Morality, Standards and Acceptance

Morality, Standards and Acceptance

        In Susan Sontag’s essay, Freak Show, she criticizes the photographed works by Diane Arbus, an American photographer. Arbus is known for working with ‘freaks’ as subjects. Some of the examples are the giant, nudist, and the people with dwarfism. What is special about her photos was that the subjects are usually staring straight into the camera, and this often creates intimacy between the subjects, photographs and the audience. Sontag, in her essay, says that subjects in Arbus’s photos are “lacerating” and this is contrasting to their “calm” manner. She also says that the “quality of attention” - shown in the photographs - “creates the moral theater.” Using those specific words, Sontag criticizes Arbus for not being ethical about the subjects that are vulnerable. What does she mean by lacerating subjects? How do these photographs create moral theater? This leads to the question about morality. What is morality, who defines them, and is it always right? 

It seems like ethical behavior was not the priority for Arbus when working with ‘freaks.’ However, some people find her works to be problematic. The problem is straightforward - that the subjects of her works are the freaks. Sontag is one of the people who pointed out this issue, relating it to morality. One argument that Sontag suggests is that the subjects would not have known how grotesque they would be expressed in the photograph. Although Arbus formed connections with those who she took photographs of, we don’t know the story behind that or what the people could have felt in those situations of being captured. This is simply a suggested opinion by Sontag, therefore no one knows what the truth is. Rather than taking attention to the ethics, Arbus seems like she wanted to express her subjects as they are, not wanting the audiences to feel compassion towards them. She did not want the audiences to feel sorry about the subjects or have any unnecessary feelings such as sympathy. The subjects in her photographs are just as they are. In a sense that Arbus purely tried to capture the plain shape of these people, it seems like there is no need to debate about the morality of using socially vulnerable subjects for her works. 

However, another problem comes in. Arbus was born in a wealthy family and she somehow disliked that fact and wanted to escape from it. Arbus says, “I was confined in a sense of unreality…. And the sense of being immune was, ludicrous as it seems, a painful one” (Sontag, 224). She describes her wealth and the environment she was in as being ‘unreal’ and that she was limited with the border the ‘wealth’ gave her. Regarding this, Sontag says “Arbus’s interest in freaks expresses a desire to violate her own innocence, her sense of being privileged” (Sontag, 224). This becomes an issue. With this idea, Arbus’s words do not align with her actions. Although she wanted her subjects to be viewed as they are, she intentionally found the subjects that are vulnerable, in order to deviate from her wealth, or not just wealth, but all the privilege she had until then. Why did she have to specifically focus on the vulnerable ones in the society? There were so many other options such as capturing people having their daily life, including the so-called ‘normal’ people, to achieve her goal of escaping from the privilege. The fact that Arbus focused on the ‘freaks’ shows that she already looked at these people differently from looking at normal people. This is a typical behavior of humans, to look at others who are different in a stereotypical way,  but if she were to deliver a message of ‘look at these subjects as they are,’ then her action seems ironic.

Sontag is criticizing the morality of Arbus’s work for such issues, but what she means by ‘moral’ is difficult to define, and at the same time, Sontag’s moral value might differ from what others thought. She mentions in her writing that the moral is “body of psychic custom and public sanctions that sets a vague boundary between what is emotionally and spontaneously intolerable and what is not” (Sontag, 223). This is a widely accepted and a typical definition of moral, but it is still tricky to say what is right and wrong, since standards are all different for everyone. It will depend on so many factors such as people’s backgrounds, religion or culture. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that Arbus is wrong, or Sontag is right. Still, the question about morality of Arbus’s action due to debatable problems that were mentioned above, therefore it is a never ending conflict between who is to criticize. 

Moving onto the second essay, The Art of Cruelty by Meggie Nelson, the text is exploring the relationship between cruelty and compassion. Compassion is a familiar concept to those who are familiar with Arbus’s idea; Arbus wanted the audiences to distance themselves from compassion and to look at the photographs as they are. However, did the public opinion follow her intention? Not so much, easily shown from Sontag’s criticism of her. Regarding this, there is a quote from Nelson that is relatable - “Whether or not one intends for one’s art to express or stir compassion, to address or rectify forms of social injustice, to celebrate or relieve suffering, may end up irrelevant to its actual effects” (Nelson, 662). In her essay, Nelson defends Arbus throughout - more like admires - and roast Sontag in reverse. 

Nelson gets the point, that the intention and the actual effect can be apart. Arbus also experienced the same thing. She was either called a “fearless renegade” or a “narcissistic exploiter.” Whether someone thinks one way or the other, it will depend on their ‘standard’ of thinking - or moral and ethical values. For example, when Sontag said that Arbus concentrated on the victims, the unfortunates, it is valid to question what is her standard of ‘unfortunates’ for Sontag. It can be her stereotype. Nelson directly says that “it seems clear that the problem lies more in Sontag’s standards than in Arbus’s alleged cruelty” (Nelson, 663). Nelson also gives an answer to my previous question on the irony between Arbus’s action and the purpose of her works. 

