With Clarissa Nobre, Photographer, about photography
1. Arbus worked with subjects most people don’t think of photographing, such as nudists, mentally challenged people, and transgenders. What are some of the ‘ideal’ subjects you have taken pictures of?
2. Were there any subjects that you tried to avoid photographing? Or any offers you declined for a particular reason? 3. Can you describe the steps of printing out a photograph professionally? 4. How did you express yourself in your photography? 5. Did you learn more about your subjects whilst photographing them? If so, what kinds of things did you learn? 6. We're sure you might've had a tough or bossy client once or twice. What was it like dealing with those people? 7. What (or who) sparked you to become a photographer? 8. Diane Arbus used different techniques to create a certain mood in her photographs. What are some methods you used in your photograph to convey a mood? 9. Why did you stop your career in photography? 10. Do you still photograph in your free time? If so, what sort of things (what subjects) do you take pictures of? 11. The new iPhones and smartphones come out with better cameras, so photography is much easier in the general public. Do you use your phone's camera when you take pictures or do you still use your professional camera? 12. What were some inconveniences to photographing with professional equipment? 13. What was your favorite part of being a photographer (the freedom to express yourself, the click of the shutter, etc.)? 14. What was your least favorite part of being a photographer? 15. Was there anything challenging about photography that gradually became easier to you as you practiced? 16. Was there anything challenging about photography that you still haven't "mastered"? 17. What was your usual style or mood in your photographs? 18. If you could tell one piece of advice to any amateur photographer, what would that advice be? |
For me, the ideal subject is children. I always think they're very unique, they're always making different expressions, and it's not forced. The younger, the better. I love toddlers.
I haven't declined an actual photography offer. I have stayed away from big events like weddings. I have done a couple of weddings, but I try to stay away because it's very stressful. I can't enjoy doing my photography because I'm very stressed over taking the right photos at the right angles.. I like more laid back pictures of children, or younger people. It's very different nowadays. It used to be where you were in a darkroom, which I learned in college. It's very interesting. If you get a chance, I say definitely do it one day. You need to use your vision to take the photos. With the cameras, you don't know what the photos look like. You need good vision to get a good photo. In the darkroom, you need to use your touch and hand senses. You need to handle the film and put it into the machine all by touch. It's not until you turn the light that you see the film. Once you turn on the red light, that's when you can actually see the photo. You can control how much film you use. In the end, it's all up to you how much film you use and what chemicals you use. Nowadays, I use a computer. The control is all up to you. The computer isn't as magical. I think the way I express myself is trying to bring to light how I see the world – things I find important to me, things I find beautiful. Everyone can take a picture, but it's important – what specific emotion I try to capture, what angles I use. It's the way I capture. It's not just a regular subject, but it's also the mood. Depending on my mood, I might take something dark. Photographing something brings it to life. It's the way I see the subjects. It's more important to express yourself. I think, probably in wedding photography, was one of the experiences where I learned more about the client. Before the wedding, I didn't know the bride – I was recommended by a friend. You have to learn who you're taking pictures from – or of. As I was watching her interact and taking pictures of that moment, it was basically as if I was her shadow. So that was one instance. In another time, it was a senior photograph for the son of a friend of mine. I was trying to make him feel more relaxed by talking to him. Very nice, very polite. He was quite humble, shy, and I tried to expose his shy and sweet side . Luckily, most of the people I have taken pictures of are nice. The hardest are the children. The toddlers are okay. They just want to have fun and are very natural. The hardest ones are the oldest kids. When I'm taking a family picture, they start to get a strong personality and they don't want to be there, taking photos. It's very hard taking pictures of someone who doesn't want to be photographed. I don't know the specifics. I think I've always loved art, ever since I was little. Photography is a form of art, because you're bringing beautiful things to life. It started with a small digital camera in college. Instead of just taking pictures of people, I focused on subjects like flowers. As I took more photos, using angles and lighting, I was able to capture many beautiful things. I think I just started my love for photography in college, and from there I started improving, and improving, and then I became very good at it. I would say that I like a magical sense, which I use the most for kids outside. I try to create a glow effect around them when the sun is around them, like some sort of glare. I'm trying to show the sun glare on purpose on the lens. I want to expose the corners of the photos more, above the kids. I'm trying to make the contrast more strong, to create a haze effect. If I'm taking a portrait, I might do a black and white with a high contrast or grainy feel. That's usually if I want a serious photo. I haven't stopped, actually, I just put it on the side. I don't