I was awestruck by her 1972 monograph when I got my hands on it as a kid and have been a fan ever since. Recently, I went to David Zwirner's revisiting of the 1972 retrospective at his LA gallery, and I was just as dazzled and moved. Yours isn't the first negative review of seen of the Armory show, and both your analyses certainly underscore the presentation aspect. The other essay on the show that I read also frowned on what they perceived to be as a cruel objectification of her subjects. I didn't feel that way at the Zwirner show. Maybe that's in part because of the way the show was hung, with lots of space and subtle framing and the opportunity to consider each subject in all their jolie laide glory.
Presentation is crucial with these. You can't erase the conversation of a privileged photographer seeking out marginalized people, and the clinical way she photographed them, but it's a good conversation to have. Armory just tried to pretend it doesn't exist and throw glitter in our eyes. I would love to see these in a different space and edited down.
I came away with similar feelings about the show. I thought there was something wrong with my eyesight because the room was so dim. Many of the photos were hung so high and low that I could not step back far enough to view them properly. There was no clear path through the exhibition, so I am not sure I saw it in its entirety.
I read a scathing review of the exhibition and actually walked away liking the show. Perhaps it’s low expectations and not having dived deep into her work before.
I almost got the sense from the show that even her portraits of the wealthy had dark undertones, as if she saw them in the same way as the marginalized folks she photographed. I think it would have been boring to group them thematically, and the structure provided a new way to view the images outside of frames on white walls.
Constellation implies a noticeable pattern. The title of the show seems poorly titled as well unless the pattern is as you suggest…to…wait for it…obfuscate:)
I wonder if this exhibition is subtly encouraging people to stare at their fellow gallerygoers. That's the only reason I can think for doing something that appears to reduce the intensity of Arbus's work.
I was thinking it sounds as though viewers are meant to at least draw a connection between the subjects and other visitors. Maybe it’s supposed to have a democratizing(?) effect—“see, we’re all just people!”—but that’d be reductive, even infantilizing. Social contexts are so important to her work; trying to ignore or downplay them does a major disservice to Arbus and to visitors.
Quite interesting to compare two different takes on the show. I look forward to seeing it myself. (The New Yorker: Diane Arbus and the Too-Revealing Detail)
I understand that galleries are trying to get away from the white box style of presentation, with identically sized and framed pictures lined up, but I think that evolved for a reason. You have to give the viewer a chance to focus on an image. We can't be distracted by everything going on behind the image, or be expected to crouch down to see it.
Very good review of the show. I would have liked to hear more of your defense of Arbus, i.e., the idea that her "voyeurism" was an effort to cope with her own depression. On its face, arguably still exploitive, though any such ethical issues wouldn't necessarily trump, decades on, our aesthetic concerns. Anyway, I thought this was a very effective critique of the gallery, but perhaps opens avenues for your own critical analysis, if you feel like doing that. Again, kudos.
I tried to focus on the exhibition and not get pulled into a broader analysis of her work, which is its own Pandora’s box. I’ve been a fan of Arbus for years, and the ethical concerns never really bothered me until this show. That doesn’t invalidate the work. I’m fine with photography making me uncomfortable.
Fair enough, and I tend to feel the same way. That said, two thoughts. First, to be encouraging, I do hope you'll take up the pandora's box, even it this wasn't the outing. Second, does the fact that this show raised new concerns for you mean the show, as exhibition, was effective? Or was this just happenstance? Anyway, keep up the good work!
Never really been a fan. I want to like her work, but find it so relentlessly grim and joyless that there is very little I would go back to for pleasure. Understand why (probably) but that’s not helping me as a viewer.
That's all fair. That's also a mark of a great photographer, to have such a polarizing effect on people. I can understand both positions now, I used to be a huge fan, this exhibition made me question it, but looking back at her photos on my screen now, I like them again. What's undeniable, is that she succeeded in getting under people's skin.
