Arbus Retrospective Draws Criticism
-
A
- Thread starter Arthurwg
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
Sold Fujichrome Velvia 50 120 - 20 Rolls
- Started by 0x001688936CA08
-
Want to Buy WTB: Shen Hao or Ebony 6x17 camera
- Started by djdister
-
Sold Black Paint Nikon Fe2
- Started by Gram Nylén
-
Sold SOLD!
- Started by B.S.Kumar
-
For Sale Leica 90mm f2.5 Summarit-M
- Started by chriscrawfordphoto
Forum statistics
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2004
- Messages
- 263
- Format
- Multi Format
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Little did they understand that she actually photographed her own world those were her own "freaks".
Which she always photographed with dignity and respect
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.
Objectivity when looking back appears to be a rare ability these days.
There's no fury, and nobody here takes this reviewer seriously enough to base his/her decision whether to go or no on his piece.
Moreover, this thread isn't about the review or the reviewer. It's about Diane Arbus. Reviewer just gave us an excuse to talk about her and her work.
M, that comment makes you seem jaded. As a photographer, i appreciate each opportunity to see photographic prints in the flesh, and for me it always adds a level of appreciation. Viewing images in books or online, seems like looking at the menu of a fine restaurant, but never experiencing the meal itself.
That may have once been aspirationally true, but I think that horse left the barn a long time ago.
Today's critics mostly seem to either be bitter failed artists in their own right or socio-political agenda peddlers. The artifact under consideration seems to take a very deep back seat to either (or both of those) agenda(s).
You blame "the internet" but I see that as a result, not a cause. In my view, it was the "intellectuals" of the last century that created current conditions. The assault on aesthetics (and for that matter all philosophy broadly) got put into motion by the existentialists starting with Martin Heidegger and reached full bloom with Camus and Sartre.
But the real damage was done by the deconstructionists and postmodernists of the 1950s and beyond. They effectively robbed art of all meaning. Art was no longer about beauty or a meditation on the human experience. Instead - we were told - art is less important than the attributes of the artist - their biases, their history, their politics, their mustache ... you name it.
From the Greek philosophers forward, humanity had been on a quest to find truth, beauty, and meaning. That came to a screeching halt with the postmoderns who declared these very notions to neither exist nor matter. This fully took hold in the universities, schools of religion, and eventually made its way into K-12 primary "education".
And that is why every undeveloped thinker with a microphone and camera can become an expert at anything, among which includes art criticism.
Last edited:
"And that is why every undeveloped thinker with a microphone and camera can become an expert at anything, among which includes art criticism." (chuckroast)
Multi quote Reply
Multi quote Reply
Sadly, I suspect you're right. Thank you for your thoughts.
Agree with some of what you say, but this is wrong. Heidegger was not an existentialist, and neither Sartre nor Camus had much to say about aesthetics. The existentialists got some stuff out of Heidegger, but he was far from the only source. Moreoever, as I mentioned before, Camus did not consider himself an existentialist, and the distance he took after the war with Sartre's vision is well documented.
That said, the intellectuals your are refering to are not the existentialists but the deconstructionists. The main French intellectual who derived deconstructionism from Heidegger was Jacques Derrida.
Now before blaming Heidegger for all that's bad in this world, one should be careful. His writings were so complex that they give birth to more than one current of thought, and some of them were quite interesting. Hannah Arendt, for example, is still quite relevant today, as are, in the realm of aesthetics, the works of Gadamer.
Heidegger's essay about van Gogh (The Origins of the Art Work) is a tough but fascinating read.
"And that is why every undeveloped thinker with a microphone and camera can become an expert at anything, among which includes art criticism." (chuckroast)
Multi quote Reply
How do you know "chuckroast" is a developed thinker?
I was referring to the general art viewing audience. One of the reasons I don't think this review makes any difference is that either way it's not like there would be lineups around the block to see this exhibit, Arbus or not.
He was not formally so, I agree (and he resisted that label), but his work kicked Existential Phenomenology into motion.
IMO, what they had in common was an emphasis on experience over objective knowledge. However subtle and unintentional, this was the root of the eventual destruction of truth an beauty visited upon us by the postmoderns.
I did not mean to suggest there was some mustache twirling going on here. Camus and Sartre were responding to a world in complete misery and desperately trying to find meaning therein. It's just that they opened some doors that others walked through which led us to where we are today.
Agreed. But that was not a straight line. I don't see Derrida getting any traction without not only Heidegger, but Camus and Sarte laying the groundwork, no matter how obliquely.
I really don't mean to blame him for all that has gone wrong. It was Derrida and his postmodern spawn that followed deconstructionism that did all the actual damage. Each of the people in question here were brilliant in their own way, and prior to Derridas appeared to have good intent. It's just that some of the dumbest things come from the smartest people
But my larger point still stands, I think. Today's internet culture is a symptom, not a cause. It's denizens making all this foolish noise have been educated to believe that truth does not exist, beauty is whatever you decide it is, meaning is only personal, and everyone before us was <something>-ist, intolerant, oppressive, and discovering that is way more important than appreciating art, music, history, philosophy, or just plain thinking ...
MattKing
Moderator
Given current temperatures, that probably depends on whether or not the exhibit is air conditioned.
By the way, I do think the thread is about the article as much as it is about the exhibit.
Because I marinated in D-76 for an hour without agitation?
Did you experience bromide drift???!
Well I did some streaking, if that's what you mean ...
On that, we'll disagree. Camus was too much the humanist to get involved with such sterile intellectual pursuits. And Camus was about hope, not despair. If you read him, you'll see that if today we did walk through the doors he opened, we could find some ideas towards a solution to some of humanities problems. The Plague is an immensely relevant book for our times.
It's just that some of the dumbest things come from the smartest people
On this, we're in total agreement
.
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |