# Diane Arbus "Identical Twins" Discuss



## bapp (Dec 27, 2007)

Who likes it, who doesn't and why??

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

http://www.westga.edu/~preinhar/Diane Arbus 1966.jpg


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 27, 2007)

Snapshot.  Nicely done though if that helps.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Dec 27, 2007)

It seems as though Arbus was very good at snapshots.

The thing about this photo, is that the more you look at it, the more you start to realize how _different _these identical twins are.

Arbus was a master at taking unusual subjects and subject matter and somehow producing snapshots that captured their uniqueness, and more importantly, their humanity, in relationship to their surroundings and place in time.

Also, Arbus had a supreme sense of humor, which shines through in much of her street and documentary photography. A lot of her work makes a person think, and that is always a good thing.


----------



## Garbz (Dec 27, 2007)

Mike_E said:


> Snapshot.  Nicely done though if that helps.



Yep I think the same way about Ansel Adams


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 28, 2007)

Garbz said:


> Yep I think the same way about Ansel Adams


 


For me, technically the photo is well done.  It doesn't touch me in any special way, though.


----------



## shundaroni (Dec 28, 2007)

Perfect snapshot for art-school over-analysis. 

Honestly, though, it's a prime example of opportunity. Two striking young twins were in the right place at the right time. The composition is boring. The poses look intentional, but uninteresting. In all truth, it's one of those shots I wish the photographer would have put more work in to. 

But any ol' shat can pass as profound in art school. :greenpbl:


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

It is interesting to see what people think of the image, snapshot, well composed, lucky shot, right place right time and one for the art school etc.

Personally Arbus for me is one of the all time greats and this image is a great representation of what she specialized in. With a little research we see how this image is anything but a "snapshot" nor did she just happen to be in the right place at the right time.

The title is Identical Twins, as mentioned above it is a comment on how different these two twins are, different smiles, hair arm position etc. The title is ironic and many believe that it is a comment on the individuality of each of us. They are shot on a totally white background therefore not linking them with any place or time.

One of the most interesting and most discussed elements with this image is the path running behind them. It is not straight but running at an angle, the thoughts are that this is how Arbus viewed them and the world, a little askew things not quite perfect etc.

No matter what I write here I guess some people will come back and say things like, thats over analyzed, finding things that are not actually there blah blah. 

The fact of the matter is that Arbus placed many different subtle idiosyncrasies into her almost all her images in order to convey a thought process. It was this ability and attention to detail that placed her in with the great photographers of the time.

Oh and this was taken at a Twin and Triplet convention that she planned to go to!


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

shundaroni said:


> But any ol' shat can pass as profound in art school. :greenpbl:



I assume then you have been to Art school and seen this "ol shat" for your self?

Photographs with substance are anything but "ol shat". I understand that there is plenty of pretentious Art out there with little or no substance. That is what we are here to sift through. Arbus however is most defiantly not in the ol shat category.

I am also interested in who or what images you believe are a cut above the rest and why.


----------



## jols (Dec 28, 2007)

i have dozens of pics like this in my grans photo box.

nothing special at all


----------



## Iron Flatline (Dec 28, 2007)

It's hard to judge this image on its own. Arbus worked in a serial way, she created images that together form a way of looking at her world. 

It is in that context that this image is fun. Two girls in their Sunday best, one a lot more mischievious than the other.


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

jols said:


> i have dozens of pics like this in my grans photo box.
> 
> nothing special at all





[bangs head on brick wall]


----------



## ThomThomsk (Dec 28, 2007)

Compared with some of her other work, this seems quite conventional and 'safe'. Sometimes with Arbus I feel like I'm in a freak show and that by looking at her subjects I am in some way contributing to their exploitation, and it is hard to separate this image from those other photos and the way they make me feel. I'm sure that is the whole point, the reason why her work is important, because it challenges you to consider whether her subject matter is right and proper, or whether it is exploitative.

Taken on its own I can see how people think they're being kidded by Identical Twins - it's the Emperor's new clothes, isn't it? I don't yet feel confident enough of my own critical abilities, 'taste', call it what you will, to be sure that I wouldn't think the same if I hadn't seen other Arbus pictures, and this isn't as obviously an important image as some of them, but I feel a tension there because as I said the dwarves and the Down's people and all the rest seem to be part of the reason why her work is so much more than snapshots. There is plenty more in this image, about individuality and perception of sameness, a slightly creepy sense of the American Gothic about their eye contact, straight on to the camera. Thanks for raising this bapp.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Dec 28, 2007)

How come the uglier twin is sad, and the less ugly twin is happy?

