Diane Arbus, whose retrospective is now on view at Walker Art Center, used her exceptional technical skill as a fashion photographer to create a world inhabited by circus freaks, the mentally handicapped, nudists, giants and midgets, and, even more disturbing, “regular” people made up to go out on the town. Taken as a whole, this work creates a community without typical boundaries of race, social status, or physicality. With the unflinching, semi-nude self-portrait taken early in her career and included in the exhibit, Arbus planted herself firmly in this community. It’s shot into a mirror, and this mirror serves as a metaphor for the whole of her work. Her empathy is apparent as she holds the mirror of her camera up to all her subjects, and sees herself.
Community is an elusive—and illusive—concept. The reality is tougher yet. It’s become an industry in this country to destroy any illusion of cooperation. Ann Coulter trashes the 9/11 housewives as political opportunists and then gloats on television that she did it to sell books. Al Franken calls conservatives lying liars, and sells lots of books to the other side. Instead of using his convention speech to embrace a common future for Minnesotans, Governor Tim Pawlenty takes the opportunity to demonize gays and people on welfare.
Politics is now being played as a zero-sum game. There can only be winners and losers. Politicians like Jim Ramstad, who would reach across an aisle to fellow addict Patrick Kennedy, are the ones who are marginalized. Ramstad will always win his sensible political district, but he’ll never wield the big stick in Washington because he’s unwilling to use it to punish.
This corrosive behavior is particularly evident in “virtual” communities. Think of fiction, where someone like Vince Flynn or Cormac McCarthy can act out violent fantasies (and, we hope, exorcize them) within the safety of the printed page. As readers, we can participate to a degree, either in killing the bad guys with Flynn, or being a bad guy with McCarthy. The only rules are in our head. Online, anything goes as well.
Online, anyone can create fiction without the hard work and discipline displayed by real writers or artists. The lines between creator and consumer aren’t defined; anyone can be an idea killer. Any discussion that starts in a civil fashion can career off in any direction, and often does. A perfect example of this occurred on the online forum Mnspeak.com the other day (disclosure: my son owns Mnspeak) when, believe it or not, a discussion of Minneapolis’ crackdown on housing violations morphed almost immediately into a discussion of German prepositions. That digression was characterized by its benign nature. Others can degenerate into ad hominem attacks fueled by commenters who intentionally try to derail any civil discourse for the purpose of calling attention to themselves, or even to intentionally destroy a community. When it happens, serious people get fed up and leave. When there are no rules, people who like to play by them simply refuse to play. It’s a game of a different nature and it’s as good an explanation as any as to why online communities tend to burn out.
Conversation between people who actually have to face each other is less likely, one would hope, to end up in the ditch. When one actually listens to a correspondent, a conversation is more likely to ensue. Are you actually interested in what the person has to say, and are you willing to consider his view? Or are you debating rather than conversing? Are you trying to reach a solution to a common problem, or are you trying to score points? Is civility more likely because there can be consequences in a face-to-face encounter? When you can’t stand off from your targets like pundits or politicians do, or can’t hide behind anonymity online, the possibility of a smack in the face is always there.
As repugnant as Ann Coulter already is, imagine her standing in front of a woman who watched on television as her husband or son burned alive in the World Trade Center. Would she be able to look into tear-filled eyes and deliver the same vitriol? Imagine Tim Pawlenty’s anti-gay tirade from the state Republican convention podium delivered right to the face of one of Diane Arbus’ transvestites. Would he have the audacity to do that?
In one of her journals, Arbus wrote, “There is so much to learn, mainly it is never as good as you hope or as bad as you dread.” The majority of her photographs were made with a wide-angle lens that forced her to get very close to her subjects. These images prove that she was willing to get close enough to listen to and learn from people very unlike herself. It is that sort of communication that we should seek, even if that communication doesn’t necessarily lead to agreement.
Leave a Reply