have the time to pursue a full time career because it requires a lot of time. 80% of photography is advertising. You have to make websites. Make cards. Advertise on social media, on Facebook. I don't have that time. I realized that I should spend more time taking photos and making photography my full time job. I do it as a hobby. I would never turn an offer down. It makes me a little extra money on the side. So, I haven't stopped. Before I became a mom, I liked to do macrophotography, which is close-up photos of regular objects that people usually don't see (such as icicles, flowers, plants). It makes everything look very nice and magical. Not so much around here, but when I used to live before, I would go out back and take pictures of the wildlife and the deer and the birds. I take a lot of photos of my daughter, as well. She helps me become a better photographer. I have to say I use my phone more. I only use my professional camera if I'm going somewhere for a client or taking specific photos. The reason I use my phone is just because it's practical for me. I don't want to miss any opportunity. I still don't think it compares to a professional camera, and I would use it if I could, but it's too much to drag around. Using a phone is just easier . It would be that there are a lot of things to carry around – it's heavy and bulky – and dropping equipment or ruining it is very expensive. We're talking about around 3000 dollars of equipment. It takes time because you need to learn how to use it. You need to know a lot to take the best photo. You need to know how to set all the settings and take it fast. When you're inside, it's a lower light, so you need to set your camera to a specific setting. You need to be very quick or you could lose a special moment there. It's about being on your own and not relying on your settings so much. Usually you need to use 4-5 lenses. I would have to say that my favorite part is the post-processing, which is seeing the photos after I have taken them. While I'm taking them, you can't really tell. After seeing them on the screen it brings me so much joy; it makes me happy seeing all the photos and their perfection. The mornings. Bringing all the expensive equipment. I still don't have all the lenses I want to be out there and a professional photographer. I also don’t like the anxiety of meeting a new client (I’m not a very outgoing person) and I'm not a social butterfly. I also don't like posing people (I'm not very good at that). That's why I like pictures of children, because they're very natural. Learning the camera. At first, it was very intimidating with all the settings, and all the things to learn on the professional camera. The fastest way to learn is to take pictures every day. I've been taking pictures every day for 10 years now. The posing, like posing people. I'm still not a master at that. I still have a lot to learn. Most of the photography I've done are candid photos. That's still one thing I have to learn. I like outdoor photos. I don't like studio photos so much - I try to get away from that. I like nature – seeing kids in nature, like I said, I don't like taking too forced pictures. Depending on the weather (if it's good), I want them to be themselves playing in a field. Not too many props. Very natural photos are my favorite. To take photos everyday. If you can do one of those monthly photo challenges, that's great. No matter what happens, try to take that camera out and take one picture each day. The more you take photos, the more you learn, and the better you become. I haven't met one person who didn't do this and became a professional. Every time you see a work, you get more and more encouraged. You don't realize how much better you've become until you see your next work. If you want to master a skill, do it as much as possible, but don't let it lose the fun. That's why I try to stay away from stress, because I still want it to be fun, to remain a passion. |
John Pultz, Author of Family Albums, 'Diane Arbus' in World Book Adv., Associate Professor of Photographic History
1. When did you first become interested in photography/modern ?
2. How did you come across Diane Arbus and her work? 3. What was your initial reaction when you observed her pictures? 4. What do admire about Arbus's work (have you tried to replicate anything in particular in the way you express yourself)? 5. Being an Associate Professor of photography and twentieth-century art, can you describe the main differences between photography and art now and before Arbus's work became popular? 6. What are your favorite lessons to teach as a Professor? 7. Do you take photographs in your spare time? What of? 8. Has Arbus influenced you personally in any way? How so? 9. Has Arbus influenced the way you see people socially (feel more respect, feel deeper connected)? 10. Do you prefer the new photography equipment to the old? What are some aspects of both that you like? 11. What are difficulties in taking pictures of people? What do you prefer in human subjects than in inanimate objects? 12. Diane was often said to have gotten to know her subjects very well before, during, and after her shoots. Do you prefer to learn about your subject as you take pictures of them? 13. What is the best piece of advice you were given, photography-wise? 14. Diane used lighting, angles, and scenery to better improve the mood and message of her artwork. How often do you do the same with your own photography? 15. What do you think is the most important lesson you've learned from Diane's work? 16. What was the most influential person in your life that drove you to become an Associate Professor of photography (or take photos at all)? 17. If you could give one piece of advice to an aspiring or novice photographer, what would that advice be? |
When did you first become interested in photography/modern art?
