Filmwasters
Which Board? => Main Forum => : hookstrapped September 19, 2014, 01:07:17 PM
-
kind of hit home. I think a lot of us are doing this -- not as obviously as she, but still... and I don't think it requires taking pics of people. We're very good at abstracting and cloaking our lives.
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/09/torture.html (http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2014/09/torture.html)
-
What surprised me was the part about having no personality... I sadly know a few people like that and they're the most boring persons in the world. So boring you just want to get away from them as fast as your legs will let you.
-
So Fluminian is actually a boat, trying to capture his own inner character?
-
I think the test of whether any Arbus biography is true or not is whether her daughters, Doon and Amy approve. I know they didn't approve of the movie with Nicole Kidman.
Most of the things written about Diane Arbus are sensationalized and exploitative. Years ago I read the Patricia Bosworth biography and thought it was an interesting book though it had some odd stuff in it that I wondered about. Then I met and worked with someone who had worked with her, was friends with her and knew her well. I was curious about whether he read the book and he had and said it was a lot of bull.
-
I basically agree with u hookstrapped but I don't think that "when we abstract and externalize out lives" through art is a bad thing. I am thinking back to the periods in my life when I paint and draw and I find them to be intensely autobiographical, and I was rarely doing literal self portraits. I am usually trying to process some stuff out on paper, which I am not sure is that different than arbus's portrait of the girl.
Clearly a consciousness about that process is a requirement. I am not sure if that was where u were heading or not so please feel free to expand ;-)
-
It seems appropriate, in some odd way, that people seem to talk about Diane Arbus more than her photographs. Personally, I have never enjoyed looking at her photos (as good as they are technically) as they unnerve me. Maybe that's what she wanted. I don't know. To me, the sitters all appear odd or damaged and, for whatever reason, I always visualise them as hospital / institutional mugshots rather than having an aesthetic.
Few other photographers I can think of seem to fit into the same niche.
-
I basically agree with u hookstrapped but I don't think that "when we abstract and externalize out lives" through art is a bad thing. I am thinking back to the periods in my life when I paint and draw and I find them to be intensely autobiographical, and I was rarely doing literal self portraits. I am usually trying to process some stuff out on paper, which I am not sure is that different than arbus's portrait of the girl.
Clearly a consciousness about that process is a requirement. I am not sure if that was where u were heading or not so please feel free to expand ;-)
I don't think it's a bad thing at all, it just is. And following that, I don't know if you need to be aware of it for it to happen -- through your choice of subjects, the compositions and lighting you favor, and even the film stock you choose. If we're compelled to do something, I think we're abstracting and externalizing our lives.
-
You can't create any sort of art without expressing some thought, even if you're not aware of what that thought is. Sometimes it takes a lot of reflecting to figure out why you're interested in taking the photos that you're taking.
I went through a period where I took a lot of photos of crumbling buildings like this:
(https://farm7.staticflickr.com/6107/6266255798_692f5a4097_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/axJcx5)Untitled (https://flic.kr/p/axJcx5) by berangberang (https://www.flickr.com/people/28224522@N00/), on Flickr
And after a while I had to think about why I was captivated by the subject. I basically came to the conclusion that on some level I enjoyed seeing plants and nature taking over the rigid fabrications of human society. What people do is after all arbitrary, temporary and ultimately pretty meaningless, but nature goes on forever with infinite variety. A structure being taken back into nature is a pretty good analogy for this, even if it isn't immediately apparent.
-
It seems appropriate, in some odd way, that people seem to talk about Diane Arbus more than her photographs. Personally, I have never enjoyed looking at her photos (as good as they are technically) as they unnerve me. Maybe that's what she wanted. I don't know. To me, the sitters all appear odd or damaged and, for whatever reason, I always visualise them as hospital / institutional mugshots rather than having an aesthetic.
I think they talk about her so much because of the way she died. Whenever someone commits they leave a lot of unanswered questions behind and so people try to speculate on the answers to those questions, it also fits into the stereotype of the tortured artist. She became photography's Sylvia Plath, even though the comparison is questionable and (I think) comes more from a glamorization of suicide than the reality.
