Arbus Retrospective Draws Criticism

[retina_restoration]

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.”

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.

 

[warden]

I believe the initial reaction to Robert Frank's" The Americans". was something like that as well. Among those critics was Ansel Adams.

Hey we all make mistakes

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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??

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.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

I think it is entirely possible to understand why she widely recognized as an artist and not much care for her work.

I am in that camp. I find her work technically strong, but I find her worldview most unpleasant. It is because I do understand the point of her work that I don't much like it, I guess.

 

[halfaman]

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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

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 Romanticist's 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.

 

[warden]

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.

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.

 

[retina_restoration]

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.

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.

There's a sayin, “only the village idiot has never considered suicide”.

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 fine - I prefer to find something of beauty in art, but I believe more important than beauty, art should reveal and reflect. Many "beautiful" photographs are enjoyable to look at, but they ask little of us and rarely reveal anything other than a pretty view.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

 

[retina_restoration]

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")

 

[Pieter12]

I recently visited the restaging of the 1972 Met show at David Zwirner Gallery in Los Angeles. I have read the estate-authorized books as well as the two biographies that the estate condoned. Doon, her daughter is essentially the estate and carefully controls the publication and display of her mother's work, so she was involved in how the work was shown in Paris and later at the Armory. She does not like the work to be displayed chronologically or grouped by subject.

Arbus was a complicated person with some obvious psychological problems. Born into money and privilege, she abandoned that life to seek out subjects on the edges of society. That makes some uncomfortable and some view it as exploitation. Her work has drawn raves and harsh criticism from almost the beginning. It is no wonder that the review cited is negative: it is one person's opinion. After all, that is what a critic does, not try to find some sort of consensus.

 

[chuckroast]

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")

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 ...

 

[Arthurwg]

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.

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.

 

[halfaman]

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.

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.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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

It is no wonder that the review cited is negative: it is one person's opinion. After all, that is what a critic does

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.

 

[F4U]

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.

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.

 

[Arthurwg]

Missing the point of Frank's The Americans when the book was first published is understandable. That stuff was new and radical.

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.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

I believe that it is this lucidity that can lead some to the decision to exit from life

We both read Camus, it seems .

 

[Pieter12]

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.

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.”

 

[chuckroast]

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.

Certainly true, but the question is whether art should just be reflecting the times, or aspiring to show us a better way to elevate the human condition. I realize everyone's experience is different, but I've never found that artists wallowing misery generated art that moved me much, aesthetically or morally.

 

[chuckroast]

We both read Camus, it seems .

I'll bet he was a lot of fun at parties ...

 

[chuckroast]

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.”

I agree they do not. But they do have an obligation to place their criticism in context. They "why" they hold their views is as important as the views themselves.

 

[Alex Benjamin]

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.”

...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.

 

[chuckroast]

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.

Things can be selfish and tragic and idiotic all at the same time. To reduce the act just one one of them misses a much wider context in which it occurs.