Це відео не доступне.
Перепрошуємо.
Susan Sontag vs Diane Arbus | FA ep. 13
Вставка
- Опубліковано 7 гру 2022
- This video deals with more material off "On Photography" published in 1977. Specifically the second essay from the collection: America, Seen Through Photographs, Darkly."
This episode focuses on Susan Sontag's views on Diane Arbus' work, a subject that has been widely discussed by many writers since the essay was first published.
The link established between Walt Whitman, Edward Steichen, Alfred Steiglitz and Walker Evans is discussed in more detail in the previous episode.
Well done. An impressive expose of what presumably was the result of Sontag's embittered envy at the acclaim given to Arbus. While Sontag had huge energy and sweep in her writing it's only when you stop and think it over, drill down into each sentence, that you find it crumbles apart.
'On Photography' is a classic example of something full of noise while signifying nothing, but she had figured out that a bombastic style were what would garner attention and it worked. Most people are browbeaten into respectful silence, but there's nothing really there.
Superb analysis. I, too, found the description of Arbus and her work jarring. It almost makes one wonder if there was some personal axe she was grinding
Thank you so much for your comment. Yes, it's fine not to like someone or their work, but I wish Sontag would've discussed Arbus with a more analytical approach and less malice. She does mention Hegel's "Unhappy Consciousness" but just in passing. I think she could've done so much better.
Was Sontag the original 'Karen'? Arbus was fearless and insanely substantial. There is no equal.
Seems like Sontag was envious of Arbus achieving what Sontag could not achieve in her own field.
This sounds dubious, but that's my take: Arbus was too good, but meanwhile too straight And even inspired by her "mmmman" (yuck!). inacceptable! after all, Sontag was the Director of the NY queer fem artsy hubris millieux. She has invented this sh*! Great channel man!
Herein lies Sontag’s deficiencies in her book and her criticism. She was not a photographer. She was married to one. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing, it can give the reader an outside perspective on the subject, but, it can also show her deficiencies in understanding some aspects about the medium in my opinion.
I also found Sontags critism a little too much at times, but, I just kept my thoughts on it lightly.
I not only find her criticism to much, but sometimes also her thoughts about photography not that accurate compared to what for example Roland Barthes says about photography.
I Bet those things were related!
Sontag is not to agree or disagree with. Her job is to stir your emotions so you think more deeply on a problem. I’m not much of a Whitman fan or Sontag.
I must say, im a huge fan of Sontag. But I don’t give it to her bout how he talks about the models of Arbus. And I think to understand the firce critic of Sontag towarsd Arbus we need to dig more into DIane as a person and the way she performed as a photographer. because this was in fact; a personal issue. Arbus was a white Spoild SUPER RICH child, and the most relevant works we have left from her are portraits of sufering people during the Great Depression, or queer people etc… the thing is, she wasnt using her photos to give thise people a voice, most of the times she was invasive ; like the portrait of the mother with the two children behind her, she didint care to know anything about the subjects, infact she didnt even knew this woman was a part Native American, she would go to the devastate areas in the usa or wonder around outside bars, and take pictures of vulnerable ppl and then go back to her rich privilage lifestyle. how can you as a cis woman take pictures of queer ppl and then call them freaks? thats not empowering, how can you make portraits f vulnerabl ppl and then sell those pictures in the moma without even asking if its okey? she might not make bad pictures but she dehumanizes her subjects in another way. I recomend to read femenist aesthethics in photography so you can read more about how uncool she was , and also her biography from patricia Bosworth. artist or person, i really cant find a side I like abouth her :/
I agree with some of your points that Sontag was being harsh to Arbus in her On Photography. But, we can't denied that Arbus was taking advantage of her subjects. Sure, they were brave enough to show their "vulnerability" and privacy, but they were also being used by Arbus for her fames and political ideologies. In my onion, Arbus was definitely aware of that which might have some connections to her suicide. If she truly wanted to help and show empathy, Photography was not the best tool.
As humans, I think we're not capable of doing anything that's completely selfless.
She was an awful person to many people. Recently I saw a show in Montreal, a large set of Arbus' photo. I left feeling so positive about her work. I sat outside the exhibit for a while and went back. Was is wrong with Sontag.
Are you the Jim Roche from Australia I know? The one I met in New York?
A shallow darling of NY fake intellectuals, Sontag ended up living with one of the worst if not THE worst (and thus rich and celebrated) portrait photographers of all time: Annie Leibowitz. Need anyone say more?
Thanks for your comment! I'm not a massive fan of Leibowitz's work either, or that "Vanity Fair" look in general. I don't mind her earlier work though.
Care to explain why you think she was a NY fake intellectual? And why you think Annie Leibovitz is THE worst photographer?