I loved the Arbus exhibit. Definitely an installation and it perfectly conveyed what Arbus' protege had wanted. The fact that one could not walk a straight path through the exhibit was wonderful. Nearly bumping into others, interacting, looking high and low to discover views. Bethanne and I loved it. So much more interesting than a few rows of prints, all within +/- 2 vertical feet of each other, shuffle to the left or right to systematically view everything. Boring.
This reminded me of my "cloud" of photos which I was the project director for back in undergrad. My class interviewed about 1,100 tobacco smokers in Philadelphia, printed a book of them all, and hung up 1,005 prints from gallery wire and 1lb fishing line. We had rows of photo columns but the effect was a cloud of images which one could not really walk straight through. As soon as I saw the Arbus layout which seemed chaotic, but had a method, I smiled and knew it was going to be a bit of an adventure.
As for the photographs themselves, every single one could be identified as "and Arbus" image. Composition, exposure, subject, access, you knew who took it. Most folks can't put up 400 images and a person would say "yup, that's a photo by [name]". Most of what we see is borderline garbage out there. People spending more than a car costs, on a camera and lens to make a mediocre photo with questionable composition, marginal exposure, and a boring topic. I mean, I've taken photos of puddles before, but there was something else to be said about the puddle in the composition itself, one I remember in particular was the puddle's shape being very similar to a leaf within the composition. Recently I saw a photo of a puddle which was sharp but had zero composition to speak of, boring global high overcast light, and little contrast. Captured with a Leica, proof positive that the photographer makes the image. I have an out of focus image of an alley and some bricks which I took accidentally when I dropped a camera which is better than the puddle I just described. One of my favorite shots was a test image from my old IIIf with a million holes in the shutter. Gorgeous image, but I didn't make it. Here's a case where the camera did.
It's so infrequently that actual good photos are seen, most of what is out there is mediocre at best. As for the Arbus show, the worst photos in there were better than most of what comes from the $20,000 camera lens combos which may be just emotional purchases on the part of the user. Realistically, I feel most folks who can afford such a kit would be better served by a Google Pixel Pro or iPhone pro of the most recent variety. At least they would get focus correct.
Phil
