Diane Arbus
Wayne Johnson
austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
Sat Jun 26 23:50:42 2004
Those who like Diane Arbus, such as myself, probably have reasons such as
these:
1. At a time when there were some fairly strong "unwritten" rules about
what "American citizens" could or should see, Diane Arbus took a lot of
risks to show what people who were "outsiders".
2. Not all of her images are of "freaks". Personally, I don't like the
word Freak.
3. Technically, she is fairly good. No one would confuse her with Brett
Weston or Richard Avedon, but so what. Her images are clear, usually well
composed, well printed, good values and "black and white color". I don't
think she went out of her way to "work" her prints.
4. Her forte is capturing what people do but we don't want to see or
recognize. Women with swords in their throats, children sticking out their
tongues, people in duress. She wasn't prurient in her interest, more likely
a sort of horrid (and seductive) fascination. More like "reportage".
5. She is, in my opinion, a "feminist photographer" and I don't mean
charter member of NOW, but her "take" on things is, I believe, strongly
feminine. Sometimes she is "cold" but many times "compassionate." I would
include Imogen Cunningham and Ruth Bernhard in the same category. Possibly
Dorothy Lange. Probably Mary Ellen Marks in many images. Stephanie may
disagree.
I think that if many of her images had been taken by, say, Frederick Arbus,
people would have been talking about what a great documentarian "he" was.
Diane Arbus although well off financially wasn't "glamorous" like Margaret
Bourke-White. She wasn't looking at the "global" but the "macro",
especially with people. Some might say she is a direct progenitor of
Mapplethorpe or Witkins. I would argue that photographers Judy Dater and
Cindy Sherman were influenced by Arbus, not solely, but I think there
are....oh, gee, I hate to write this way...."sub-textual connections." She
was considered pretty important by many photographers we knew in the Sixties
and Seventies on the West Coast.
Please don't think that because someone is interested in photographing
people Outside the Mainstream and their work is considered important, that
logically implies anything...in a general sense...about "greatness, which I
translate to mean "long term aesthetic worth." Also, "beauty" is too vague
a term, too linked to current fashion. Just look at Gibson girls for
instance or the voluptuous movie stars of the Forties and Fifties. Can you
imagine Jane Russell being idolized today? Today's fashion is "slim" or
"deathly anorexic". Why? Sells clothes! Period. Buff is good now, like
Greed was good ten years ago, or Hip was good thirty years ago (and mostly
abused by the non-hip.)
What is "good" is too often determined by what is "new" and what is new
is...from the art gallery point-of-view...what is currently selling. Recall
Andy Warhol's great "15 minutes of Fame" dictum. How prescient. Speaking
of Warhol, I knew some really good artists who really hated him. Considered
him an aesthetic abomination. Clement Greenberg and the Guggenheims pretty
much determined what was going to be "great American art" in the Fifites and
Sixties. Abstract Expressionism superceded "regionalism" or "modernism" and
so on and so forth. It is no long at all radical, but is now the
"Establishment" just as L'Ecole des Beaux Artes formulas were a hundred
years prior. What is great, what is good, what is mediocre, what is "high
art" or "low art" changes with the seasons and the "investment" economy.
People used to think Von Gogh was utter trash, now look.
Who knows where Arbus will wind up in the "Final History of American Art -
Photographic section". Maybe just behind Ansel Adams? (there is a joke
there.)
Cheers.
wayne J
----- Original Message -----
From: <globe@zipcon.net>
To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>; "Jon Ford" <jonmfordster@hotmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Amy Arbus fine second-rate photographer
> apros of nothing,but is Diane Arbus considered a great photographer
because of
> her skill or because she chose to photograph freaks? If the latter then
does
> tht mean greatness is freaky and unpleasant? In some other age beauty and
> symnetry were considerd great but now is considered mediocre. Does the
fact
> that our generation think Diane Arbus great is more telling about us than
her
> ability?
> Carolyn
>
> Quoting Jon Ford <jonmfordster@hotmail.com>:
>
> > <html><div style='background-color:'><DIV class=RTE>
> > <P>Right, Mike, I couldn't have said it better myself, although you are
> > probably right about saying Amy Arbus is less greatr than her mom.
> > That's a pretty safe bet!</P>
> > <P>Jon Ford<BR><BR></P></DIV>
> > <DIV></DIV>>From: "Michael Eisenstadt" <michaele@HotPOP.com>
> > <DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net
> > <DIV></DIV>>To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
> > <DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Amy Arbus fine second-rate photographer
> > <DIV></DIV>>Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2004 13:35:21 -0600
> > <DIV></DIV>>
> > <DIV></DIV>>That sounds like a Jon Ford remark.
> > <DIV></DIV>>
> > <DIV></DIV>>----- Original Message -----
> > <DIV></DIV>>From: "Wayne Johnson" <cadaobh@shentel.net>
> > <DIV></DIV>>To: <austin-ghetto-list@pairlist.net>
> > <DIV></DIV>>Sent: Saturday, June 26, 2004 12:15 PM
> > <DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: Amy Arbus fine second-rate photographer
> > <DIV></DIV>>
> > <DIV></DIV>>
> > <DIV></DIV>> > And just how is it that you are a judge of who is
> > and who isn't a good
> > <DIV></DIV>> > photographer?
> > <DIV></DIV>> >
> > <DIV></DIV>> > wayne
> > <DIV></DIV>>
> > <DIV></DIV>>
> > <DIV></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a
> > href="http://g.msn.com/8HMBENUS/2755??PS=47575">Is your PC infected? Get
> > a FREE online computer virus scan from McAfeeŽ Security.</a> </html>
> >
> >
>
>
>
> Carolyn Siscoe Browse our books on Antqbook.com
> GLOBE BOOKSTORE Bibliology.com and TomFolio.com.
> 5220 B University Way NE
> Seattle, Washington
> 98105
> 206-527 2480
>
>