seriously. That’s fine with me.

 

[snusmumriken]

Of course you can listen to Bach motets as though they are instrumental pieces, and they will still be great art

Well, not really, because the motets support a choir singing. Their absence would be noted.

I'll assume you are just making a joke and not trying to twit me. My point was that you can listen to the choir without bothering with what words they are singing ... especially if you don't understand German. As a matter of fact, that's how I hear most songs - I've no idea why - and how, being an atheist, I hear Bach choral works.

In that case, you're taking an old economic theory and seeing if it helps you understand something new. What you're not doing is looking back at Marx and condeming him for not considering the economic conditions of 3CPO and his fellow robots.

(I'm going to get lost in this discussion, I can feel it coming.) I'm sure you are not arguing that we should look back at Bach and condemn him for not taking Darwin, molecular biology or global warming, into account? The point of something like the Starwars analysis I postulated (it was actually done - see here, although I was thinking of an earlier PhD thesis on the same subject at an English university) would be to explore the embedded values, which its creators may or may not have been conscious of. You could do it from any chosen reference frame, forwards or backwards in time. I was asking, why do you insist it is wrong to comment on art from a current standpoint, with modern sensitivities (post #12)? I am 100% behind understanding work in the context of its own time, but why not also in the context of our own time?

 

[nikos79]

So, that response tells me that we shouldn’t take you seriously. That’s fine with me.

Cmon guys chill
For me a photographer can call himself an artist if he takes photography seriously.

 

[chuckroast]

I'll assume you are just making a joke and not trying to twit me. My point was that you can listen to the choir without bothering with what words they are singing ... especially if you don't understand German. As a matter of fact, that's how I hear most songs - I've no idea why - and how, being an atheist, I hear Bach choral works.

Yeah, it was tongue in cheek.

I was asking, why do you insist it is wrong to comment on art from a current standpoint, with modern sensitivities (post #12)? I am 100% behind understanding work in the context of its own time, but why not also in the context of our own time?

It depends on the rationale' for the commentary. If you are engaged in a social or political commentary, that's one thing. But if you are trying to meaningfully understand, and possibly critique, a particular piece of art, trying to stuff current ideas onto it - in my view - is intellectually dishonest. It's hijacking the art.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

When you have a discussion with your friends, do you ask them for proof when they discuss things with you?

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.

 

[Vaughn]

...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?

No I do not think it is presumptuous at all to call oneself an artist.

Why do you directly associate being an artist as being only someone operating at a genius level? (from your Einstein example) Artists exist at all levels of competence...good, bad, beginning, master, wannabe, and so on.

To be human is to be an artist. But I understand why some photographers may not want to be considered as artists. Being an active artist can require a much more intense approach to one's work than some wish to give.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

A bit sad that a very interesting thread about Diane Arbus, and about art criticism, has morphed into another "What is art" and "Who is an artist (or not)" thread.

Sole consolation is to realize Nietzsche was right about the Eternal return of the same.

But such is life...

Carry on.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

When the tree hits the ground
The worms will know something happened

Finally.

I'm always surprised to see how little people understand the true lesson of that koan — i.e., that the world does not revolve around mankind.

The tree falls, the birds hear it; the bears, the wolfes, the badgers, the raccoons, the deers, the hares, the bobcats and all the other forest animals hear it; the reptiles feel the vibrations, as does the fishes in the nearby lake.

Mankind is just one of many, and mostly useless, if not a downright nuisance.

 

[GregY]

Finally.

I'm always surprised to see how little people understand the true lesson of that koan — i.e., that the world does not revolve around mankind.

The tree falls, the birds hear it; the bears, the wolfes, the badgers, the raccoons, the deers, the hares, the bobcats and all the other forest animals hear it; the reptiles feel the vibrations, as does the fishes in the nearby lake.

Mankind is just one of many, and mostly useless, if not a downright nuisance.

 

[nikos79]

A bit sad that a very interesting thread about Diane Arbus, and about art criticism, has morphed into another "What is art" and "Who is an artist (or not)" thread.

Sole consolation is to realize Nietzsche was right about the Eternal return of the same.

But such is life...

Carry on.

Well we can keep discussing about Diane Arbus I agree

 

[Arthurwg]

Cmon guys chill
For me a photographer can call himself an artist if he takes photography seriously.

There are good artists and bad artists, successful artists and failed artists, not to mention con artists.

 

[Arthurwg]

Sole consolation is to realize Nietzsche was right about the Eternal return of the same.

I think Arbus had more to do with "the return of the repressed. "

 

[chuckroast]

I think Arbus had more to do with "the return of the repressed. "

I, for one, have enjoyed this because I learned more about Arbus' work in a few days than I knew in a lifetime.

 

[retina_restoration]

Finally.

I'm always surprised to see how little people understand the true lesson of that koan — i.e., that the world does not revolve around mankind.

Some people have a very strong anthropocentric view about man's place in the Universe. Most people with that attitude cannot be swayed to see humanity in any other context.

The tree falls, the birds hear it; the bears, the wolfes, the badgers, the raccoons, the deers, the hares, the bobcats and all the other forest animals hear it; the reptiles feel the vibrations, as does the fishes in the nearby lake.

Mankind is just one of many, and mostly useless, if not a downright nuisance.

I would add parasite to that list.

 

[retina_restoration]

Cmon guys chill

If someone responds to me with dismissive flippancy, it's reasonable to conclude that they do not intend to be taken seriously, and I don't mind stating that.