Nelson says that Arbus didn’t deny her cruelty and compassion. Also, in an article by Sebastian Smee, Diane Arbus was accused of exploiting ‘freaks.’ We misunderstood her art, 2022, he says that “Arbus accepted the camera’s tendency to reveal what is really there. She found the phenomenon interesting. She didn’t try to leverage it into a rhetoric of cruelty…” (Smee). Arbus did have an idea of what she is doing - not saying that it is right or wrong, but she knew what impact her actions could bring or how her works might be viewed as. Despite this, she continued with what she wanted to work on. More than simply defending Arbus from Sontag’s ‘standard,’ Nelson praises Arbus’s honesty and the ability to show the truth. She says that Arbus’s work allows us to look at multiple perspectives rather than being limited to a single perspective. For her, Arbus is a brave woman who reveals the truth. 

It is quite obvious that the stance the writers are taking in Freak Show by Sontag and The Art of Cruelty by Nelson are on opposite sides of each other. When Sontag is harshly criticizing Arbus, Nelson is busy praising her. In Freak Show, the question stopped on ‘What is morality, who defines them and is it always right?’ The Art of Cruelty extends on the idea and concludes that morality depends on the standard of each person - although Nelson roasted Sontag for her standards being wrong which might seem ironic. No matter what, we all have freedom of expression and no one is to judge. After all, one more question is not resolved - whether the defined morality is always right or wrong. As can be seen from two texts, each author thinks themselves to be right. There will be people on either side, on the side that they think it is right. Therefore, it will be difficult to answer that question. 

This is one of Arbus’s works, Untitled, 1971. There are two women standing next to each other. The only thing that I notice from the photo is that they are different from ‘normal’ people. It seems like both of them might be having down syndrome. Still, that doesn’t matter. Besides that difference, they are just two women standing side by side, arms in arms. showing us the biggest smile and this makes us happy as well. They are dressed up so nicely, making people think about where they are heading to. They look excited just as other normal people would be. If we look into those details, there is nothing so special about this photo. Maybe, rather than capturing people simply staring at the camera, making them look even creepier - or freakier - this would have been a better way for Arbus to achieve her goal: to disperse people’s focus on the flaws that the subjects have, and to make people look at her subjects as they are by capturing the daily life of others, just as she did in this photograph.

Arbus would say that she tried to show her subjects as they are. Nelson will praise this photograph and Arbus for showing different perspectives of the ones who are generally considered to be ‘unfortunate’ can be happy and enjoy their life - although it is not sure if she would have thought those subjects are unfortunate. However, it is difficult to decide on which stance that Sontag might have taken, looking at this photo. This photograph has a bit of a distanced characteristic from the photos of ‘freaks’ that she harshly criticized. Although the subjects would be regarded as different, their happiness and excitement cancels out the worries and criticisms that Sontag was suggesting - the worry about the subjects that can cause compassion within people’s mind. Which side would she take? Again, it will depend on her standard.

Although someone like Arbus and Nelson will look at these subjects as they are, other people might still think that this photograph is ‘wrong’ for taking photos of people who are ‘unfortunate.’ But, who defines unfortunate? And what is so wrong about taking the photos of the ones who are vulnerable? Maybe those are the people who are the ones confined in their stereotypes. They might think that displaying the unfortunates in front of the people as a form of artwork is not ethical. Maybe they are trying to be too nice. Maybe they are obsessed with themselves being a nice person - kind of narcissistic. Can we judge on the morality behind these? They have their own standard, they are simply acting according to their values and nothing is to judge. Still, the subjects seem happy and that is all that matters.

It is always difficult to decide on which side to take, or which action to take while being part of the society. For instance, politeness is regarded to be one of the important values when living our life. However, what if the action taken to be polite harms you? You can be seen as a nice person, but who will care for all the opportunities that you might have lost while caring for others? What if you are simply obsessed with the idea of being ‘nice?’ If your action is to harm yourself, it is clearly not a right thing to do. For someone, helping others might be a bigger value despite being disadvantaged - again, making it difficult to choose right or wrong. Also, What if your intention of trying to be nice doesn’t go as planned? Meaning that, your good intention harms others in reverse. That sounds chaotic, but it is a likable situation. Like in this situation, there can be a vague boundary between the value and the consequences it can bring. You just need to know where your place is and act accordingly. And always, it would be better to avoid being too excessive.

What is important would be to compromise and find what works the best - to find the standard that is acceptable. It is a nice skill to have, to accept the fact that people are different and we all have different standards. This doesn’t confine to ethics, but for any other situations that people will face while living their life.

Works Cited

Higonnet, Anne, et al. “Diane Arbus and the Power of Cruel Art.” Public Books, 23 August 2016, https://www.publicbooks.org/diane-arbus-and-the-power-of-cruel-art/. Accessed 12 November 2023.

Arbus, Diane. Untitled. 1917

Nelson, Meggie. The Art of Cruelty. 2011.

Smee, Sebastian. “Review | Diane Arbus was accused of exploiting 'freaks.' We misunderstood her art.” The Washington Post, 26 September 2022, https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-entertainment/2022/09/26/diane-arbus-exhibit-zwirner/. Accessed 14 November 2023.

Sontag, Susan. Freak Show. 1973.