Arbus Retrospective Draws Criticism

[Arthurwg]

But what this REALLY means is that I need more people looking at my pictures ...

Well said. The rest is BS.

 

[Cyclopean]

I find the criticism of Arbus here completely off target. "Classist?" She is as evocative of wealth as poverty. I prefer her own description of what she was doing: showing things we would not otherwise see. In doing this she is compassionate and laser sharp.

 

[warden]

I find the criticism of Arbus here completely off target. "Classist?" She is as evocative of wealth as poverty. I prefer her own description of what she was doing: showing things we would not otherwise see. In doing this she is compassionate and laser sharp.

Welcome to Photrio!

 

[chuckroast]

I find the criticism of Arbus here completely off target. "Classist?" She is as evocative of wealth as poverty. I prefer her own description of what she was doing: showing things we would not otherwise see. In doing this she is compassionate and laser sharp.

1. Welcome to Photrio

2. Prepare to see much of this sort of thing

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I saw the show. I found the curatorial decision to mount it that way to be simultaneously innovative and maddening. I, who already had a knowledge and awareness of her work, was frustrated by the way things were labeled. It wasn't that there was NO wall text, but rather the index system to identify images was truly bizarre - each image was numbered, and there was a wall plaque somewhere on each grid that had the index, which was in numerical sequence, but the images were not in numerical sequence on their wall, so you had to keep going back and forth to figure out which was which. I get the idea they were going for- that you should take in the images as you find them, without any kind of hierarchical organizing principle. And in that sense, it was effective, but it made the exhibition process become as important a piece of art as the art itself, which IMHO detracted from the art.

 

[Michael Howard]

Um...it's

There once was a man from Nantucket.

And I do know the whole, but won't say it here with such fine philosophers, though I think Monty Python would add most of you to the list.

 

[Dr. no]

In that wondrous level of synchronicity that pursues me, this popped up in “today’s posts” just after I had looked up a commencement speaker’s Wikipedia article, which linked to a website with a an odd-sounding title for an art review. “What is this Hyperallergic thing?” I wondered… disappointingly it turns out to be exactly what I feared, a critique of motive, background, inappropriate focus on inappropriate technique over inappropriate content, gender (if cis, or at least male), etc.

If no one sees the photograph, does it even exist?

Art, like our other patriarchal inventions fire and language, is a multifunctional tool: it communicates, ignites, confounds and destroys, it turns the indigestible to nutritious, it binds groups together and defines the Other.
But, in direct response to the debate of whether art must communicate, or at least be seen, no… at least not that it must be seen by others. Art has clearly always had function in its creation as well as its sharing. Perhaps it’s highest existence is in the joy, or other high emotions, it may evoke when both are accomplished (and perhaps not), but the release of feelings and ideas from the creator’s mind and heart are no less vital than the communication.

 

[jvo]

The stupidity of this is dumbfounding. Written by somebody who has absolutely no photographic culture whatsoever, and very little knowledge and comprehension of who Diane Arbus was, what she did and why she did it. That's just unforgivable laziness. 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.

But wait, there's stupider:



What the hell does this mean? We should dismiss all artists from the past who looked at the world differently than we do know? F*cking Après moi le déluge indeed! "Hey, all you pre-15th-century painters, the era of looking at the world without perspective is dead. Sorry, you belong to an artistic school of thought that has run its course."

I can't wait for the artistic school of My Generation Invented Everything to run its course!

Oh, and someone, please tell me which "artistic school of thought" Diane Arbus belonged to? Cold-classicist-gazeism? If so, missed the day when it was seen in art history class.



Now this one is rich. I can play that game too: "Absent from the Mona Lisa are labels with useful information about this painting: who da Vinci's subject was, how he met her, and what joke he cracked to make her smile like that."

This type of amateurism in criticism is the reason I stopped reading many arts blog, including Hyperallergic. Thankfully there are some intellingent and insightful critics out there.

You don't get into a persons' living room, then to have them stand in front of your camera and pose as instructed, unless you've gotten their permission and cooperation - established rapport!

Her work was done close-up and personal with the subjects agreement.

The author simply didn't do his homework on arbus.

p.s. dang, I was in NY at the time and didn't see the show... my only consolation is that had I know, I still would have been to busy to go! I didn't do my homework!

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

You don't get into a persons' living room, then to have them stand in front of your camera and pose as instructed, unless you've gotten their permission and cooperation - established rapport!

Her work was done close-up and personal with the subjects agreement.

The author simply didn't do his homework on arbus.

p.s. dang, I was in NY at the time and didn't see the show... my only consolation is that had I know, I still would have been to busy to go! I didn't do my homework!

I just barely got to see it- I think I was there the weekend of or the weekend before it closed.