“If I want to take a picture, I take it no matter what”
I think this statment is crucial to Goldins work. She is certainly an artists whose work begins to make sense when we view it in series. There is a directness, and an intimacy about her work which seems to deny the camera was even present. This is surely a result, paradoxically, of its ever presence. Only by it being a constant can her subjects forget it exists.
The personal and erotic seem to be able to be transfered from a public to a private domain without any of the staging or pornification of other imagery so explicit in content. This is not to say they don’t have drama. The lighting, as she admits, is almost Caravegesque at times.
She is often conpared to Diane Arbus but I tihnk that is lazy. There is an artificiality and personal slant to Arbus’ work which is not so present in GOldin’s. Goldin’s work is far more explicitally about her disapearance adn the capturing of the subject. Arbus seems to project the self onto the subject. This is not a judgement of absolute quality but of relative difference. If we are making judgments though, I prefer Goldin…hence I wrote this blog.
[...] by Scott Schuman bio, who is better known by the moniker The Sartorialist, twww.design-cult.comNan GoldinNan Goldin February 27th, 2008 / Other forms of culture, Photography, Tom’s posts ???If I want to [...]
diane arbus photography
14 Mar 08 at 10:32 am
Nan Goldin’s work is nothing but disgusting images which have for some reason I can’t explain been made into so - called art. It sickens me to see that a photograph of two young girls, one with her legs apart, not even knowing what type of picture has been taken and shown in public. And I am raging at the fact that she sold it or loaned it to Elton John. I cannot even put down the words in which I think of him
Hannah Springhall
15 Oct 08 at 9:02 am
says 14 year old hannah springhall
It is indeed disgusting to show naked people.
I mean naked people are disgusting.
Disgusting humans without clothes.
Why didn’t god create us more beautiful?
Somebody
5 Jan 09 at 2:30 pm
just because you dont understand it doesnt mean its not art. the human body has been the subject of art for millions of years and just because you dont see its beauty doesnt make it any less beautiful
Alice
21 Jan 09 at 9:46 am
hannah, i totally disagree, nans goldins work is disgusting yes, its shocking but its real life. the fact that she set out as a photographer to create the reaction you just left means that she as a photographer is a blummin good one. she set an aim, created it and everyone of us is fullfilling it whether we like her work or not weve still noticed it.
and i think she would be happy to know that you rage about her work. shes presenting a truth in a way and i love what she does. an incredible artist.
wow
11 Feb 09 at 10:50 am
I truly believe the above comments have missed the point totally, the photograph’s that Nan takes are real life images of what people do in private and we as human beings can talk and talk about these things that go on but for some ridiculous reason as soon as you see these spoken about things you seem to think its disgusting, those kid’s are messing about if you see a sexual overtone in it then should you not question why you thought that way in the first place, Nan Goldins photography is probably the most interesting record of real human life.
paul ashby
19 Mar 09 at 3:28 pm
paul ashby, you couldn’t have said it better
FL
2 Apr 09 at 1:19 pm