Diane Arbus
From a new photography site called Almanac an audio recording of Diane Arbus addressing a class of students in the spring of 1970, a year before her suicide.
via lensculture
A castle in Disneyland, Cal. 1962
A flower girl at a wedding, Conn. 1964
Posts
9 comments:
I do so hope this is a young woman and not a girl, really. -And that consent for the photo given. Do you know anything about the history about this Moon.
i have no doubt a consent for the photo was given.
amazing how all art is censored these days, wonder wot Diane would say about the statement made about the nude pic ? makes one wonder if the whole world is really sic
This picture is beautiful beyond the "naked girl" Look at he face and her expression she is giving!! Look at her hair, her surrounding, her hands, Princess Hiaku, Look beyond that!! The human body is a work of art not something to be censored its something to be embraced!!
Consent was given, she's a "Nudist," she was part of a nudist coloney that Diane visited, she had consent from everyone to partake and photograph people at the nudist coloney. Not to mention it's art, people have been protrayed nude since art was first being created this picture is no different.
from ebert's sex and the city review
by Roger Ebert
I am not the person to review this movie. Perhaps you will enjoy a review from someone who disqualifies himself at the outset, doesn’t much like most of the characters and is bored by their bubble-brained conversations. Here is a 145-minute movie containing one (1) line of truly witty dialogue: “Her 40s is the last age at which a bride can be photographed without the unintended Diane Arbus subtext.”
Young Girl Nudist by todays standards and probably then as well - sucks and would be considered purely amature at best.
But - since she [Diane Arbus] was a woman taking the photo - she wasn't arrested nor fined the 100,000 dollars that another famous photographer [a male] was fined (and placed under arrest btw)
Though both the artists photo's show the style period as far as I'm conserned are more of a snap shot style which would be banned - and boo-ed on every photo site today. I say this due to i've seen such a thing take place many times over on various photo sites. And not due to age of the subject mind you.
I agree on one thing - the nude human form is contraversal subject only due to fears of the unknown - for all we now Diane was banging this chick in her back room before or after the shot - but that is my point - nobocy knows - the fear of what might have taken place - the unknown is the fear that causes contraversy internaly or externally and is the final betrayer of truth.
Ignorance is bliss.
Those who see a naked body and that is all they see.
The body is simply the exterior of our soul.
If you can not see the soul in this photo you should not spend time even giving consideration to any form of art.
How narrow minded some people convention can be never cease to amaze me.
one other extra ordinary example is the fact that a post i've made bout the photography of Nan Goldin at msn spaces caused to to close by blog there entirely because as they called it, those photos were an abuse and seemed to put in danger the fragile eye and moral of some of the viewer
at the opening of a new millennium that seem so scary to me
what is the difference between that narrow minded point of view and those of the extremely dangerous religion sects all around
Post a Comment