The summer after high school, I bought a camera. I started taking photographs. In college, I took some art history classes. After college, I was living in New Hope, taking courses in Princeton. Then I decided to go on to graduate school. When I was in college and making photos. I had seen some of her pictures. I know that that she carried her negatives larger to get more black space around her pictures. The teacher had worked on a portfolio with Arbus at Princeton. I was absorbing everything I could. I was not saying "oh I don't like it". I got excited over every photo I saw. I didn't see their oddness. After years, I still like the way she can stand in front of a subject (she must've been standing close to the person) and build a frame around their face in a way that the person's face was centered. In this case, the subject took all the attention. She could stand there with the camera in their face and the person didn't budge. All her pictures were emotional that way, powerful. When she had her big MoMA show, in 1971, it wasn't just Arbus. That was an incredibly rich time for photography. Generally, then, photography was becoming powerful, exciting, and many people were picking up cameras and looking at photos, while museums were beginning to collect it. Before that time, photography didn't have the same power. It was bit more marginalized. The people who considered photography as something that wasn't art weren't as connected to the art world. Arbus made that collection. I don't think people nowadays make a difference "oh that's contemporary art, oh that's photography" . Two things: to get the students to look, to slow down, to absorb the image, and not just their initial impression of a picture. To learn to use words to verbalized what they see, to realize how important how language is in coming to understand images. The second thing is to realize photographs aren't reality. It isn't what it is. I'm convinced that photographs aren't exciting for that reason. They're exciting because they have a point of view. It's a whole series of cultural assumption, coded in photographs?. We need to be smart enough to articulate all the personal and cultural baggage. Back when I was taking photos as an undergrad, everything was still darkroom work and I liked that. I had 35 mm cameras. And I loved being in the darkroom. But now that we carry phones around with us, then I find myself taking pictures. I don't say they're art, but they're all beautiful things - picture of my family, art, and share them on social media. When I took classes on history of photography, everything was black and white, and everyone got interested. I love how everyone takes pictures and puts them on social media. We live in a world where more pictures are around. I look at art a lot and go to museums. I think that good art and literature and builds help us to make things out of a world. There's people and activities that we need tools to understand, so we use photography. Coming out of Arbus, maybe a bit of freelancer. There was a sense that ambitious photographers did a good job of making people look weird, or odd. I think in some ways that photos do that are more interesting. She (Arbus) was capturing the differences that was way beyond the world we live in now. there was something powerful in her pictures of using sexuality to position people differently. I don't think I care. Of course, I'm impressed. I'm amazed that I still have people that still (the majority of) have worked with film. In some ways, I don't care - I care what the picture is. I think that when I was taking pictures, I took pictures of friends and considered them just kind of fun, but now that I look back those are the most interesting. I loved sitting with my old camera making portraits of people with the camera because it was so bulky that you couldn't take a quick, anonymous picture. Some were good, all of them were interesting. Most pictures were friends and I would say that I probably would want to know about my subjects. I don't know if it was advice but one of my professors said you really need to care about this. It wasn't just trying to make a picture, but what did I really want to photograph? I wanted to take pictures of things that really mattered to me. I'm aware of those things, but I don't focus on them exclusively. People are interesting. When I was in college, I had two professors but one of them successfully one of my professors. He helped me become a better writer so that I could write better about photographs. The challenge to write well motivated me to pursue my career today. Pay close attention to what you're doing. |
Philip Charrier, Associate Professor, Author of "On Diane Arbus" in History of Photography 2012
1. When did you first hear about Diane Arbus?
2. What were your first impressions? What are your impressions now? 3. What do you find the most interesting about Arbus's life? 4. Do you know a majority of Arbus's photos? If so, which one do you think has the most expression? 5. What lessons do you think can be learned from Arbus's photos, and is there one that you find the most important? 6. Why do you think Arbus became interested in photography? 7. Do you see Diane Arbus's influence in popular culture today, and how? 8. What, in your opinion, separates Diane from other photographers (what is her style like)? 9. What lessons have you learned from Arbus that you have found using in public or private? 10. What were the relationships between Diane and her family like (how do you think Diane and her siblings got along)? What was the difference between the Nemerov family and the Arbus family? 11. Do you think her personality affected how she photographed a subject? |
I think it was when I was a student at university, I would often go and browse the photography book section in the library because I was interested and studying there. Then I saw her first book from 1970s, published '72 maybe, and I saw that book and it was that point I took an interest in her, but it wasn't until much later that I could fully develop my interest.
