What makes Diane Arbus so good?

Paul. · May 17, 2009

This weekend I visited the Diane Arbus show at the National Meusem of Wales Cardiff, what a disapointment.

Have been led to belive she was a seminal influance of her time, what I found was explotative unsympathetic photos poorly printed that left me feeling like a voyer at a freak show.
I think her treatment of the subject of downs symdrome people to be abhorent, I remember the 70s and the hideing of disabilaty but this was not empowering of the people more if I cannot make it as a photographer I will make it as a shok jock.

I have always belived that everyone even the ugly deserves the best photo possible not this explotation.

So what did I miss please?

Phillip P. Dimor · May 17, 2009

I haven't seen that show but I do own the Aperture Monograph. I think there are a few ways to look at it, and over the years i've gone from loving a lot of her work to seeing it in the way that you see it now; exploitative. The picture of the twins along with the boy with grenade are my favorites.

I think that initially she found comfort in her photographs and after a long while they did not comfort her or perhaps haunted her in a way.

The Aperture Monograph doesn't have a lot of the pictures that were taken late in her career (the ones at the mental retardation homes).. Most of the ones i've seen make me feel sad. I don't think she liked taking those pictures but I also don't think that she was trying to show that, either.

I still think her style and vision were unique at the time, I'm not sure if it's good in a good way.. It was just different.

I'm also the jerk who doesn't really care for Ansel Adams prints but i'm willing to bet that if I saw a huge print in person it would be a different story.

SuzanneR · May 17, 2009

The pictures she made at the mental retardation homes were released posthumously. I'm not sure, had she lived, if or how she would have presented that work as it was incomplete at the time she committed suicide.

As Phillip said, she had a unique vision, and she wanted her prints to look and feel like newspaper images, so she tended to manipulate only the contrast of a picture with very little burning and dodging. That is my understanding of her intent.

With all that said, and I do find her work intriguing, there's almost too much of Diane Arbus in the pictures, and not enough expression from the people she photographed. I think a number of her sitters, like the twins, were actually quite normal, but I think Arbus' personality is so strongly mirrored in the work that it obscures the personality of her subjects. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, necessarily, but it can be a little unnerving when looking at her pictures.

Now, I could be wrong here, but I think the fact that she committed suicide at a relatively young age has given her work more attention than it might have received had she lived longer, and not committed suicide.

Pinholemaster · May 17, 2009

When she was photographing in the 1960s we were in a culture war with the Soviet Union. So much of photography showed the pretty and best our capitalist system wanted to promote to the world. Arbus comes along to deflate the myth. Very similar to why the Nazis didn't want August Sander's work show because his world debunked the myth of the 'Arian Nation.' People with Downs Syndrome were put in a closet never to be seen. Arbus opened the doors and windows forcing people to see an America that we were ignoring.

keithwms · May 17, 2009

Paul, for one thing you missed the spelling of voyeur

I'll not try to say why (or whether) she was great; my opinion is irrelevant. But we discussed greatness here recently, and one point of consensus (I think) was that context is/was very important to how photography is received. If Arbus' images don't work you, that's fine, but nevertheless it's worthwhile to understand why it was considered influential.

A body of work doesn't have to be comfortable nor ethical nor technically good nor well printed to be effective. It just has to take you somewhere you haven't been before... correction! : it has to have taken the audience somewhere they hadn't been before. There is a big difference.

There is plenty of work in the annals of photography that'd not get a 2nd notice today, simply because the work was so influential in its time that everybody thereafter started to do it and then it became trite.

wayne naughton · May 17, 2009

SuzanneR said:
.....

With all that said, and I do find her work intriguing, there's almost too much of Diane Arbus in the pictures, and not enough expression from the people she photographed. I think a number of her sitters, like the twins, were actually quite normal, but I think Arbus' personality is so strongly mirrored in the work that it obscures the personality of her subjects. I'm not sure that's a bad thing, necessarily, but it can be a little unnerving when looking at her pictures.

