William Todd Schultz's psycho biography, "An Emergency in Slow Motion, The Inner Life of Diane Arbus", is a psychological interpretation of Diane Arbus' interior life and how it influenced her photographic work. Conversely, Schultz also looked at how Arbus' work - her subject matter - may have affected her psyche. Most of the author's resources came from previously published books and articles. He added a few personal interviews, one with Ms. Arbus' psychologist, Helen Boigon, and the other with one of her potential photographic subjects, the Kronhausens'. Having a background in photography and a personal interest in it, I own and read the same material Schultz used to conduct his study. Mainly, Patricia Bosworth's 1984 biography of Diane Arbus and two of her photography books, issued by Doon Arbus and her Estate through Aperture. These contain personal interviews with Arbus, taped recordings from her classes, as well as her previously written texts. (Arbus was an excellent and prolific writer as well as photographer. She often wrote the text that accompanied her magazine articles.) At the time Ms. Arbus took her life, in 1971, she was considered a legend who influenced her students as well as professional photographers. Today, some 40 years later, she still inspires many emerging and established artists.
As with anyone who has attained this stature, especially those who may not have appreciated her likeness of them, rumors and misrepresentations often abound. As it relates to Diane Arbus, the anecdote the public is most aware of, and is in fact accurate, is Ms. Arbus' fight with depression. Beyond that, is speculation and rumor. Our culture is all too eager to ride the salacious tide when a "weakness" is perceived. Especially if we dislike the person in question or when there is money to be made. This is why I question, the author's new sources, the Kronhausens' and Dr. Helen Boigon. The Kronhausens' do not appear to like Ms. Arbus. If what they related to Schultz was true, it was better left unsaid because it was personal and does not add to our understanding of Diane as a photographer. What it does tell us has more to say about the people she was with and our experimental culture at that time - the 1960's. As it stands, it sounds more like an embellished story developed by the Kronhausens', possibly because she did not photograph them and make them a part of her vast, insightful portfolio. Helen Boigon's interviews with the author make one question her abilities as a psychologist. Granted, psychology has come a long way since the 1960's and its findings do not maintain the same credibility as it did then. However, Ms. Boigon's analysis of Ms. Arbus felt sophomoric, outdated and overstated; despite the fact Schultz interviewed her in 2007. She also admitted during her interview that she did not dislike Ms. Arbus, but did not like her and reluctantly took a photograph that she disliked from Arbus as a gift (Identical twins, Roselle, N.J. Twins).( Ironically, she did have an understanding of its value since she sold it to put her daughter through medical school.) By virtue of Boigon's analysis, Diane Arbus lived her adult life psychologically incompetent. Schultz agrees with parts of Ms. Boigon's theory but not all of it. However, whether or not they are of the same mind as it relates to specifics, they both assessed Arbus in a manner that leaves one wondering if they are speaking about the same photographer. During her lifetime, Ms. Arbus produced thousand of photographs, was in numerous exhibits, had her work and writing in the best magazines -Art Forum, Life, etc.- and taught at Universities and ran photography workshops. If she was as incompetent as Schultz and Boigon make her out to be, she would not have been able to perform at the level she did. What is most disturbing about this book is the breech of doctor-patient confidentiality by Dr. Boigon, per the author's request, a practicing psychologist. My main problem with the entire book is Schultz's analysis was over stated and repetitious. He repeated himself throughout the entire book and at points where it was not necessary. Likewise, he over analyzed to the point of being ridiculous. His studies did not warrant an entire book. Did Diane Arbus suffer from depression and all its side effects - without a doubt. Did it render her incompetent, no.
There is one point where I am in agreement with the author. By virtue of Ms. Arbus' notes and conversations with friends, Schultz does not believe Ms. Arbus wanted to bring an end to her photographic work. He is uncertain as to whether she truly wanted to take her life, or, at the time, just stop the pain within her. Diane Arbus loved photography and was actively working on projects when she took her life. A month before her suicide, she photographed Nixon's daughters' wedding and also taught a week's photography workshop. She was having a rough summer, emotionally. Her two daughters were grown and away, her lover away with his wife and her ex-husband was in California. She hated and feared her depression. Alone and depressed, it just became too much for her. For these reasons, I concur with Schultz's assessment. We lost a great photographer well before her time. Had someone been there, would she have lived until her natural death? We'll never know. One thing we do know for sure is that she was an outstanding photographer and writer who was not incompetent. How and what she suffered from should not be over dramatized and analyzed, but used to help prevent further suicides. This book does not shed light on anything new about Ms. Arbus' psychological state as it relates to her work. However, it has an indirect message about suicide. That is, certain circumstances prevail when people are most likely to commit suicide. Make yourself aware of them and seek help.
Diane Arbus was a remarkable photographer who contributed much to the world of photography. She exposed us to a world previously unseen and ignored by our culture; freaks, so to speak, and other socially unacceptable members of society. Thanks to Ms. Arbus there are not as many social secrets, or at least the pretense of them. It is okay to photograph people as they are and not as we wish them to be. It does not make us a freak to do so, only human. Her work speaks for itself. All else is just useless speculation that provides little more than gossip.
Review by Beth Lyons-Cary
