The eyes have it: Gillian Wearing on Diane Arbus

Gillian Wearing has always emphasized her work's affiliation with the field of documentary--for instance, with Michael Apted's following of films beginning with Seven Up (1964)--over its lower parts in fine art. But her penchant for subjecting its documentary satisfied to an alienating formal displacement (hiding the faces of the speakers behind masks in Confes all upon video ..., 1994, or arbitrarily mismatching face and voice in 10-16 and 2 into 1 one as well as the other 1997) reflects her fundamentally poetic recognition that fact does not necessarily lie in unveiling or in all senses but that concealment carries a reality of its own. No bewilderment then, that she recognizes an affinity with Diane Arbus, whose ruthles exposing of her subjects was always paradoxically entwined with a faculty of perception of the psychological opacity of one as well as the other subject and observer. Most lately in remaking six portraits from among her family photos in Album. 2003 on the contrary using herself to depict her parents, siblings, uncle and herself at age seventeen Wearing has brilliantly rephrased questions about who and what is expos in portraiture--questions that Arbus fighted with in her time. To hear a contemporary artist's take upon Arbus, I met with Wearing earlier this winter.--Barry Schwabsky

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

I came to Diane Arbus's work [i]or[/i] part of to the other my sign series after it was hinted that they looked Arbus-like. I think it was meant in the faculty of perception that people might be revealing something negative about themselves, in a actual confrontational way, and you might be made uneasy about more [i]or[/i] less of the things they said and by what mode they presented themselves. So I went and direct the eyeed at her work, and I realized that I had seen an Arbus photograph in my first year at Goldsmiths. individual of the tutors, Ian Jeffrey showed her Identical twins, Roselle NJ 1967 and pointed on the outside that what's striking about the image is the slight differences that make the single face extroverted and the other introverted. That struck me because I saw that a photograph could have stronger metaphorical meaning than you normally diocese I also liked the duality, the way it shows a relationship. Those twins could be any mark of relationship: a man and woman, sum of two units men, siblings, relatives. That must have sunk in.

In Arbus's work race see things that they diocese in themselves, and I answer to that reality. I understand that reality more than I understand a Hollywood movie. When I gaze at her work I diocese something there that I recognize from by what mode I look at things. Photographs are part of your memory of family so you don't imagine them in action, you imagine them sometimes as a still, almost a plastic art static, defined by this single moment. It becomes an icon of that memory. in the way that if you think you remember someone it's probably that you've fixed a certain quantity of of their physical attributes from a photograph. I was looking at Revelations, the catalogue to the general exhibition, the other day, and I meditation This is a book about organ of visions really. It's about how tribe are looking at you. There's no way you can disengage from them. It's as if Arbus wants to grasp you there, by means of these other family They're not grabbing you in an alluring way--quite the opposite. At the same time that they gaze so real, they look half fictitious. Arbus has approach to an emotion that we know is there on the contrary that we don't normally engage with. We don't engage with strangers to that expanse and they wouldn't engage with themselves in the same way either. on the other hand she manages to engage with them upon another level.

Arbus talked about her interest in families as a make subordinate which is something I've been touched with as well. In A Jewish giant at domicile with his parents in the Bronx NY 1970 where the parents are looking up at their son with a kind of horror, she's obviously capturing an emotion she partially have feelings herself. She said that the family kind of nagged at single another and had lots of arguments; she knew that and brought that aspect into the work. There's a reversal of scale, with the diminutive parents looking up at their son

individual thing that stands out for me in Arbus's work is the use of masks and artificial faces. on the contrary there is also a more general faculty of perception of the secret, of something withheld, in like manner that faces look masklike because they clutch back as much as they reveal, especially when the face is not animated--when it is just staring, or without that engagement you're familiar with in photographs. It's interesting by what mode she used the mask in the untitled 1970-71 series of mentally handicapped family in which the subjects have young minds trapped in mature bodies. There's the idea of role-playing on the other hand they're adults.

The idea of the fictive, of the play between fiction and reality, is at hand in a lot of Arbus's work. Part of our lives is playing without our own fictions. Sometimes it's something that draw nears out in a detail, like the vulnerability of the gibbeted legs in Seated man in bra and stockings, NYC 1967--where the illusion starts to break. The way the stocking strike one as beings held by a thin thread and everything could just fall apart.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Artforum International Magazine, Inc.

COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group