Now, I could be wrong here, but I think the fact that she committed suicide at a relatively young age has given her work more attention than it might have received had she lived longer, and not committed suicide.

Suzanne, I agree with you completely, but I do think you are being far too kind. I find Arbus's images to be vicious and narcississistic and totally lacking in empathy. And the sad thing is that they set the 'gold' standard for the next 30 years of American documentary photography.

Bill Harrison · May 17, 2009

"A body of work doesn't have to be comfortable nor ethical nor technically good nor well printed..... " What's left to make it effective? I can't agree with your assumption, EVERY photograph I see takes "us" where we haven't been before. That's the whole idea of photography, a slice of time in a place we can never revisit as seen through the artist's lens and eye... Ms Arbus's eye and creative gift was effective in much of her work but not all... The same can be said about others, W E Smith comes to mind with his late, some would say disturbing, work. Look at what they all left for the rest of us.... bless them all, we should be so productive...

AZLF · May 17, 2009

Call me a Philistine if you wish but I have never found anything in her work to make me want to give it a second look. She and a number of other photographers were the moment's darling of the "art" crowd and made me stop listening to the supposed experts in the field when they loudly proclaimed the newest wonder they had "discovered".

Flame suit on.

BWKate · May 17, 2009

I find her photographs of people with Down's Syndrome to be particularily interesting. I have a brother with Down's Syndrome and have photographed him many times over the years. I read somewhere that she was very uncomfortable around these people and it really shows in the images. She couldn't really impose her personality on these people and that might have made her uneasy.

keithwms · May 17, 2009

Bill Harrison said:
"A body of work doesn't have to be comfortable nor ethical nor technically good nor well printed..... " What's left to make it effective?

Context, context, and context. I don't want to say what I thought when I first saw Arbus' work; let's just say I was underwhelmed. So then I wondered (as the original poster is wondering) what's up with all her fame. My own conclusion is that the time.. and where society was at that time... established a context that was favourable to her work. In Beaver Cleaver America, Arbus' work might have provided some of the first glimpses of 'imperfection' that people had seen in the photographic world. At least, that theory is how I came to terms with her work.

Beyond the context of her times, how might her work relevant today? Well, I suppose that the genre of imperfection/defect (whether manifest in the image and/or in the subject matter) might be resurgent now, as a necessary reaction to overly edited (and downright fake) images that we see all around us.

Just to reiterate, there is nothing warm & fuzzy to me in Arbus' images. Not at all, it's very uncomfortable to me. But I simply think it's worthwhile to try to figure out why people are still talking about it. Your mileage may vary

jovo · May 17, 2009

The photography scholar and curator of the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, Anne Wilkes Tucker, has written this as her guide to the value of a photographer's work: ""I ask myself what does the photographer want me to think? What does he/she want me to feel? Have they chosen the best craft to express themselves, i.e. should it have been in color, not black and white, should the print have been larger or smaller? What do I learn, what do I remember? It is important to me that I remember a picture days and weeks after having first seen it."

Diane Arbus made photographs that are indelibly etched in my memory for as long as it's been since I first saw them...which must be decades by now. I don't like them at all, but I simply cannot forget them. They are powerful and memorable. Pauil, in the OP, wonders what he missed. Well, Paul, see how her work stands up to Ms. Tucker's criteria. In a few weeks, perhaps you will have answered your own question.

Thomas Wilson · May 17, 2009

I have developed a pretty thick skin over the years and have little use for a "Flame suit." I will loudly state that bad does not equal good, regardless of how many expert art critics proclaim it.

"It's black & white, so it must be good."
"It's primitive black & white so it must be really good."

Creative, shocking, intriguing, tragic, sad, are words that have been used to describe Arbus' work. I could also use these words to describe a crime-scene photograph. With the possible exception of one such crime scene photo taken in 1932, that is hanging in my living room (It's part of a Photographer's set), I would be hard-pressed to describe them as influential works of art.