I was curious in her photographs. I didn't know the content, I was just wondering in the terms of content, and my first impression was not being very impressed. It wasn't anything fancy and nothing lept out of me as very dramatic (photography wise). The individuals were certainly interesting themselves, but the photography itself was not. Well, you see, I think one of the things that I've been most concerned in with writing and thinking about her is the need to differentiate between her peculiar life and her work as an artist. I've always thought you need to look at the work first and you evaluate and think about it on its own terms. You think of the photographer as an individual with differences and peculiarities. When they're working as the artist, they become sort of a different person, a creator, trying to create music or art, creating things they value or make the world value. I've always tried my best to see her as an artist first and not make assumptions of her life. The most obvious one there is to take her suicide as kind of a defining moment of her career, and work backwards and look at her art and somehow anticipate or foreshadow that. I've always tried to get away from that form of thinking and look at her as someone as an adventurer and a risk taker. She was also an absolutely die-hard committed artist. In terms of what she was doing, she was a very committed artist and her art came first. Diane was very ambitious. She aspired to great artists. Having a brother who was not only a poet but a high-regarded poet, award-winning poet made her set high standards for herself. She put a lot of time and effort into the text that she wanted to accompany her pictures. She was generating text; she was always writing text to try and enhance and play against her pictures in certain ways. She was a photographer, as an artist, and a writer, and gradually over time because of the way the market went and she had to direct her career to match the expectations of what she was doing the writing side of it diminished over time. She was energetic, ambitious. I think there's no question that she was adventurous. In an effort to stand out, to distinguish herself from the fact, she was ready to go into spaces and take risks that others would not for whatever reason. She was searching for pictures, she was ready to make pictures that would be remarked on as special, incredible, artistic. She was willing to be quite adventurous. Some people have argued the adventure came first and the photography comes first. I disagree with that. I think she was always trying to make the photography first, and the adventure was a means where she needed to involve herself to get the photo. She had a disadvantage as woman. It was very physical in a sense where she was going places, so it was kind of a masculine element to photography that she had to battle against in some sense to prove herself worthy and ready. She wasn't a strong, big person by any means. As a woman she had those obstacles and challenges to face. You can think of her as a feminist or a pro-feminist movement. She perceived that. You could judge her as someone who could be a feminist. In her own way, she asserted the right of a woman to choose whatever sort of career she wanted. I think also by being a single mother and doing her best to raise her children on her own with a limited budget (the extent to which she was grappling with borderline financial issues, borderline poverty). As someone who stood her ground, she was very admirable as a feminist person. As a woman, she was held to a higher standard than men. Criticizing her sexual behavior or her willingness to take risks would not be compared to men, who had similar lives, but that would be seen as too masculine I'm very familiar with her photos, even though I didn't get down to her spring show in New York. I might not be aware of some in her early years but I'm familiar with most of the rest. Only a small proportion of Arbus's negatives have been circulated as prints, so we have a small window to look upon her vast number of photos that she made. I would say an early one, "A teenage couple on Hudson Street, N.Y.C. 1963". It's a young couple in a not particularly wealthy part of New York City. I guess the picture is on the borderline of them being children and being adults, and there's a number of things in the picture that capture the moment. I think she's very good at capturing people who are between two sides. People have multiple sides to them. What you see on the outside isn't always true on the inside. The notion of people having levels of complexity or being more people is shown in Arbus's photos, which are like x-rays. There are lots of pictures that she'd take in different places or times and she was looking for the photos that got the quality of being more than you see on the surface. With this picture, I think it works really well because of the fact that they are between adult and child. To what extent they understand age or love or adulthood in the way they imagine an adult man or woman. Another thing is that it has some sort of garbage on the ground, there's paper on the ground. What's really incredible about Arbus that she doesn't worry about not cropping that out. A perfect picture doesn't have stray things that distract your attention, but with this picture that she's got stray things in make them more real. You can imagine anyone coming along – a bystander, a friend of theirs. It's a snapshot aesthetic, in a way that anyone could take it. But the more you look at it, and how you look at a lot of Arbus's photos, a lot of trial and care have gone into the picture to make it more real. The more a picture is polished or hair-brushed the less real it becomes. But with her photos the little details she incorporates makes her photos much deeper than this. Her lack of judging people and her endless curiosity. She's always curious of the world and people. And