10 of Art History's Most Controversial Photographers [NSFW]

In 1971 Norman Mailer said that “giving a camera to Diane Arbus is like putting a live grenade in the hands of a child.” Lo and behold: Child With Hand Grenade. Even before her suicide that year, Arbus’ magnificent body of work evoked criticism and suspicion of exploitation. She was drawn to the so-called deviants, outsiders, marginalized people, glamorous transvestites, graceful giants, disturbed-looking children, circus performers and of course, twins and subjects with other birth eccentricities. Had she lived, Arbus would have been 89 years old today. In tribute, we’d like to present you with this brief survey of some of the most controversial photographers, contemporary and of recent yesteryear.

Diane Arbus

Arbus was a curious case. She was reportedly concerned that she became known for photographing “freaks.” Then again, she once said this: “Most people go through life dreading they’ll have a traumatic experience. Freaks were born with their trauma. They’ve already passed their test in life. They’re aristocrats.” Reconcile that.

Filed Under:

Post comment as twitter logo facebook logo
Sort: Newest | Oldest

Shelby Lee Adams! Nan Goldin! Philip Lorca DiCorcia! Larry Clark! and of course, Sally Mann. Immediate Family is still debated heatedly.

ditto on Cindy Sherman. Just saw the show at the NY MOMA. Incredible! but certainly controversial.

Personally I would have swapped Richardson out with Tyler Shields (http://www.tylershields.com/). While Richardson has a greater volume of work and has been doing it longer, Tyler has also gotten some great, young Hollywood talent (Lindsay Lohan included!) in very disturbing, controversial scenes...

I would think Nobuyoshi Araki belongs on this list - he's hugely talented...and controversial.

What about Ralph Eugene Meatyard?

For someone relatively new, this is a great piece, however it would be far, far better if you were consistent in your layout. Some text refers to the images below, some to the images above. Please, for the uninitiated like me, either make it clear with an 'above'/'below' quote relating to the photo to which you are referring, or overlay a photographer credit on the image itself so we know which paragraph to read. Other than that, loved it. Much it inspire, consider, and dwell upon...

"Shock factor", did you completely miss the big "NSFW" in the title of the article?! Also... "wagina"? "Beef curtains"? Really?

I'm the non stodgiest person on the planet, and liberal to a default. however, I would have thought the "cooka", "wagine", "happy box", "poona".... Would have been covered or at the LEAST a vag alert .. it is highly possible there is a standing written warning somewhere and I totally missed it. Regardless I now know this may happen, but even though I am "on guard", I still don't want to see a girls roast beef curtains unless its intentionaland via my own clickage. I should have assumed there to be an image such as this. However, not as the first sample image! And yes controversy is in the title of article, but.. Next time use a "wagina" alert? Back to your regularly scheduled program. ;) otherwise great post.

Just wondering, but why are so many of the photographs depicting violence against women? The underlying discourse here is really disturbing and retrograde, you know?

I was living in Cincinnati during the 1990 obscenity trial of the Contemporary Arts Center and its director Dennis Barrie after they exhibited some of Robert Mapplethorpe's work. That trial, the city's campaign against Larry Flynt, and many other reasons (including the Jesus Lizard's David Yow being arrested for allegedly exhibiting his dangle at a show) is why the place came to be known as "Censor-nati". And Mapplethorpe's explicit images are actually quite tame given the ubiquity of hardcore porn found in our current internet powered culture.

All this work looks so dated. Other than Arbus, who was coming from a place of self revelation and heart ache, all these photographs are based on an outmoded "look at me" attention grabbing mind set. So 2011 and before. Snooze. Vulnerability kidz. That's the new black.

Cindy Sherman, Jeff Koons, Nan Goldin, Larry Clark

Where's Helmut Newton and yes Cindy Sherman. If you ever do a piece on extremely disturbing sculpture you must post Mark Prent.

Well good choices. Some relevant additions could be Les Krims, Charles Gatewood, & Cindy Sherman.

Is Diane Arbus photo of Jean-Paul Sartre and la famille?

To everyone who said Larry Clark: Yes. YES. Yes. Facepalm.

Sally Mann mentioned but not included. And yes, Larry Clark and ahem, Nan Goldin. Stephen Meisel? Please.

Meisel us a great fashion photog but hardly at the level of the others on this list as far as real controversy goes he is more faux pr controversy. Larry Clark should be on this list.

No Larry Clark and No Claude Cahun. Yikes.

@ Katrina: Helnwien is a hyperrealistic painter, yep--AND a very painterly photographer. His initial regard came from very creepy photo work actually...and he's still shifted between mediums, doing terrifying work in each. He likes to do huge billboard photo installations of bloodied children, etc. But easy mistake to confuse which of his work is photography and which are paintings! Also, Meisel doesn't even contend on that list.

Tierney Gearon belongs on this list.

Hey ophelia and DSSDavid -- thanks for pointing this out. The post has been updated!

Australia censored Serrano. Australia censored Henson. Australia censored Saudek. Urggghhhh. My country fucking sucks sometimes.

a question on the "Arbus" image, does the general public confine her into one category and any image that "looks" like an Arbus must be an Arbus? And I spelled Roger Ballen incorrectly in my previous post.

that is not Arbus but Roger Bailen from the book Outland

The first photo accompanying the text about Diane Arbus is in fact Roger Ballen's Dresie and Casie.

WHAT? No Larry Clark, but you include Steven Meisel?? I don't think so. Otherwise, good piece.

hey guys, great selection! only one thing gottfried henlein is a hyper-realistic painter, not a photographer. he is amazing. (at least i think :-))