I would be more likely to describe the fawning critics of these bohemian contrivances as gullible.

Michael W · May 17, 2009

Diane Arbus was a great photographer, sincere & dedicated and she made many great photos. Her status is well deserved. Some people don't get it & never will so there's no point trying to "explain" her. Read the biography & Revelations if you are truly curious & not just trolling.

Toffle · May 17, 2009

keithwms said:
Just to reiterate, there is nothing warm & fuzzy to me in Arbus' images. Not at all, it's very uncomfortable to me. But I simply think it's worthwhile to try to figure out why people are still talking about it. Your mileage may vary

Agreed and agreed.

As a viewer of art, (voyeur?) I reject the stricture that all art must please. As an artistic subject, the darker side of the human psyche is certainly more interesting and often more appealing than its tamer counterpart. I have seen modern dance that was so disturbing that I almost felt compelled to leave the theatre. I have been shocked and disturbed by the offerings in many a modern art exhibit. Alban Berg's Wozzeck chills me to the bone, yet I gladly listen till the last dissonant strains have faded. I do not consider this bad art. For me, it is moving and compelling, and if by chance I don't get it, my first reaction is not to blame the artist; the failure is most likely my own.

I am awed and inspired by artists who are so sure of their voice that they walk without fear among the pedants and the zealots. I know I will not "get" all art... the photographs of Joel Peter Witkin both attract and repel me, yet I only wish I could take a photograph with half the power of his work.

As for Diane Arbus, I agree that her haunting images are as much about her as by her. I know few enough photographers who can capture any true spirit in their images, much less bare their own souls in their pictures of others.

Regards,

lns · May 17, 2009

Her striking visual style. Her curiousity. Her bravery. Her quest to put pain, and strangeness, and difference, in a photograph. The feeling, as noted above, that her photographs are as much about her as about the subjects. These are some of the things which make her a great artist, in my opinion.

These things have certainly impressed many critics and influenced a lot of photographers who came after her.

Obviously these things also make her work hard to take.

I'd say, give it time, come back to it.

-Laura

Moopheus · May 17, 2009

Thomas Wilson said:
Creative, shocking, intriguing, tragic, sad, are words that have been used to describe Arbus' work. I could also use these words to describe a crime-scene photograph. With the possible exception of one such crime scene photo taken in 1932, that is hanging in my living room (It's part of a Photographer's set), I would be hard-pressed to describe them as influential works of art.

Funny you say that, since one of her influences was Weegee, whom she knew. And whether you consider it art or not, Weegee's work was clearly influential.

darkprints · May 17, 2009

Personally, I see no reason why everyone should appreciate or understand Diane Arbus' work. How sad it would be if she appealed to the lowest common denominator. Since when is Popularity a sign of Greatness?

There are a lot of folks who would rather own a Thomas Kinkade over a Diane Arbus. Who's to say they're not entitled to their opinions?

The art history critics acknowledge Diane Arbus as one of the most important photographers of the 20th century. They probably know more than you do about art - please do some research before bashing.

Thomas Wilson · May 17, 2009

Moopheus said:
Funny you say that, since one of her influences was Weegee, whom she knew. And whether you consider it art or not, Weegee's work was clearly influential.

Now that is funny. I guess I stand corrected.

DaveOttawa · May 17, 2009

Paul. said:
This weekend I visited the Diane Arbus show at the National Meusem of Wales Cardiff, what a disapointment.
...
So what did I miss please?

I'm glad you took the time to visit the show but if you only saw her work done at the end of her career you missed a lot. The monograph/biography "Revelations" (Publisher: Random House) covers her entire life & career, if you want to revisit Arbus that might be a good place to start.

Ian David · May 17, 2009

goldie said:
Diane Arbus was a great photographer, sincere & dedicated and she made many great photos. Her status is well deserved. Some people don't get it & never will so there's no point trying to "explain" her. Read the biography & Revelations if you are truly curious & not just trolling.

