From: Don Bryant (dsbryant@mindspring.com)
Date: 09/17/03-09:01:07 PM Z
Judy,
>> I especially appreciated the fact that (although it didn't mention me by
> name SPECIFICALLY) this article proved my point that Arbus was not cruel,
> but loving.
I think people may have thought of her as being explotive with her
photography of mentally retarded children and adults, similar perhaps to the
way Joel Peter Witkin is perceived (rightly or wrongly in his case).
> I am also convinced that the hostility to her work is because
> she dared show MEN as less than glamorous, too presumptuous in our photo
> culture for a woman.
I 've never read reviews of her work that gave me that impression at all
Judy, but I haven't read everything written about Diane. Personally for me
her gender never influenced my feeling about her work one way or the other.
I simply admired her photography and was very disappointed when I read of
her death. Before reading the Times article this week I did think that there
was a dark empathy that Arbus expressed in her work, a sort of sense of
guilt or remorse about the underdogs of the world that she connected with.
Even though she engaged her subjects on a personal level, for me her work
reflected her feelings about the world rather than just her subjects. Her
subjects served as of a metaphor about our culture. Her first book released
in the 70s was probably the first monograph I ever purchased, it will be
interesting to see her posthumous collection revealed. Also I often wonder
how much she may have been influenced by Helen Levitt's work. We will
probably never know all of her secrets (Arbus).
>
> (Mary Ellen Mark made a career out of exploiting helpless women, from the
> child prostitutes of India and the insane to Mother Theresa, who she
> bragged did NOT want to be photographed.... Mark was practically
> sanctified.
Mark has failed to engage me with most of her work and consequently I've not
paid that much attention to it.
> Arbus was denounced ... not least by AD Coleman in one of his
> 4-star tirades.)
>
Well Alan has to do something for a living. I do recall him negating her
posthumous portfolio(s) curated by Amy. His position was that any
photogrphers previously unknown work released after their death should not
be considered part of their life's oeuvre simply because the work was not
released by the artist while alive. I guess this a fine point for
collectors, critics and curators to debate. I can understand the premise of
the argument but this is not a reason to release her work (or other dead
artists) for study, enjoyment, and emotional contemplation by the viewing
public.
> But you probably want more summer of gum... stay tuned...
I'm shrinking my Rives BFK as I type, bring on the gummy bears.
Don Bryant
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 10/01/03-03:09:00 PM Z CST