Arbus (NYRB)

[._._z]

Janet Malcolm article on Diane Arbus in the 15 Jan 2004 issue of the NY Review of

Books:

<p>

 

<b> <i> If the threat of taking boring pix hangs over every photographer of

ambition, Diane Arbus was perhaps more conscious of it than any other

photographer. Her photographs relentlessly tell us how interesting they are; they dare

us to look away from them. If our favorite thing in the world is not to look at pictures

of freaks and transvestites and nudists and mentally retarded people, this cuts no ice

with Arbus. She forces us to acknowledge that these are no ordinary unpleasant

pictures of society's discards. They are photographs only Diane Arbus could have

taken. </i> </b> <p>

 

Link: <p>

 

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16870

[mike dixon]

<i>If our favorite thing in the world is not to look at pictures of

freaks and transvestites and nudists and mentally retarded

people, . . .</i><P>

I think that's a very faulty premise. Dealing with such people in

"real life" probably makes most people very uncomfortable, but

presented in a safe format, such as a photo or a freak show, I

suspect many people find such "curiosities" fascinating.

[peter_glass1]

I agree with Mike. I personally don't feel uncomfortable looking at her photographs. Nor do I agree with the reviewer:

 

"Her photographs relentlessly tell us how interesting they are; they dare us to look away from them. If our favorite thing in the world is not to look at pictures of freaks and transvestites and nudists and mentally retarded people, this cuts no ice with Arbus."

 

I am not a Diane Arbus fan. I don't find her photos relentlessly "interesting." Her style was to record her subjects straight on, with complete detachment, void of emotion or even context. (OTOH, the little kid with a toy pistol pointed to his head is one I greatly admire.) Now, that's all right if you chose to work that way, and she certainly has a legion of devotees. In the end, though, we are left with a pile of pictures of "feaks and transvestites and nudist and retarded people." Kind of like my family album, come to think of it.

[andy_laycock]

I don't think I've seen the photo with the kid and a gun pointing to his head. As for being detached, I used to think that but if you've seen the latest book (by her heirs) they show many photos that have never been seen and also some contact sheets. One contact sheet in particular is of the boy with the toy grenade and he his shown in many poses. In this case she is not detached at all. I suspect that she spent alot of time with her subjects and interacted with them. I think the photos that she eventually chose give a feeling of detachement. Was she looking for this perhaps? I'm not sure. I do know, though, that she felt much more comfortable with the her subjects than she did in the 'normal world'. Considering her mental problems I can understand why.

 

Another area that this book showed, in some detail, was her darkroom. She spent quite a bit of time working out the technical aspects of printing and even mixed her own chemicals. This was a suprise to me since I've heard many slag her efforts as being lucky accidents etc. I think she was a true artist and photography in every area. She was complete and she deserves the credit she still receives. She was definitely a ground breaker.

[peter_glass1]

Perhaps the photo I remembered does have a toy granade instead of a pistol. Like I said, I'm not an Arbus fan. I believe her brother was Howard Nimorov (sp?). He was a fine poet, and taught at Washington University here in St. Louis. I attended one of his lectures some years ago, and the man was a very impressive intellect.

[j2dor]

I'm not a big fan either. For me, her work makes me feel better more and more about not trying to have a subject or story in my own work. I think photography is very much like meditation. The end result may be nothing at all. In her case - aside from her early demise - the work ended in sheer tedium of finding the new freak.

[Spearhead]

<i>the work ended in sheer tedium of finding the new freak.</i><p>

 

Having been to the exhibit that resulted in the recent flurry of Arbus publicity, and having most of the books of her work that have been published, I have to say that this comment is ignorant. Arbus photographed a wide variety of people, many of them quite "normal." I would say that "freak" could probably apply to a lot of people perceived as "normal" anyway.<p>

 

What Arbus did is show <i>her</i> view of people, which may have made some of them look like "freaks" to others, but that's a very different thing than looking for "freaks."<p>

 

I would guess that most of the people who you are calling "freaks" don't consider themselves to be that, and it's pretty obvious from reading Arbus' own writing that she didn't either. It's your problem, not hers.

[j2dor]

Again, allow me one more ignorant comment. I am not going to argue about the word "freaks." But, in the late 60's and 1970, she was lost a pattern of trying to find that next "so-normal-that-it-is-odd." I am by no means a critic or aspire to be one. I know how hard it is to just load film some days. But if you looks at Sander's Men Without Masks, from same period, you'l see a quality there that she never got. It is even more sad that her career ended the way it did, since her work had become more and more detached (and, in my ignorant opinion) better.

[._._z]

<i> in the late 60's and 1970, she was lost a pattern of trying to find that next "so-

normal-that-it-is-odd." </i><p>

 

I believe you're unfamiliar with all her work, including her commercial and magazine

work.

[Spearhead]

I'd agree. Either go to the show in San Francisco, get the book that accompanies the show (Revelations), or stop making ignorant statements. It really does no good to invent a life for someone whose work you don't appreciate.

[j2dor]

I have a feeling that no matter how many books, prints or shows of the late Ms. Arbus

I've seen would make much difference in this conversation. I didn't realize that this

was the Arbus-as-remembered-by-Jeff forum. Do me a favor and get over yourself.

All of us are entitled to some opinion even if you categorize it ignorant.

[._._z]

<i> I didn't realize that this was the Arbus-as-remembered-by-Jeff forum. </i><p>

 

Hey, I'm not Jeff. I also initiated this thread. <p>

 

But apparently we both have seen more of her work than you. If you want to dislike

some of her work, fine. But don't try making an incorrect overarching comment about

her work <i>"in the late 60's and 1970"</i> and not expect to be called on it.

[robert_landis]

I am not an art historian or such. I was first drawn to art and photography in part because I found the photographs of Diane Arbus powerful and compelling. I don't even have a book of her's but I still remember many of the photos she made.

 

She had a very strong artistic vision, in my opinion.