Arbus Retrospective Draws Criticism

[nikos79]

The teacher (Lisette Model) vs the student (Diane Arbus)

 

[nikos79]

August Sander vs Diane Arbus

 

[snusmumriken]

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.

Would they appreciate the photos of Diane Arbus?

 

[retina_restoration]

August Sander vs Diane Arbus

vs Jim Hair: The Brown Twins

 

[warden]

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

I've enjoyed this thread too, and learned a few things. Thanks for the Winogrand article you posted upthread -- I enjoyed it, and agree it is an example of a quality review.

 

[warden]

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.

Agree. The persons introducing this tripe should be sentenced to wearing a dunce cap for the remainder of the thread.

 

[chuckroast]

I've enjoyed this thread too, and learned a few things. Thanks for the Winogrand article you posted upthread -- I enjoyed it, and agree it is an example of a quality review.

N.C, in my experience, is the consistently best arts criticism mag around.

 

[MattKing]

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.

I was 15 when Diane Arbus died.
I see no point in limiting my considerations of her photography to what I and the world understood about the world, or photography when I was 15.
Or when I was 25, or 35, or ....
Anyone who restricts their viewpoint on Art to what they understood to be the facts and circumstances ~54 years ago is, I would suggest, applying a filter that doesn't serve their understanding well.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

Unfortunately, there's always someone who is happy to throw us under the "What Is Art" bus ad infinitum, it seems.

 

[Milpool]

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

Bingo.

 

[chuckroast]

I was 15 when Diane Arbus died.
I see no point in limiting my considerations of her photography to what I and the world understood about the world, or photography when I was 15.
Or when I was 25, or 35, or ....
Anyone who restricts their viewpoint on Art to what they understood to be the facts and circumstances ~54 years ago is, I would suggest, applying a filter that doesn't serve their understanding well.

You're talking about something different here though. It's quite normal to apply your life's experience to engage with piece of art for your own consumption and edification. You can ponder things like, "How does this piece of art speak in our time?", "How does this inform my beliefs or values?", "Is this art still relevant today?" and so forth. So, for example, I can happily report that I find the pop music of the 1960s trite and relatively unimportant. You may disagree, because in both our cases, we are reflecting on how the art affects us personally. It's pure personal experience.

But a critic retroactively imposing today's mores, pieties, and beliefs upon a prior piece of art in the name of desconstructing it to find its "real" meaning, is committing murder upon the art. They are not letting the art speak for itself as it was intended, but rather trying to force it to say what they want or what they think it should have represented.

Read enough critics and you see this disturbing trend that could be boiled down to "this is bad art because it conflicts with my currently held political or social views."

It's a question of direction. In your example, you are moving from the past to see how it informs the present. In the example of the bad critic, they are moving from the present to try to reshape the meaning of the past into their desired image. I consider this fraudulent on its face.

 

[nikos79]

You're talking about something different here though. It's quite normal to apply your life's experience to engage with piece of art for your own consumption and edification. You can ponder things like, "How does this piece of art speak in our time?", "How does this inform my beliefs or values?", "Is this art still relevant today?" and so forth. So, for example, I can happily report that I find the pop music of the 1960s trite and relatively unimportant. You may disagree, because in both our cases, we are reflecting on how the art affects us personally. It's pure personal experience.

But a critic retroactively imposing today's mores, pieties, and beliefs upon a prior piece of art in the name of desconstructing it to find its "real" meaning, is committing murder upon the art. They are not letting the art speak for itself as it was intended, but rather trying to force it to say what they want or what they think it should have represented.

Read enough critics and you see this disturbing trend that could be boiled down to "this is bad art because it conflicts with my currently held political or social views."

It's a question of direction. In your example, you are moving from the past to see how it informs the present. In the example of the bad critic, they are moving from the present to try to reshape the meaning of the past into their desired image. I consider this fraudulent on its face.

I agree. In today's standard Winogrand would have been canceled as a misogynist especially his book "Women are beautiful"

 

[MattKing]

A good piece of criticism aids in understanding.
And much of what we have learned in the last ~54 years includes improvements on what is understood.
A review that restricts itself to what was understood about the world ~54 years ago does more re-shaping of something into a desired image than one that takes into account much learned wisdom and hard won experience since then.
It is one thing to try to impose a "they must have been thinking" modern thought on ~54 year old work created by the artist - not a good idea.
But if the artist's work reflects the world around them, modern perspective is just as valuable as the perspective of the time.

 

[nikos79]

Sometimes I feel that we are trying super hard to demystify photography as if there is a hidden meaning behind it while in reality it is so simple.
The photographer sees something interesting in the reality, reacts, positions their body, frame, and takes the picture.
Later when the photographer develops in the Darkroom/sees it in Lightroom they will see if they did something interesting or not.
If they are consistent/lucky/talented after a few years a specific view or style might emerge.
We may very well see a photograph and say "Oh this is a HCB or this is an Eugene Atget".
Photography is that simple.
Then usually the art critics and reviewers will come and try to explain the unexplainable.
How can they do it when they never even have used a camera to understand its difficulty, its expressiveness, its limitation?
The mere they can do is use their priors from other arts to explain the unique photographic medium.