I haven't seen the show, so keep that in mind when reading my comments. I've always been fascinated by Arbus's work, by her access to people not like her—or like many of us—by her direct approach. It strikes me that the random arrangement of the Constellation exhibit can't help anyone put any of her work in any context or to make sense of her work. It seems more like a smoke and mirrors ploy to collect entrance fees. "This way to the egress."
So sad her work was not shown as it should be. Thanks for reporting to us! Why do people want to sanitize everything these days? Her photography is art. It's her voice and to break her voice up....
I didn’t see the show only your photo’s. The erector set scaffolding to display the work is bizarre and I speculate making it difficult to focus on individual portraits. The very high and very low prints adds to its dysfunction and viewing difficulty. My thoughts about her photographing marginally challenged people I believe is a reflection of her own depression. It’s hard to make joyful portraits when so depressed you’re thinking of suicide yourself.
I've always been drawn to and liked the photographs of Diane Arbus. I first saw some in Creative Camera magazine and a museum show in the 70's , as well as having the Aperture monograph with the twins on the cover. Before going to the show last week I read the negative review linked to on the RAW members site. Also, since the beginning of this century, I had a daughter with Down syndrome who is now a wonderful young adult who is in a college certificate program and teaches yoga to pre-school children. My radar for objectification, ableism, condescension or any other possible slight to people with disabilities is pretty good. I wasn't bowled over by the show and was happy to discover that the very large looking show turned out to be only half as big. (a mirror along the far wall if you weren't aware.) There were many photos I had not seen before and the more familiar ones were like old friends. The whole experience for me was very positive. Her work, as shown here, is overwhelmingly portraiture. I can only recall two that weren't. The similarity in them was the perceived interaction with the photographer. Everyone is seen as equally human whether they appear comfortable or not. Some people appear in masks which seems odd but not very significant. There is no doubt she was obsessed to take photos of all types of people. That's not a bad motivation. I'm happy to report I'm still a fan.
I was awestruck by her 1972 monograph when I got my hands on it as a kid and have been a fan ever since. Recently, I went to David Zwirner's revisiting of the 1972 retrospective at his LA gallery, and I was just as dazzled and moved. Yours isn't the first negative review of seen of the Armory show, and both your analyses certainly underscore the presentation aspect. The other essay on the show that I read also frowned on what they perceived to be as a cruel objectification of her subjects. I didn't feel that way at the Zwirner show. Maybe that's in part because of the way the show was hung, with lots of space and subtle framing and the opportunity to consider each subject in all their jolie laide glory.
Presentation is crucial with these. You can't erase the conversation of a privileged photographer seeking out marginalized people, and the clinical way she photographed them, but it's a good conversation to have. Armory just tried to pretend it doesn't exist and throw glitter in our eyes. I would love to see these in a different space and edited down.
I came away with similar feelings about the show. I thought there was something wrong with my eyesight because the room was so dim. Many of the photos were hung so high and low that I could not step back far enough to view them properly. There was no clear path through the exhibition, so I am not sure I saw it in its entirety.
I read a scathing review of the exhibition and actually walked away liking the show. Perhaps it’s low expectations and not having dived deep into her work before.
I almost got the sense from the show that even her portraits of the wealthy had dark undertones, as if she saw them in the same way as the marginalized folks she photographed. I think it would have been boring to group them thematically, and the structure provided a new way to view the images outside of frames on white walls.
Constellation implies a noticeable pattern. The title of the show seems poorly titled as well unless the pattern is as you suggest…to…wait for it…obfuscate:)
Arbus deserves so much more.
I wonder if this exhibition is subtly encouraging people to stare at their fellow gallerygoers. That's the only reason I can think for doing something that appears to reduce the intensity of Arbus's work.
I was thinking it sounds as though viewers are meant to at least draw a connection between the subjects and other visitors. Maybe it’s supposed to have a democratizing(?) effect—“see, we’re all just people!”—but that’d be reductive, even infantilizing. Social contexts are so important to her work; trying to ignore or downplay them does a major disservice to Arbus and to visitors.