I wonder if that's part of the purpose? 

But in all seriousness, the shot is good. But I mean, I don't see anything splendid about it. It's certainly not a snapshot to me, but it's not exactly an earth-shattering image we should all stare at forever. It's good. I like it. No emotions really being drawn out of me by it.


----------



## abraxas (Dec 28, 2007)

I like it.  Provocative. Makes me think of how Robert Frost's poetry may be/is more than what it appears to be on the surface.  Layered.

Some can see it. Some like to eat candy all day.  I've looked through plenty of a$$-ugly kid photos right here on TPF.  This shot is intriguing- Nana's box of crap snaps is torture.


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Dec 28, 2007)

abraxas said:


> I like it.  Provocative. Makes me think of how Robert Frost's poetry may be/is more than what it appears to be on the surface.  Layered.
> 
> Some can see it. Some like to eat candy all day.  I've looked through plenty of a$$-ugly kid photos right here on TPF.  This shot is intriguing- Nana's box of crap snaps is torture.



Ass-ugly, HAHA. Yeah, check out 'A Dozen Self-Portraits' on the General Gallery, damn, that Trenton Romulox be ass-ugly. 

This shot, the more I come back to it, the more I like it...it's weird, why do I keep coming back...


----------



## jols (Dec 28, 2007)

why does it intrigue


----------



## abraxas (Dec 28, 2007)

jols said:


> why does it intrigue



To me, it's because of an emotional contrast- there's a conflict that isn't resolved, at least under the surface.  Wierd.  I like to look at it.

In my thoughts, this is a very good shot.  As Rick said, it gets people thinking. With my shots, I like when I can steal time from people and get them to study the shot, to figure out if they like it or not.  The longer the better.  Clench them in the gut somewhere/how.  This does with the twins what I would like to do with scenery and static oddities.

Here's a page from a link that IronFlatline posted awhile back.  The links on this page freak me out.

http://www.simenjohan.com/x/2000_2001/index.htm

(BTW, I think the pyschotic-looking kid is my evil little nephew).

I find the work, although mildly disturbing, inspirational.  This shot too.


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

jols said:


> why does it intrigue



Personally due to the fact that it is not obvious in any shape or form. The obvious conclusions drawn about the picture by most, (pair of twins etc) are actually the opposite of what it represents.

Things that are difficult to understand are generally intriguing!!!

If you look at it and go "so what" IMO you just don't get it and are not willing to look into why you dont get it. That is absolutely your prerogative I have no problem with anyone who wants to do that.

Personally I enjoy this side of photography and understanding!


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Dec 28, 2007)

abraxas said:


> To me, it's because of an emotional contrast- there's a conflict that isn't resolved, at least under the surface.  Wierd.  I like to look at it.
> 
> In my thoughts, this is a very good shot.  As Rick said, it gets people thinking. With my shots, I like when I can steal time from people and get them to study the shot, to figure out if they like it or not.  The longer the better.  Clench them in the gut somewhere/how.  This does with the twins what I would like to do with scenery and static oddities.
> 
> ...



I checked out the work on that link, wow, that's some pretty insane stuff. Some of them struck me as interesting, some scary, some funny, some all three. The one of the kid on the tricycle pulling some stuffed dog or something, that one is my favorite. By far.


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

abraxas said:


> http://www.simenjohan.com/x/2000_2001/index.htm
> 
> (BTW, I think the pyschotic-looking kid is my evil little nephew).
> 
> I find the work, although mildly disturbing, inspirational.  This shot too.



Fantasitc stuff..... Love it. Although I think I am mildly disturbed.. maybe that why!


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

Abraxas are you familiar of the work of Loretta Lux, again mildly disturbing but for slightly different reasons... Have a look if you haven't.

Lux LINK

It was just the freeky kids that reminded me of her!!


----------



## Mesoam (Dec 28, 2007)

REDRUM!!!!!


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Dec 28, 2007)

You know, Loretta Lux is another interesting photographer.

I first saw her stuff a couple of years ago in Aperture magazine.

At first glance, the very intricate photos are elegant and lovely to look at, but the more you look, the more disconcerting they become. And they seem to take on a sinister look somehow, almost like looking at dolls or almost like the children are dead.

However she does her PP, it is downright creepy to look at her stuff. But once again, once I start viewing her work, it is hard to stop looking at it.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Dec 28, 2007)

Mesoam said:


> REDRUM!!!!!


 
Now, _that _is funny.....


----------



## Trenton Romulox (Dec 28, 2007)

Loretta Lux's work is pretty intense stuff. Simplistic in many ways, but sometimes that's the way things should be. She's definitely an interesting photographer.


