Germaine Greer posed for Arbus in a hotel room in 1971. Arbus kneeled astride her, pinning Greer to the bed. With her lens just inches from Greer's face, Arbus waited for her moment.
'I understood that as soon as I exhibited any signs of distress, she would have her picture. Immobilised between her knees I denied her, for hour after hour. Arbus waited me out. Nothing would happen for minutes on end, until I sighed, or frowned, and then the flash would pop. Greer (2005).
The above snippets are from a Guardian article that Germaine Greer wrote in 2005, shortly after an Arbus retrospective in London. The piece gives an interesting insight into the methods Arbus used. I've read elsewhere that once she had permission to make a portrait she would follow her subject about for days - back and forth from their home to work until she had what she wanted.
From what I've read about Arbus she was a troubled person. She knew she had flaws and was able to easily detect them in others. Arbus manner was apparently quiet and non-confrontational. She would ingratiate herself with her subjects, use flattery and niceness, to disguise a ruthless streak. Arbus was always open to that moment when a person would briefly drop their public mask - and Arbus was ready with her camera.
From a moral standpoint I don't think Arbus really considered her subjects. Most of her images are captioned in a way that people are types rather than individuals. In my view she was making a kind of typology of the masks that people wore. This is why Arbus was so interested in 'freaks.' Being on the margins of society and cast as 'Others' their masks were easily discernible (and often worn with pride) and therefore of much value to her. I think in Arbus's view the gap between normalcy and 'freakdom' is not so great. She saw that in herself and looked for it in others.
Arbus also emphasised the oddness in people. We all know that the photographer can choose to flatter or insult their subject. One only has to take a look at the contact sheet for 'Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park, New York City' Arbus (1962). The contact sheet shows a normal looking boy posing for the camera. Arbus specifically chooses one frame, the most oddball shot, because it fitted her intent - to find the oddness in everyone.
'The camera has the power to catch so called normal people in such a way as to make them look abnormal. The photographer chooses oddity, chases it, frames it, develops it, titles it.' Sontag (1977).
I think, like most of photography, it come down to intent. What was Arbus looking for when she took those photographs? Was she looking for the oddness in everyone - our flaws and insecurities in a damaged world of our own making? And If so, did she have the right to project her personal and creative view onto her subjects?
I agree that we all wear masks, both public and private. I think about this a lot with my own photography. I like to make work that highlights this in some way. But I don't think I could ever prowl around a subject, trying to get them to react or pose in a way that exposes them as Arbus work seems to do. The Greer article continued with her thoughts on her experience with Arbus in that hotel room in 1971.
"She may have thought she was getting the mask off, but what she was photographing was actually the clumsy ill-drawn mask itself." Greer (2005).
That's a view I find quite intruiging.
References:
Arbus, D. (1962) Child with Toy Hand Grenade in Central Park, New York City 1962.
Greer J. (2005) Wrestling With Diane Arbus. The Guardian. Ed: 8th October 2005.
Sontag, S. (1977) On Photography: America, Seen Through Photographs, Darkly. London, UK: Penguin Books Ltd.
Washington Post. (2005) [online] Available from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/11/AR2005051102052.html [Accessed 29th August 2014]
No comments:
Post a Comment