Lee Friedlander - Genius or Talentless

Jason Neuswanger , mar 06, 2005; 04:17 p.m.

"Ugh, I don't like that Friedlander stuff at all. It seems kind of like those "modern artists" who paint a square and call it art. I see that as a pretentious obsession with sophistication--people think it's genius to create something so crappy that only someone equally "refined" will see how brilliant it is.

 

Brilliant people don't concern themselves with being avant garde. They have their priorities straight. For photographers, that means focusing on creating works that please the eyes and communicate a mood. It's hard to do that really well. It takes talent. Perfecting the craft means rising above the rest in one's ability to perform it, not just wandering off into crazyland where nobody else has gone and for good reason.

 

A scientist would not get respect for promoting a deliberately idiotic hypothesis. A football player would not get respect for defying the trends and trying not to score any touchdowns. A police officer would not get respect for deliberately letting criminals go. Yet if an artist or photographer decides to such a ridiculously bad job, there's always a little crowd of people anxious to say "wow... it's great!" and play like they're the only ones who get it.

 

I've attached an image (public domain) that an art professor told me is a profound study in decay. I disagree, and I dare say he made that up on the spot because it sounded good. Anyone care to explain what's so sophisticated about this stupid picture of a spoon?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

oh come onnnn. friedlander is like that if you let it be. it's not THAT pointless. there ARE points to his photographs. and besides, don't lie to yourself and come off like you've NEVER liked a photograph like the spoon. if there was a shot of a spoon on a street, shot from whatever angle or whatever the hell is your favorite style, i'm sure you'd like it. not EVERYTHING has to have a point. YES, i agree with you, i don't like drawn squares and people saying "wow.. that's incredible" but friedlander is not like that. thats all my girlfriend and i were talking about yesterday when looking at threadful simple art.. i mean SIMPLE. that i can draw. seriously "A LINE".. you can't compare that to Friedlander. I mean.. it was shit. and don't get me wrong, i'm not against you. i'm like you, i don't like that overratedness when it comes to art. but take a strangers word for it. friedlander IS NOT LIKE THAT. besides, and this goes for the people that think they can shoot like him and "Ohhh... why aren't I famous???!!", his work is so great cause he shot it back when the whole fucking world couldn't be a photographer (hint: DIGITAL) you actually had to learn it and and be it and live it. Pick up Friedlanders book "Self-Portrait" There are some really great and clever photographs in there.

whatever.. just give it time, maybe you'll like it, maybe you won't.

 

you being everyone that posted here that doesn't like his work.

 

-mg

"The work of past photographers is revered because of the fact that they were pioneers, I suspect."

 

exactly my point, Calico. and no, you don't suspect. you know. as do i.

thank you bee flowers. soviet cinema looks wonderful. american cinema should look like that.

Yeah, it looks pretty nice, but those seats are fantastically uncomfortable; you really don't want those!

seriously sam.. you've picked a terrible photos of his, one his most mediocre ones, and one that i'm not even too fond of. have you even seen his works? have look at more than whatever the hells on masters of photography?

 

watch this video.

http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/prize_video_2005_en.html

maybe you might change your mind.

 

why is it so important (why am i making a big deal out of it?) for you to watch it?

because i don't hate you and i truly think you'd like his work if you didn't take yourself or photography so seriously... all the time.

 

(THIS GOES FOR EVERYONE WHO IS OPPOSED TO FRIEDLANDER)

http://www.hasselbladfoundation.org/prize_video_2005_en.html

 

a terrible photo*

have you looked at*

Jason Neuswanger , mar 06, 2005; 10:32 p.m.

It isn't about being "comprehended."

 

I'd bet money that if you took ten pretentious, avant garde photographers and gave them a series of a dozen Friedlander photos they'd never seen before to interpret, every photographer would come up with a completely different interpretation of every photo. And not in a good, deliberate way, but in a pointless, ambiguous way.

 

Also, I bet that if in those dozen Friedlanders you mixed in a few that were instead taken by a 4 year old with the same equipment, not one of the artsy stuck-ups would suspect the switch, and they wouldn't miss a beat in offering some long-winded interpretation of the deeper meaning of an out of focus shot of a happy meal.

 

 

wow.. jason.. it IS about comprehension. YOUR own comprehesion. of course there are going to be different analyzations. there is in every form of art (obviously. no point in stating that.) friedlander had his own idea when he shot whatever shot. but the audience might seem something he didn't and that, within itself, though not Friedlanders idea, is in fact a comprehesion and valid analyzation. ultimately, it is whatever you want it to be. his abstract photographs, by extension should activate somewhere in the viewers viewing, forcing them to make sense of the photograph themselves.hopefully nudging the viewer out of passivity and leave the photographs a little incomplete until really looked at.

There following messages are all the posts that i think do the greatest justice at explaining why Friedlander shouldn't be considered a nobody. One of the main points I've come across is that people like you Sam, and this is the truth, judge Friedlander as if all of his images were produced in the last five years or something. This guy has been shooting pictures since before you were goddamn born. That's the fashion in which you judge his work. And the stupidest, most infuriating thing I've ever seen.

 

thus...