Quite interesting to compare two different takes on the show. I look forward to seeing it myself. (The New Yorker: Diane Arbus and the Too-Revealing Detail)
I understand that galleries are trying to get away from the white box style of presentation, with identically sized and framed pictures lined up, but I think that evolved for a reason. You have to give the viewer a chance to focus on an image. We can't be distracted by everything going on behind the image, or be expected to crouch down to see it.
Very good review of the show. I would have liked to hear more of your defense of Arbus, i.e., the idea that her "voyeurism" was an effort to cope with her own depression. On its face, arguably still exploitive, though any such ethical issues wouldn't necessarily trump, decades on, our aesthetic concerns. Anyway, I thought this was a very effective critique of the gallery, but perhaps opens avenues for your own critical analysis, if you feel like doing that. Again, kudos.
I tried to focus on the exhibition and not get pulled into a broader analysis of her work, which is its own Pandora’s box. I’ve been a fan of Arbus for years, and the ethical concerns never really bothered me until this show. That doesn’t invalidate the work. I’m fine with photography making me uncomfortable.
Fair enough, and I tend to feel the same way. That said, two thoughts. First, to be encouraging, I do hope you'll take up the pandora's box, even it this wasn't the outing. Second, does the fact that this show raised new concerns for you mean the show, as exhibition, was effective? Or was this just happenstance? Anyway, keep up the good work!
Never really been a fan. I want to like her work, but find it so relentlessly grim and joyless that there is very little I would go back to for pleasure. Understand why (probably) but that’s not helping me as a viewer.
That's all fair. That's also a mark of a great photographer, to have such a polarizing effect on people. I can understand both positions now, I used to be a huge fan, this exhibition made me question it, but looking back at her photos on my screen now, I like them again. What's undeniable, is that she succeeded in getting under people's skin.
I haven't seen the show, so keep that in mind when reading my comments. I've always been fascinated by Arbus's work, by her access to people not like her—or like many of us—by her direct approach. It strikes me that the random arrangement of the Constellation exhibit can't help anyone put any of her work in any context or to make sense of her work. It seems more like a smoke and mirrors ploy to collect entrance fees. "This way to the egress."
So sad her work was not shown as it should be. Thanks for reporting to us! Why do people want to sanitize everything these days? Her photography is art. It's her voice and to break her voice up....
Perhaps they tried to represent her own labyrinth
is photography that out of system
I didn’t see the show only your photo’s. The erector set scaffolding to display the work is bizarre and I speculate making it difficult to focus on individual portraits. The very high and very low prints adds to its dysfunction and viewing difficulty. My thoughts about her photographing marginally challenged people I believe is a reflection of her own depression. It’s hard to make joyful portraits when so depressed you’re thinking of suicide yourself.
not a pleasant way to see photos. She would not have approved.
I've always been drawn to and liked the photographs of Diane Arbus. I first saw some in Creative Camera magazine and a museum show in the 70's , as well as having the Aperture monograph with the twins on the cover. Before going to the show last week I read the negative review linked to on the RAW members site. Also, since the beginning of this century, I had a daughter with Down syndrome who is now a wonderful young adult who is in a college certificate program and teaches yoga to pre-school children. My radar for objectification, ableism, condescension or any other possible slight to people with disabilities is pretty good. I wasn't bowled over by the show and was happy to discover that the very large looking show turned out to be only half as big. (a mirror along the far wall if you weren't aware.) There were many photos I had not seen before and the more familiar ones were like old friends. The whole experience for me was very positive. Her work, as shown here, is overwhelmingly portraiture. I can only recall two that weren't. The similarity in them was the perceived interaction with the photographer. Everyone is seen as equally human whether they appear comfortable or not. Some people appear in masks which seems odd but not very significant. There is no doubt she was obsessed to take photos of all types of people. That's not a bad motivation. I'm happy to report I'm still a fan.