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

Mesoam said:


> REDRUM!!!!!




???


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Dec 28, 2007)

bapp said:


> ???


 
bapp, he is talking about _The Shining _by Stephen King, and probably in particular, the movie of the same name by Stanley Kubrick.

The Arbus girls do bear a remarkable resemblence to the pair in the movie.

And bapp, spell redrum backwards and you will get the meaning.


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

Rick Waldroup said:


> bapp, he is talking about _The Shining _by Stephen King, and probably in particular, the movie of the same name by Stanley Kubrick.
> 
> The Arbus girls do bear a remarkable resemblence to the pair in the movie.
> 
> And bapp, spell redrum backwards and you will get the meaning.



Ohhh I thought it was some reference to the Horse!

As far as I am aware there similarities are no coincidence, I remember reading somewhere it was Kubrick's tribute to Arbus.


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 28, 2007)

bapp, I think that you are being too quick to curl your lip at the term "snapshot".  The vast majority of photography is all about the snapshot.

Ms. Arbus was/is famous and deservedly so but the shot you offered up for consideration shows to be little more than a quick though well crafted capture of a scene you would find in everyday life -a snapshot!-.

We have been around the discussion of the two sides of the snapshot in this section before but I suppose we could go again if you like.

The two sides are -in a nutshell- essentially described by either a populist or an elitist view of photography.  

That good photography can only be the graphing of  a manipulated portion of reality would be the elitist view.  And the populist view would be that good photography can also include a well crafted but still serendipitous capture.

I give a nod to the elitists but am firmly in the populists'  camp and hence- to me it is a snapshot that is nicely done.

mike


----------



## Neuner (Dec 28, 2007)

Mesoam said:


> REDRUM!!!!!



That's funny, I thought of 'The Shining' first when I saw that photo.  Glad I'm not the only obscure one.

Personally, if it was in a group of other photos I would have completely overlooked it.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 28, 2007)

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.


----------



## abraxas (Dec 28, 2007)

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.


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 28, 2007)

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.


----------



## abraxas (Dec 28, 2007)

Sideburns said:


> ...A good story shouldn't make a photograph.  A good photograph should make a story....



Show us what you mean.


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 28, 2007)

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.


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

Sideburns said:


> 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.
> ...




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

"Wishy washy stuff"


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 28, 2007)

bapp said:


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



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.


----------



## abraxas (Dec 28, 2007)

Sideburns said:


> 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.
> ...



Fascism?  Violence?  Don't ask me- tell me why.

.


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 28, 2007)

abraxas said:


> 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.


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

Sideburns said:


> 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?


----------



## bapp (Dec 28, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> .
> 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.


----------



## Sideburns (Dec 28, 2007)

bapp said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 28, 2007)

Sideburns said:


> 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


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 29, 2007)

Hertz van Rental said:


> 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.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 29, 2007)

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.


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Dec 29, 2007)

If anyone is interested, here is what became of the twins.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051102052.html

You know what I find fascinating, is that Arbus' work continues to be discussed and debated some 30 odd years after her death.

And reading all of these responses to the this particular shot has been stimulating and fun, to say the least.


----------



## abraxas (Dec 29, 2007)

Rick Waldroup said:


> If anyone is interested, here is what became of the twins.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051102052.html
> 
> ...



How cool.  Any idea why she killed herself?


----------



## dpolston (Dec 29, 2007)

<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.


----------



## Alex_B (Dec 29, 2007)

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


----------



## jstuedle (Dec 29, 2007)

Mesoam said:


> REDRUM!!!!!





Rick Waldroup said:


> Now, _that _is funny.....





bapp said:


> ???



Yup, that's funny, I don't care who you are, that's funny. 

(bapp, rudrum is murder read backwards in a mirror. A scene from the classic thriller The Shinning starring Jack Nickleson. Who can forget "Herrrrrre's Johnny"?)


----------



## Rick Waldroup (Dec 29, 2007)

abraxas said:


> 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.


----------



## Iron Flatline (Dec 29, 2007)

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.


----------



## dpolston (Dec 29, 2007)

bapp said:


> 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.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Dec 29, 2007)

Iron Flatline said:


> 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


----------



## JIP (Dec 29, 2007)

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.


----------



## Mike_E (Dec 29, 2007)

Once again  HVR has hit the nails head.

If you just play a middle C on a piano it's just a note, even if the C you played is a part of Beethoven's 5th.


----------



## JerryPH (Dec 30, 2007)

Well lately as I have been practicing, I hit a lot of C-FLATs, still doesn't make me Beethoven.  :lmao:


----------

