Diane Arbus "Identical Twins" Discuss

<Man... I am really starting to doubt my entire outlook on photography altogether. If this is what an "amazing photograph" is, I give up.>

Other than the different expressions on their faces, I don't think anything about this is interesting. If we put a photo up like that on this site we'd be crucified for things like composition (cutting off the legs, not leaving enough headroom and the rules of thirds are out the window) and exposer (blown out background and loosing details in the dress) and a hundred other reasons.

IMO, this is a famous snapshot from a famous photographer. It's not awesome or interesting to me either. I'm not discrediting his work by any means but I do not understand the deep meaning of this photo. Their twins... and... next snapshot! I can't see how "the photographer set this shot to show both the duality and the supernatural equality of the siblings...thus based upon the breakfast they had before the shot was taken, the unplesent girl felt disenfranchised by her mother for having given her sister the better breakfast..." C'mon, it's a snapshot.

On a side note: I have been scanning in family photos off and on for archive purposes and I have dozens of these photos. Matter of fact, I'll share one of my family's "awesome, breathtaking and inspiring" portraits. This is my brother and sister in a wagon. Snapshot... not international fodder for photographic discussion.

$VICK AND RICK IN WAGON.jpg
 
I have seen this image before, and I do not "like" it. But that does not mean, that there was no thought process behind it. So I acknowledge the effort and talent and thoughts that went into it. But it just does not create much emotion or thought in my brain when looking at it.

As IronF pointed out, this looks different, if you see it in some context/some series of images.

I think there are many young and unknown photographers, who show similar creativity and thought processes and humour, but they are not considered to be "one of the masters".

I am not downgrading her! don't get me wrong, I just have a problem with calling anyone an outstanding master ;)
 
How cool. Any idea why she killed herself?

There has always been a bit of mystery about why she took her own life. She battled depression for years, she had trouble with the men in her life, and she battled her family's disapproval of her photography.

She came from a wealthy family, and they were just appalled that she became a photographer.

She simply went home one evening, had a few drinks, swallowed a bunch of barbituates, and then opened her wrists while in the bathtub.

A rumor floated around for years and years that she photographed her own death somehow, but that is not true. However, it did add to the mystique of her photographic career.

She is a personal favorite of mine, but I completely understand how a lot of folks do not like her work or think that it is insignificant now.

There was a major touring exhibit of her work just a couple of years ago. The exhibit came to Houston, but because of prior obligations, I was unable to attend the show. Bummer.:(
 
Again, context: you need to see the body of work, and also understand it. She was one of the first photographers to capture the odd things in life. Think about what movies were like in the 1950s, and what the "perfect life" was supposed to look like. Yet if you see her body of work, you realize that she captured the other side of life in America at the time... and not disrespectfully, or as though she was capturing a freak show... Rather, it was done gently and with respect.

Like any artist (which she was, she was expressing herself creatively, not working for a newspaper) it i imperative to understand the work (or at least the period) as a whole. If you look at Jackson Pollock, you can't gauge the work without knowing more about the person. Nor can you assume he just started splattering paint one day.

Some of you seem to be making that tired "my four-year old coulda drawn that" arguement. It is important to trust your own instincts, no doubt... but also give credit to those "experts" who all feel that Diane Arbus' work has substantial merit. Try and understand why.

But yes, as a stand-alone shot, it is not THAT special.
 
Who likes it, who doesn't and why??

What thoughts are provoked from this image... if any??

this image was the post.


As an overall artist... totally different discussion.
 
as a stand-alone shot, it is not THAT special.

This is true. It is not one of her best, but taken as a whole her entire body of work is quite amazing and shows she knew exactly what she was doing. As opposed to photographers who take one great photograph in a lifetime of mediocrity, indicating it's just a fluke.

I am amused the way the term 'snapshot' has become a way of dismissing pictures. As in 'it's just a snapshot'.
Being a snapshot does not reduce in any way the possibility of it being a powerful picture.
Snapshot as a term came from hunting. You catch a glimpse of your quarry and, without time to take aim, you snap a shot off trusting to luck and whatever skill you posses.
It meant the same originally in photography - snapping a shot of at something seen before you missed it (as opposed to a posed formal picture). You could say that most of HCB's entire output was just 'snapshots'.
Pictures should be viewed on their own terms and judged on their own merits and not written off because of the type of picture they are.
I view people's family albums with the same care and consideration I use when viewing a 'master photographer's' work ;)
 
I think one problem with passing judgement on the image that was presented is the qualiy of the scan. I have seen a better representation of that image in books and I think some of the things that have been said about it (particularly he snapshot comments) can be taken more from the poor scan than the quality of the original image.
 
Well lately as I have been practicing, I hit a lot of C-FLATs, still doesn't make me Beethoven. :lmao:
 

Most reactions

Back
Top