rather than changing them in different ways, she's just curious about whatever qualities they might have or not have. I think this was important to Arbus's place or time in history. I think up until Arbus, you just took a picture of someone for a particular reason, they had something to represent that was important for people to know. The person was a hero, or someone poor, and we needed to congratulate them or think about how to help them. What I think was so revolutionary was that she took pictures of people that were not important at all. She went everywhere, anywhere, and took pictures of anyone. They represented humanity, mystery, dignity in all the subjects she approached. She has a reputation as a photographer of freaks, but if you count up all of her photos, most of her pictures are of normal, everyday people. She was photographer of ordinariness, of the unremarkable that characterized her. She looked more at the extraordinary in the ordinary. And that extraordinary in that time are now considered by our society the good things. She was very interested with people with hardships, aristocrats, that notion of everyone in one way or another being aristocrats. She was looking for that hidden element. There is often a sense of humor in there. She never gives a fully transparent window. She takes snapshots that aren't quite clear, always with some humor in there. It gives a sense of enjoyment to the viewer. To some extent, Arbus wasn't always neutral. She was sometimes smiling after. I think her interest was based off of the fact that she was with Allan Arbus. She was very young. When she was still in her teens, they got married, and initiated Allan's initiative of her photographer, so she got involved in it. I think that's how her interest evolved. In the 1950s, NYC was also a hothouse of artistic activity. Photography really came into its own in the United States in the 1940s to the dazzling qualities of NYC. She also realized that her and her husband's business rose, photography was blossoming into an art form that was beautiful to behold. It was becoming recognized as an art form. She had knowledge of photography based off her husband and was then exposed to all of this art in her city. Early on she realized she had a gift to get good photos and contacts and photographs. It was accidental in a way, but it was also amazing. There are a whole host of photographers that have said they have been influenced by her. Even in Japanese photographers, which is the topic I actually teach, her influence was very significant. After the MoMA show and her book that accompanied that exhibition had a huge influence on photography. There are all kinds of individuals – men and women – who have been inspired by her photography, her dignity, her courage that she brought to taking pictures that was very fulfilling, very meaningful for her. It's been a source of inspiration to people, young and old. Her death isn't fully understood and she still had lots of promise, and in that way she has inspired people to try and make a mark in their life and to overcome difficulty. In the realm of portraiture, the overall respect for the portrait and portraiture was not very strong. But I think it was Diane's revival of the portrait as an important art form, as the most significant. It isn't just the portrait. It's the idea of people being interesting... It represents hopes and dreams and failures and trials and tribulations of people. You're looking at the mirror at yourself and getting a sense of who you are and some important ideas or preoccupations of your society. I think what Arbus did was make the portrait more interesting. It represented more individuals of society. I think it was her biggest contribution to the world. All that she had to go through to make these members of our society not invisible. Personally, I would say that to be courageous, and to take a project to the very limit as a sort of way of discovering what can be done, and also a way of self discovery. You learn about yourself, but you also learn about the subject by taking it to the most practical way. Just like Diane removed her clothes to enter nudist camps so the nudists would trust her and she could gain photos. But if you can see the results of what she achieves. You don't just see nudists, you see real people with families and friendships and personalities who are involved pursuing something they enjoy or love. She went to the very limit by removing clothes to gain the sense of someone who could be trusted. As a result we have the pictures, but this also lead Arbus to more projects where she had to do some difficult things and mess with people who were scary or not be able to be trusted. I admire her willingness to take pictures. I don't know that much about this and I kind of steered away from it, but the thing she communicated to her brother about her photography may have affected her. It isn't very interesting to me, but she looked upon her brother as a rival, close friend, and a source of support. Even though she was a single mother and a hard worker, she had very productive relationships with her children. We know her relationships with her parents and husband were difficult, but she was a very loving and nurturing person. She was remarkably attentive to people's needs. On the whole, we think she got a lot of strength and support through her family. She wanted to push herself. If you look at how she repeated projects with subjects the took an interest in, she was very interested in the people she photographed. Her interests were also personal, not just because they were good to be photographed. She took interest in them, the people who were not winners of society, considered to be weirdos or perverts, and this curiosity and sympathy and sense of warmth rose to individuals like that. Even in terms of more ordinary people, she could see through them and find inner struggles or places of uncertainty. |