[rollei_list] Re: Rollei at the Movies
- From: Carlos Manuel Freaza <cmfreaza@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 22:50:21 +0000 (GMT)
That is good question Craig and I agree with you to
object the way Arbus used her subjects, however
talking about art this is a complex issue and the
discussion could exceed this mail list purpose, f.e
Susan Sontag has written about Arbus photography
ethical aspects.
BTW for D. Arbus there was no ethical issue, this is
an example about her thoughts about her main subjects:
"Freaks was a thing I photographed a lot," she wrote.
"It was one of the first things I photographed and it
had a terrific kind of excitement for me. I just used
to adore them. I still do adore some of them. I don't
quite mean they're my best friends but they made me
feel a mixture of shame and awe. There's a quality of
legend about freaks. Like a person in a fairy tale who
stops you and demands that you answer a riddle. Most
people go through life dreading they'll have a
traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their
trauma. They've already passed their test in life.
They're aristocrats."
Last march I qoted an very interesting article about
one of the ways DA worked with her subjects, this is
the URL again:
http://arts.guardian.co.uk/features/story/0,11710,1586249,00.html?gusrc=rss
All the best
Carlos
--- Craig Roberts <crgrbrts@xxxxxxxxxxx> escribió:
> Thank you, Carlos. I have the same reaction to
> Diane Arbus'
> photographs. It's a morbid fascination. I'll view
> them in a book but
> would never display one.
>
> I shot this frame with my stopped-down 2.8C and
> straight-on flash
> knowing that it would have an "Arbus" look but have
> mixed emotions about
> exhibiting it. I thought it fit in with our ongoing
> -- if indirect --
> discussion of her work, but I also feel a measure of
> unease. Are photos
> like this exploitive? I have signed model releases
> from the two
> subjects -- who were very happy to have this picture
> taken -- but is
> that enough to absolve a photographer of
> responsibility for viewer
> reaction which he knows may be -- at least in some
> cases -- negative and
> humiliating?
>
> I don't know if Diane Arbus struggled with this
> ethical question, but I
> do -- which is why this image is "for your eyes
> only."
>
> So --my question is, was Diane Arbus (with her
> on-topic Rollei)
> exploiting her subjects in a cruel manner?
>
> Craig
> Washington, DC -- exploitation's East Coast HQ
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> ---
> Rollei List
>
> - Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> - Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with 'subscribe'
> in the subject field OR by logging into
> www.freelists.org
>
> - Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> with
> 'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging
> into www.freelists.org
>
> - Online, searchable archives are available at
> //www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
>
>
__________________________________________________
Preguntá. Respondé. Descubrí.
Todo lo que querías saber, y lo que ni imaginabas,
está en Yahoo! Respuestas (Beta).
¡Probalo ya!
http://www.yahoo.com.ar/respuestas
---
Rollei List
- Post to rollei_list@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Subscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with 'subscribe'
in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Unsubscribe at rollei_list-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx with
'unsubscribe' in the subject field OR by logging into www.freelists.org
- Online, searchable archives are available at
//www.freelists.org/archives/rollei_list
Other related posts:
