Read and Reflect upon the chapter on Diane Arbus in Singular Images: Essays on Remarkable Photographs by Sophie Howarth (2005, London: Tate Publishing). This is out of print but you may be able to find it in your local university library: Some of the chapters are available as pdfs online. You’ll find the Arbus chapter in the student website.
For the next research point, I was required to read and reflect on the chapter on Diane Arbus in Singular Images: Essays on Remarkable Photographs by Sophie Howarth (2005, London: Tate Publishing). It is out of print, I wasn’t able to find a psychical copy but I did find the chapter as a pdf file online.
The chapter starts with an image that Arbus took in New York, and featured a Brooklyn family going for a Sunday outing in 1966. Liz Jobey, who wrote this chapter, states that she can see Arbus’s photographs are ‘parallel’ in other art forms such as in literature in particular Raymond Carver’s stories. Jobey writes a lot about what will become of the family in the photograph. Specifically, ‘What tragedy is waiting to happen?’ It bothers me slightly that the assumption is that there is going to be a tragedy, they could just live out their lives with no problems. Yes, you might wonder what has happened to them, but it might not necessarily be bad. I find Jobey, is looking for a deep meaning of the photograph, she is trying to figure out what life has planned or how they are feeling by one photograph, this can be done with any photograph, as a photograph is just a capture of one time, it does not necessarily reflect or give anything away about the future of the subjects, it is all up to the viewer to make up their own mind and usually this is effect by the viewers own personal experiences.
Jobey also states that she pities the family for their compliancy. She asks why did they agree to be photographed, one could say why does anyone agree to a stranger photographing them, we don’t know what Arbus said to them, this could have had a big influence in their discussion. One point Jobey makes is that the viewer see the family as victims because of the way they look, I disagree with this. Why must they be victims? What makes them a victim from their appearance, or is it because they agree to be photograph, Jobey sees them as a victim. She goes on to describe the family. The man is looking shyly towards the camera, holding his boys hand ‘protectively’. His expression seems nervous. Jobey describes the woman as having ‘an armoury of self-protection clutched in front of her the leopard-skin coat, the leatherette handbag, the camera case with the strap wound round her fingers crossing out her wedding ring, her bland white baby’. Personally I think Jobey is making to many assumptions, she could just be carrying the items and not using them unconsciously as self-protection. The woman is not looking gat the camera, with a bleak defiant look on her face. Their baby looks in distress, probably because this is new and he doesn’t understand what is going on. Jobey states that ‘In posing for the traditional family shot, they have unwittingly under-minded all the positive values that formation represents’. The text that accompanied the image by Arbus stated, “They live in the Bronx. I think he was a garage mechanic. Their first child was born when she were sixteen…They were undeniably close in a painful sort of way” (Arbus). Going by this text it seems Arbus is judging the family by this encounter, leading the viewer to believe that the couple being close was very unlikely. Jobey suggests that they could have been nervous of the camera hence their expressions and body language and believe Arbus could have mistaken their background (married early with a retarted child and a baby) as a reason for their look. There is a tendency of using your own personal experiences when looking at others; maybe Arbus was using her own life to reflect on this couple. The main problem is the viewer does not know how Arbus approached them, how she communicated with them or how she made them feel. They could have felt nervous just by her way with them and thus creating the uneasy look in the image, we shall never know.
Arbus provided some information regarding the family. Their names were Richard and Marylin Dauria. Richard was an immigrant from Italy who worked as a mechanic; he married Marylin when she was sixteen years old. They have three children, but only two are present in the photograph. The elder child, in the image is called Richard Junior who was mentally retarded. The baby’s name was Dawn. Arbus goes on to say that Marylin often got told she looked like Elizabeth Taylor. She also states that Marylin colours her hair black to make herself seem Irish, the reasons for this remain unknown. Richard Junior was born when Marylin was sixteen; she believed that this indicated a hasty marriage.
Jobey then goes on to talk about Arbus but not in depth. She mainly discusses her other work she did in the 1960s, one of which was ‘freaks’, which included portraits of people who were different due to their mental, sexual or psychical appearance. Susan Sontag stated that Arbus fascination with the ‘freaks’ ‘was an expresses a desire to violate her own innocence to undermine her sense of being privileged, so [sic] went her frustration at being safe’. If you compare the way the subject behave in front of the camera a clear distinction is seen. The Brooklyn family didn’t look directly at the camera whereas the ‘freaks’ look directly at the camera. The difference may simply be that the ‘freaks’ may earn their living by the way they look so may not feel uncomfortable being photographed, but the Brooklyn family were spending time as a family and are private and may have felt uncomfortable. “An Arbus photograph is more than a record of a person at a certain time in a certain place it is, more often than not, a record of a moment of personal anxiety, of a sudden identity crisis awakened and then captured by the camera”. I personally think this sums up Arbus images quite well. It appears as the subjects are not comfortable with her photographing her, and this leads to the camera capturing an image that would not necessarily represent the subject well. Maybe Arbus couldn’t put people at ease being photographed. Many people do not like being photographed and as we do not know how Arbus approached these people, or how she interacted with them, it is difficult to draw an accurate conclusion. I believe that she didn’t put people at ease when photographing them and thus they were wary and nervous and this is visible in the results.
Jobey’s chapter is interesting but I feel it lacks certain things. Whilst she does talk about Arbus’s life she doesn’t go into must detail, even a small paragraph about her life, her schooling, her career would have been helpful. I agree with a few things she said but others I felt she was being over judgmental, similar to what Arbus said about her subjects.
If you haven’t yet read any of Judith Williamson’s ‘Advertising’ articles (see introduction), now would be a good time to do so. See: www.oca-student.com/content/her
I read Judith Williamson’s ‘Advertising’ articles again. I have seen these before and have studies them when I was in school. Williamson has written a book about advertisement, called Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising. Her book is an explanation of how she analysis adverts she sees. She looks into the hidden meanings in adverts. She looks at the wording they used, the imaging including what they show and what they do not show, and she also looks into the history of the company and how their history and their methods may contradict what and how they are trying to advertise.
In Gillian Dyer’s book Advertising as Communication she has a section on analyzing photographic advertising. She looks at the technical side of the image, at how the photographer has positioned the item and the make-up of the image. For example, what props have been used, as usually they are functional and reinforce the idea of the product. She assesses how the lighting has been used, the focusing and depth of field, any close-ups, the angle of the camera, and how the image has been cropped. She also looks at the use of special effects and how creative the advert is. Dyer also looks at the impact of the adverts, how they affect us culturally, personally and socially. She has a chapter dedicated to analyzing how words in adverts are used, and the effect they have on the success of the advert.
Another books which explains how to analysis adverts is Media Semiotics by Jonathan Bignell. Similar to the other books Bignell, looks at how to approach these advert but he also looks at some him self and goes through them step-by-step on how he has analyzed them.
For this research point, I looked at Judith Williamson article on an Apple advert. This advert was for an iPad, and features a young girl holding it up whilst lying in bed. The text read:
This is it.
This is what matters.
The experience of a product.
How it makes someone fell.
Will it make life better?
Does it deserve to exist?
If you are busy making everything,
How can you perfect anything?
We spend a lot of time
On a few great things.
Until every idea we touch
Enhances each life it touches.
You may rarely look at it.
But you’ll always feel it.
This is our signature.
And it means everything.
Williamson stated that the image is one of illumination. The screen of the iPad is the only light and is illuminating the girls face and surrounding area. Williamson describes the scene as one of annunciation, as the child is being ‘touched by something ethereal, even godly’. She describes the positioning of the iPad as being like a skylight window. She states, “This illumination from ‘above’ feeds into the central connotation of being touched by some kind of pure, heavenly power”. This is referred to in the text.
Whilst analyzing the text, Williamson looks at how the company manufactures the iPads and the working conditions. For example, the workers in Asia have to work 12 hour days 6 or 7 days a week, under difficult working conditions. Williamsons seems to be concentrating on the hypocrisy of the advert and it’s wording. She does look at the image itself but the majority of her analysis is aimed at how the company operates and how they are demonstrating the opposite in their adverts.
The adverts are designed to sell products, the imaging is just as important as the text. The image should advertise the product but make people want to buy it, make people think it is necessary and they need it. In this advert, Apple are using the ‘experience’ of the iPad, as its selling point. The wording suggests that they have perfected this product and states that it will enhance your life. The image of a young child using the item with it illuminating her gives the impression that it will help and enhance her life. When seeing an advert like this or buying the product, people do not think about the actual company and how they manufacture this product, how they have exploited workers over the world. If you were aware of this, would you buy their products?
Bignell, J. (2002). Media Semiotics. 2nd Revised Edition. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Dyer, G. (1982). Advertising as Communication (Studies in Culture and Communication). New Revised Edition. Routledge.
OCA. Advertising. [Online]. <www.oca-student.com/sites/default/files/source319.pdf> [Accessed: 4th July 2016].
OCA. Advertising. [Online]. <www.oca-student.com/sites/default/files/source.2320.pdf> [Accessed: 4th July 2016].
Williamson, J. (2010). Decoding Advertisements: Ideology and Meaning in Advertising. ReIssue Edition. Marion Boyars.