The OP has so far made one post in this thread, which reads to me like an honest query, to which a number of people have responded with interesting/thoughtful comments. The OP has not come back with an irrational response to those posts. Why suggest he might be trolling? That accusation seems to be an increasingly common reaction on photography forums to negative comments about revered people or cameras. If you "get it", why not take 30 seconds to sincerely explain your insight at least in broad terms? Maybe the OP is one of those ignorant sods who can nevertheless be educated.

darkprints said:
The art history critics acknowledge Diane Arbus as one of the most important photographers of the 20th century. They probably know something more than we do - if you're interested, please do some research before bashing.

This is a photography discussion forum. Why does the OP need to become an Arbus expert before stating his reaction to a photography exhibition, and asking for the thoughts of others? Where is the bashing?

I have mixed thoughts on Arbus, and have found this thread interesting. Thoughtful comments are more likely to inspire me to do further research than are dismissive references to critical acclaim or special personal insight.

Shan Ren · May 17, 2009

I was at an exhibition once a long long time ago. A group of people were standing around an art work that was very very challenging on many many levels. Three critics, two collectors and a few artists (from memory) were having an incredibly heated discussion that included insults and fingers pointing at, and tapping on, chests. In the middle of it one of the collectors grabbed the gallery owner and said he would buy it. He said something along the lines of if these people can't agree on it then the artist is going to be important and I want to encourage her. She did become important but, unfortunately, died young.

I like the work Arbus did. Have liked it from the first time I saw it. She can be hard to like and I don't think I would have liked her personally if I had meet her, but her work is defiantly seminal.

We all have different tastes. Me, I think Ansel Adams was a technically proficient photographer/propagandist for a world that doesn't exist. The work I come closest to liking is his photographs of Japanese Americans in concentration camps during WW2. Personally, if I never see another perfectly exposed, everything sharp, Black and White large format rock/tree/cabbage/skull photograph taken with a view camera I will be happy. Others love that sort of thing. More power to them. (And before anyone says anything, I have seen Adams work in many galleries and private collections, have read his books and even, once, very briefly, talked with his son).

We all have different taste, all based on our education, background, experience and personal aesthetic. Just because I/you/we don't like it doesn't mean it isn't good. Kind of like some forms of Cantonese food.......

darkprints · May 17, 2009

Shan Ren - Thanks for your intelligent and thoughtful much appreciated comments.

phaedrus · May 17, 2009

Paul. said:
So what did I miss please?

The next step in interpretation. Look into their eyes, then step in front of a mirror and look yourself in the eyes. We're all the same: freaks, delusional, torn, seeking love and wholeness.

Saganich · May 17, 2009

I think she felt like a voyeur in a freak show. I've never thought that art was about anything other then the artist.

Phillip P. Dimor · May 18, 2009

The Patricia Bonsworth book that is 'based on' or actually about Arbus is a good read but i'm not sure how much of it is truth..

The movie Fur.. is beautifully filmed. Robert Downy Jr. is really good in it. There's a few shots of nice cameras, lots of rollei's (shame shame, the Mamiya is too heavy for Nicole?) And the nicest 'light wall'.. I mean an illuminated wall, entire wall, of plexiglass for viewing negatives or so it seems. Otherwise the movie was pretty bad. At least I thought. A bit OT, sorry.

What makes Diane Arbus so good?

Paul.

Phillip P. Dimor

SuzanneR

Moderator

Pinholemaster

keithwms

wayne naughton

Bill Harrison

AZLF

BWKate

keithwms

jovo

Membership Council

Thomas Wilson

Michael W

Toffle

lns

Moopheus

darkprints

Thomas Wilson

DaveOttawa

Ian David

Shan Ren

darkprints

phaedrus

Saganich

Phillip P. Dimor

What makes Diane Arbus so good?

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency