Diane Arbus "Identical Twins" Discuss

Arbus had the knack of getting you to see the world through her eyes - and she was a bit of a strange lady.
She was attracted to the 'weird' - midgets, circus performers, trans-sexuals and such - because she felt herself to be, like them, on the edge of 'normal' society. Her sense of 'belonging' comes out in the pictures of this group because she makes them appear normal.
It is very easy to photograph a dwarf, for example, and make them look odd because, in one sense, they are: they are not commonplace. But Arbus photographed them in a way that made them look perfectly normal. Almost as if we are the weird and unusual ones.
And indeed when she photographed so-called normal people, they came out looking strange, disturbed, odd.
In short her pictures tended to reverse our accepted view of the world. The outsiders are the norm and we are the outsiders.
And she seemed to be able to do it without any of her images looking contrived.

Lux is a bit of a one note wonder.
When you first see her images they do indeed appear surreal. But as you see more and more and the novelty wears off they start to all look the same. You get the strong feeling that the pictures she takes in ten years time will be indistinguishable from what she does now. Her work isn't going anywhere.
The sense of strangeness in her pictures is largely due to 'Shop. She pastes figures into backgrounds, removes most of the shadows, plays with the colour. They look odd because they are not real.
She is a photographer it is easy to get bored with. She has no-where near the subject range of Arbus - and the slickness produced by Photoshopping removes all sense of immediacy.
 
Lux - what HvR said.

She's a little hot. I think those are her kids. I wonder if she's married- I wonder if she messes around?

Hm.
 
I'm gonna be honest and say that I think it sucks.
Good documentation of two little girls...but other than that...boring.

A good story shouldn't make a photograph. A good photograph should make a story. You're over-justifying the photographers boring snapshot into something magical...which it is not.

But that's just my opinion. If you love it, then more power to you.
 
Well, simply...
If I show you this. Do I have to ask you what it's about, or why it's a powerful photo?
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/4835/img1253tf1.jpg
Probably not.

But with that photo...unless bapp says all that wishy washy stuff about "how what's her name thought of the world"...I wouldn't really think it's anything more than a snapshot...even thought I still do...

Sorry if I seem a little harsh, but I hope you understand what I mean.

The photo I chose may not be the best example, but I remembered the series from an earlier post this week. I can't take credit for that photo.

I'm not even talking about technical-ness here...just trying to explain my point.
 
Well, simply...
If I show you this. Do I have to ask you what it's about, or why it's a powerful photo?
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/4835/img1253tf1.jpg
Probably not.

But with that photo...unless bapp says all that wishy washy stuff about "how what's her name thought of the world"...I wouldn't really think it's anything more than a snapshot...even thought I still do...

Sorry if I seem a little harsh, but I hope you understand what I mean.

The photo I chose may not be the best example, but I remembered the series from an earlier post this week. I can't take credit for that photo.

I'm not even talking about technical-ness here...just trying to explain my point.


It is interesting that you describe the obvious as powerful and the discrete as mundane!!!

"Wishy washy stuff":lol:
 
It is interesting that you describe the obvious as powerful and the discrete as mundane!!!

"Wishy washy stuff":lol:

I was just trying to drive the point home. (A story shouldn't make the picture/it shouldn't have to be explained to be good)

I also think that a discrete manner of telling a story works well also. However, some of the things you mention are a little iffy.

The slanted thinger at the bottom is her depiction of the world? Ok sure...but how is one supposed to know this or guess this unless they read something saying so? Or perhaps you'd have to understand the artist...

I believe a picture should stand on its own if it is to be good art.

Sure there are pictures that are BETTER together with others...but they should at least stand up as something on their own.

I guess we may as well just agree to disagree. I dislike the picture.
 
Fascism? Violence? Don't ask me- tell me why.
Well that's what I mean.
Whether its the same story as someone else, it's not important. It's something.

I'm sure everyone who looks at it will come up with something different...but my point was that it tells a story of something without anyone needing to explain it. (it was a riot by the G8 apparently). So maybe you think of it as a dictator-ish country controlling it's people...that's good.

I don't want to argue about anything...I just don't like the original shot. I'm sure the artist has better ones.
 
I guess we may as well just agree to disagree. I dislike the picture.

Yes my friend that is absolutely fine. I understand your point btw. I think the difference between yourself and I is that I like images that are subtle ,discrete and don't scream an obvious viewpoint in your face. It keeps me interested.

You see Arubs' image as a snapshot with no thought etc. You make that decision and move on. Whereas I like to probe around a see what I can find in the image.

Even in that media shot you posted (which I don't recognise as very interesting or powerful btw) there are other things to look at other than the obvious.

Did you notice the police camera men in the background???

What a great depiction of the big brother Orwellian state we live in, us watching them, watching us getting beating by them.

Answer me honestly... Did you notice this? If so fantastic. If not what a great tool it would be to notice things in an image that other do not see straight away or miss completely, do you not agree?
 
.
Lux is a bit of a one note wonder.
When you first see her images they do indeed appear surreal. But as you see more and more and the novelty wears off they start to all look the same. You get the strong feeling that the pictures she takes in ten years time will be indistinguishable from what she does now. Her work isn't going anywhere.
The sense of strangeness in her pictures is largely due to 'Shop. She pastes figures into backgrounds, removes most of the shadows, plays with the colour. They look odd because they are not real.
She is a photographer it is easy to get bored with. She has no-where near the subject range of Arbus - and the slickness produced by Photoshopping removes all sense of immediacy.

I have to say that I had only seen a small selection of her work in am article in the portfolio magazine until recently. When I think back the images on display were quite contrasting in their situations. (No doubt to hold interest) But as you say even when I look at her website the images to begin to blend into each other.

Im not going to be so quick to write her off as a one hit wonder just yet... I will wait to see the "difficult second album" so to speak.:D
 
Yes my friend that is absolutely fine. I understand your point btw. I think the difference between yourself and I is that I like images that are subtle ,discrete and don't scream an obvious viewpoint in your face. It keeps me interested.

You see Arubs' image as a snapshot with no thought etc. You make that decision and move on. Whereas I like to probe around a see what I can find in the image.

Even in that media shot you posted (which I don't recognise as very interesting or powerful btw) there are other things to look at other than the obvious.

Did you notice the police camera men in the background???

What a great depiction of the big brother Orwellian state we live in, us watching them, watching us getting beating by them.

Answer me honestly... Did you notice this? If so fantastic. If not what a great tool it would be to notice things in an image that other do not see straight away or miss completely, do you not agree?

That's actually one of the reasons I remembered it. It really got me thinking when I looked at it and wondered what exactly they were doing with the camera.

I agree with you. I can see how you would like the image. I guess it just takes a different taste.
I think you can agree though that if you just looked at the image and didn't know about the artist or the story behind the picture...you might think differently of it. You may still like it, I know...but it's kind of VERY subtle the things you may or may not get from the picture (slanty background relating to the world kind of thing)

Good point.
 
If I show you this. Do I have to ask you what it's about, or why it's a powerful photo?
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/4835/img1253tf1.jpg
Probably not.

Yes, you do.
In order for you to come to the conclusion that you know what it is about and that it is 'a powerful photo' you are making a number of assumptions about it. And these assumptions are based on your knowledge, belief and understanding - the information is completely lacking in the image itself because it is out of context.
What information is there in the image?
Date? Any time in the last ten or twenty years is the best guess.
Location? Outside is as far as you can go.
Apart from that all you can say is that the people in the image are probably police, but there is no clue as to nationality.
They are in riot gear - but that does not mean there is a riot going on as there is no sign.
True a person in street clothes lies on the floor amongst them but are they attacking, restraining or helping? There is no clue.
Images like this - of the 'reportage' variety - require a story to go with them to work and have power. Without this context the picture becomes essentially meaningless.
This is the weakness of reportage photography - it is an illustration to a story, nothing more.
For all we know the man on the ground could have appalling flatulence capable of killing - and now look at the picture and it becomes humorous.

The Arbus image is documentary. All you need is in the image: it carries a context within it.
True you still have to construct a story - but you are building a little world that largely refers to what is in the image.
With the other picture you build a story that largely refers to the world outside the picture.

And in both cases your own knowledge and experience play a large part - as does your view of the world - which is why our tastes change over the years.

In short, and in words you can understand, as a picture to compare with Arbus that one sucks ;)
 
In short, and in words you can understand, as a picture to compare with Arbus that one sucks ;)

That was actually not a very good statement - but I was short of time. Work and all that.

What I really mean is that comparing photographs to determine which is 'best' is pretty much impossible.
If you say 'this one is better than that' then you are merely voicing your personal opinion, which is not a comparison.
In this instance you are trying to compare pictures from different genres and this certainly can't work. One is reportage, one documentary and therefore they have to be judged by different criteria. What makes a good photograph in terms of documentary bears no relationship to what makes a good photograph for reportage.
It's like trying to compare a piece of cheese to a pencil in order to decide which one is best. You can compare two pencils and you can compare two cheeses, but you cannot compare one to the other.
 
Well, though I tend to side with Sideburns on this one, I still rejoice that we are not all alike in opinion. What a boring place that would be if it we were.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top