Diane Arbus?

When I was in college I took a photography course. This was back in the days when film was developed and we learned dark room as well as picture taking. As a sociology major I took the course pass/fail something my teacher found insulting. ok

I took a picture of two couples, two of my mother's brothers and their wives. They were just sitting in a row, but I thought it had an Arbus quality to it. I worked it hard in the dark room. The teacher called it a snapshot. What he should have said was that it was "derivative at best, and just a poor, immature copy at worst". He should have asked me who I thought I was to try to imitate a great master. But what he said was that it was a 'snap shot'.

And of course, the snapshot criticism is what a lot of her critics claimed. While I am not in her class, but rather a kindergardener to her post PhD, I do know great photography when I see it. To look at an Arbus photograph is to be lost in all the possibilities that were invisible until she took the picture.

1. She Maked The Freakish Normal

2. She Makes the Normal Freakish

3. She Is Very Quotable (something that I didn't know before)

Jim Lewis 10/3/03

Diane the CoedArbus' photos of freakish, strange people are disappointingly pious.

By Jim Lewis

Well, that was a shocker. I guess I should read on and see if this guy has anything to say.

Lewis goes on to explain how both her subjects and even her equipment were in opposition to the workings of the day. The way she shot, is part of what made normal people look freakish.

"Well, art doesn't work that way. A picture is only redemptive, for its maker, its audience, or its subject, when it isn't trying; morality, if it exists at all, arises only as an unintended by-product of the work's own demands. Arbus was a great photographer, yes; there's no denying that. She was a master of the medium, and she had an eye like no one else's. But imagine how much better she might have been, if she wasn't trying so hard to be good."

I love Diane Arbus' work. I think it is respectful and wonderous. However, I am not without mixed feelings.

For example, while I believe that she respected her subjects, I have to wonder if those who posed were the precursors of those who appear on Jerry Springer and the ubiquitous 'Judge' shows to find out 'who their baby Daddy is'.

I wonder even more at the normal people. Surely they knew that no one came out normal in Diane Arbus' lens. I think I understand her, but what about them? Of course, it was a purer time, simpler for sure. Perhaps they just didn't think at all beyond the excitement of their 15 minutes of fame.

I would really like to hear what you think of her work AND her subjects. Thanks for participating.

What Do You Think of Diane Arbus' Work?

In July of 1971 Diane Arbus took a large amount of barbituates and then slashed her wrists, leaving little doubt as to her intent.

Her suicide was even freakish. She loved her freaks and served them because she considered herself to be one of them.

"Diane Arbus was born, to a wealthy Jewish family, in 1923. David Nemerov, her father, was the hard-working son of a Russian immigrant; her mother Gertrude was the daughter of the owners of Russek's Fur Store. After the marriage, David helped manage Russek's, and oversaw its transformation into a department store, Russek's of Fifth Avenue, which specialized in furs. His interest, however, was in women's clothing, and he was said to have an extraordinary intuition for what the next trend in women's fashion would be.

Diane (pronounced Dee-Ann ) was a privileged child, raised with her two siblings in large apartments on Central Park West and Park Avenue. She later told Studs Terkel, for his Hard Times: An Oral History of the Depression , "I grew up feeling immune and exempt from circumstance. One of the things I suffered from was that I never felt adversity. I was confirmed in a sense of unreality."

From Daniel Oppenheimer (see above)

Share your stories, sightings, thoughts, rants, raves...