-
It seems appropriate, in some odd way, that people seem to talk about Diane Arbus more than her photographs. Personally, I have never enjoyed looking at her photos (as good as they are technically) as they unnerve me. Maybe that's what she wanted. I don't know. To me, the sitters all appear odd or damaged and, for whatever reason, I always visualise them as hospital / institutional mugshots rather than having an aesthetic.
Few other photographers I can think of seem to fit into the same niche.
in my opinion she clearly strived for a certain look. And that look is unsettling. If you examine her contact sheets it is interesting to see the ones she selected. I recall seeing the contact sheet of the young boy holding the grenade. Most of the images were somewhat "normal" except the one which has become famous. She was clearly striving for a certain "look". One of her teachers was Lisette Model who had a somewhat similar aesthetic to her pictures but not quite as upsetting. So what am I saying, I think she had a particular aesthetic she was striving for and achieved it. That doesn't mean everyone has to like it….
-
I basically agree with u hookstrapped but I don't think that "when we abstract and externalize out lives" through art is a bad thing. I am thinking back to the periods in my life when I paint and draw and I find them to be intensely autobiographical, and I was rarely doing literal self portraits. I am usually trying to process some stuff out on paper, which I am not sure is that different than arbus's portrait of the girl.
Clearly a consciousness about that process is a requirement. I am not sure if that was where u were heading or not so please feel free to expand ;-)
I don't think it's a bad thing at all, it just is. And following that, I don't know if you need to be aware of it for it to happen -- through your choice of subjects, the compositions and lighting you favor, and even the film stock you choose. If we're compelled to do something, I think we're abstracting and externalizing our lives.
Is this even a debate? Obviously, all artists draw from their own personal experiences when creating, because ... what's the other option? Drawing from experiences you've never had?
-
Drawing from experiences you've never had?
Ya, you are pretty talented if you can do that one.
-
Drawing from experiences you've never had?
Ya, you are pretty talented if you can do that one.
My point ... you are getting it :)
-
I basically agree with u hookstrapped but I don't think that "when we abstract and externalize out lives" through art is a bad thing. I am thinking back to the periods in my life when I paint and draw and I find them to be intensely autobiographical, and I was rarely doing literal self portraits. I am usually trying to process some stuff out on paper, which I am not sure is that different than arbus's portrait of the girl.
Clearly a consciousness about that process is a requirement. I am not sure if that was where u were heading or not so please feel free to expand ;-)
I don't think it's a bad thing at all, it just is. And following that, I don't know if you need to be aware of it for it to happen -- through your choice of subjects, the compositions and lighting you favor, and even the film stock you choose. If we're compelled to do something, I think we're abstracting and externalizing our lives.
Is this even a debate? Obviously, all artists draw from their own personal experiences when creating, because ... what's the other option? Drawing from experiences you've never had?
True, it's not a debate. Maybe it is more a topic for discussion when talking about portraits, which are ostensibly of other people.
-
My point ... you are getting it :)
Haha, sorry Indo, I think a grouchy fine arts prof learned me that a couple of decades ago. And ya, I don't think this was a debate, just 'reflecting' or 'naval gazing' (two really bad puns) about the role of the self in the portrait.
I think hookstrapped was talking (correct me if I am wrong) about an awareness of this when doing portraiture and that sometimes this may not be up front. It probably happens more in photography, which is faster and gives less time for this reflective process than other mediums. I will give a personal example. I really do not post a lot of my family pics but this one is out there and typical of a lot of the pics I did when the kids were little:
(https://farm3.staticflickr.com/2814/12836646573_6f0b059fc0_z.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/kykaND)
Algonquin - 075 (https://flic.kr/p/kykaND) by mcduff! (https://www.flickr.com/people/76597857@N08/), on Flickr
I was capturing moments like this when I saw my kids in poses, such as this one, that (to me) have a somewhat alientated/existential quality. These are clearly me imposing my self portrait into/onto a portrait. But don't worry most of my pics are them being happy, carefree goofballs, so I don't think they will look back on my archive of images and feel manipulated (as Penelope Tree sounds when talking about Arbus).