di-ann arbus, as she's supposed to have preferred to be called, is one of the most prominent photographers of the 1950s. primarily said to have gained popularity for photographing the 'freaks' of society. in 2006, steven shainberg made a film called 'fur: an imaginary portrait of diane arbus'. the movie seems to travel in an exotic world filled with the whispers of nicole kidman. was she the real diane arbus? as the title claims it was an imaginary portrait.
the problem with such movies is that they glamorize the artist' mind. as if the repressed voyeurism & selfishness of the larger part of humanity found itself expressed and forgiven through the art of the artist. perhaps it is true. but when a movie glamorizes it and makes it the only dimension of the artist then it deludes itself and the people. it creates an yearning in the people to live the life of an artist. there's no such thing of reparation or redemption because of one's profession or passion. everyone goes through a complexity of emotions/actions/choices/decisions that can never be fulled defined or explained. least of all by a movie like fur. especially about an artist who preferred to document the lives of those who lived on the fringes of society.