 

[chuckroast]

But if the artist's work reflects the world around them, modern perspective is just as valuable as the perspective of the time.

I can think of plenty of examples where this isn't the case. A modernist like Jackson Pollock doesn't do a thing for my understanding of Rembrandt except that they both used paint.

I'd say that if the modern perspective is actually valuable, it is only so when applied in our time. Using Bach's counterpoint to write or understand modern compositions can be valuable.

Applying the rhythm schemes of hip-hop and the Amen Break to gain greater perspective on the B Minor Mass is a fool's errand.

I absolutely support using both the past- and present to increase our artistic understanding and vocabulary. But what troubles me is that the arts community is - like the larger society - increasingly balkanized around social and political themes to the detriment of the glory of old art. Critics writing about art tragically reflect this trend.

 

[MattKing]

I can think of plenty of examples where this isn't the case. A modernist like Jackson Pollock doesn't do a thing for my understanding of Rembrandt except that they both used paint.

They also used light and colour - in fact I would argue that their use of light and colour was more important than paint.

Applying the rhythm schemes of hip-hop and the Amen Break to gain greater perspective on the B Minor Mass is a fool's errand.

Only if you ignore the role played by the rhythms of life in the creation of the music itself.

I expect Glenn Gould would have taken issue with your opinions about how one should consider Bach.

 

[Vaughn]

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.

...

That's an interesting spin to put on that old worn phrase. I've always thought of it as rhetorical question concerning human perception and reality. As a koan, for me it is a riddle of duality/labeling, not unlike the One Hand Clapping koan. Does any other creature use the label 'sound'? If there are no humans around, there is no one to slap the label 'sound' on the energy waves created by the falling of the tree. So my answer is no...no humans around, no sound...just the vibes, man...

Does a dog have Buddha nature? A forceful NO!!! is the answer. Why not "Of course they do" for the answer?...hell if I know. Generally if one comes up with a logical answer for a koan, it will be incorrect.

 

[chuckroast]

I expect Glenn Gould would have taken issue with your opinions about how one should consider Bach.

I would have liked to have met him and asked him to stop humming over the tune ...

 

[chuckroast]

Sometimes I feel that we are trying super hard to demystify photography as if there is a hidden meaning behind it while in reality it is so simple.
The photographer sees something interesting in the reality, reacts, positions their body, frame, and takes the picture.
Later when the photographer develops in the Darkroom/sees it in Lightroom they will see if they did something interesting or not.
If they are consistent/lucky/talented after a few years a specific view or style might emerge.
We may very well see a photograph and say "Oh this is a HCB or this is an Eugene Atget".
Photography is that simple.
Then usually the art critics and reviewers will come and try to explain the unexplainable.
How can they do it when they never even have used a camera to understand its difficulty, its expressiveness, its limitation?
The mere they can do is use their priors from other arts to explain the unique photographic medium.

I like to think of my own work as carefully considered snapshots.

 

[Don_ih]

Do you know what's better than this thread? Making a print and joining the Blind Print Exchange! Great fun! Last day to sign up!

(Yes, this is an advertisement. But I would like more people to join!!!!)

 

[MattKing]

Do you know what's better than this thread? Making a print and joining the Blind Print Exchange! Great fun! Last day to sign up!

(Yes, this is an advertisement. But I would like more people to join!!!!)

+1 with respect to anything that involves direct and indirect engagement with real people.

 

[MattKing]

I would have liked to have met him and asked him to stop humming over the tune ...

You probably would have liked to meet Oscar Peterson as well, and to have made the same request .....
Hmmm - I wonder if the two Canadians knew each other?
EDIT: apparently they met briefly, but also had some other indirect connections: https://www.tvo.org/transcript/496408

 

[Chuck1]

That's an interesting spin to put on that old worn phrase. I've always thought of it as rhetorical question concerning human perception and reality. As a koan, for me it is a riddle of duality/labeling, not unlike the One Hand Clapping koan. Does any other creature use the label 'sound'? If there are no humans around, there is no one to slap the label 'sound' on the energy waves created by the falling of the tree. So my answer is no...no humans around, no sound...just the vibes, man...

Does a dog have Buddha nature? A forceful NO!!! is the answer. Why not "Of course they do" for the answer?...hell if I know. Generally if one comes up with a logical answer for a koan, it will be incorrect.

Bats and whales use echo location

 

[Chuck1]

I like to think of my own work as carefully considered snapshots.

Well put

 

[GregY]

You probably would have liked to meet Oscar Peterson as well, and to have made the same request .....
Hmmm - I wonder if the two Canadians knew each other?

I would have liked to have met him and asked him to stop humming over the tune ...

or..... Keith Jarrett...