 

 

Bert Krages , mar 05, 2005; 01:57 p.m.

I don't think the images above are a good representation of Frielander's work. Most of the published work of his that I have seen fits within the street photography genre and is very competent. In my opinion, his photographs tend to be on the edgy side (in the vein of Robert Frank but with a sort of quirky balance). He also has a group of photographs that portray spindly looking trees in urban and suburban settings. These images are more of an acquired taste, but are intellectually interesting compositions if you view them as compositions of linear elements.

 

No photographer can produce work that is going to appeal to every one. Some photographers deal with this by trying to produce work that is always conventional. In extreme cases, they won't make or keep images that run against the rules of compositions (e.g., rule of thirds, rule against mergers). Some photographers don?t feel the need to seek universal acclaim and produce work that is more vulnerable to criticism. As an educator, Lee Frielander has been experimental from a positive perspective and warrants respect for his work in this area.

 

Phylo Dayrin , mar 06, 2005; 09:50 a.m.

Why is it that some think that a good, valid photograph should be perfectly clean composed and made with all the 'rules of photography' in mind? What Lee Friedlander photographs tell me is that he knew exactly what he was doing and why he was doing it.

 

 

Jeff (www.spirer.com) Photo.net Hero Photo.net Patron, mar 06, 2005; 06:47 p.m.

Sam, rather than this being even vaguely a discussion, you have decided to ignore what anyone says and just rant on. Not much point to it anymore.

 

 

Mike Dixon Photo.net Hero, mar 06, 2005; 10:42 p.m.

Which is more pretentious: coming up with varied interpretations of a photographers work (and I'll grant you there's plenty of room for pretense there), or arrogantly proclaiming (re photogaphy's primary goal), "For photographers, that means focusing on creating works that please the eyes and communicate a mood." At least in the former case, they're not ignoring 150 years of photographic history.

 

(great point Mike Dixon. as if they know everything about photography and what makes a valid photograph. its all subjective. seriously get over yourself. nobody's interesting in your bullshit.)

Mike Dixon Photo.net Hero, mar 07, 2005; 01:28 a.m.

Not sure what the point of such a puerile game would be. If it doesn't meet your criteria, you'd simply insist it's not really an artistic photograph (even if, like the work of Friedlander, Eggleston, Winogrand, etc. it is recognized as art by museums, history books, and millions of people who do appreciate its merits). Why not cut out the (pretentious?) verbiage, and go directly to the heart of the game:

 

Is too!

 

Is not!

 

Is too!

 

Is not!

 

Is too!!

 

Is not!!

 

IS TOO!!!

 

IS NOT!!!!! . . .

 

 

Thomas Gardner , mar 07, 2005; 11:32 a.m.

"Looking at Friedlander's work gives me pleasure, because his photos are clever and witty."

 

If you might expand on the above point.

 

I see clever and witty in Winogrand but not in Friedlander.

 

(LOOK CLOSER)

 

 

Thomas Gardner , mar 08, 2005; 09:00 a.m.

"Hard to know what you're on about Thomas."

 

Just trying to point out that Lee is more structured in his efforts then some realize and the more you explore his product, you come to realize he's not as chaotic as some of his images might leave one to believe.

 

(i'm surprised you're the same person that posted whats above, but yes, good point. seriously.. how can you not love Wisconsin, 2000, its a awesome photograph. here at: http://www.fraenkelgallery.com/exhibitions/e_friedlander2004.html )

 

 

steve swinehart , mar 08, 2005; 11:51 a.m.

I would suggest that you take more time to view more of his work. The links posted by Thomas Gardner show a greater image diversity than the photos you have chosen.

 

His work in the '60's was important in that he was breaking stereotypes of what images "should" look like. This opened up a whole new aesthetic as to what a photo could be instead of what it should be.

 

Freidlander's photos have given several generations of photographers the freedom to compose photos any way they want and especially without rules.

 

Do I like his photos? Yes, some of them I find very complex and well seen. Do I like all of his photos? No. But then, I can't think of one photographer that I can say I unequivocally like every single photo.

 

Look more carefully at his work (and more of it). Try and find one or two photos you like, and then carefully examine them and ask yourself why you like it. That's always the first step in learning to appreciate something new.

 

(AMAZING point Steve. you embody everything i think in that post.)

"(LOOK CLOSER)"

 

Nope! Didn't help. But that Winnogrand:)

To remove any confusion I might have accidently introduced; Winnogrand wasn't the author of the shot I posted as it's on of mine.

 

The point of the posted shot, Friedlander's image leave me empty. Tain't no thang that they do, they're just not for me but it's not gonna stop me from going out and doing my own thing.

 

If someone want's to get all woop-de-doo about his efforts, cool as I'm right there with you but it don't mean that I concur with your opinion even if Lee does have Szarkowski's seal of approval.

Look even closerrr.

 

kidding.

no but seriously that one self-portrait shot of lee's headshadow blended in perfectly with the rows of black bulbous domes on the floor. c'mon. that's clever. give me the benefit of the doubt here.

 

nice shot, btw.

wow.. thomas. i resent the fact that you feel that you had to point that out.

 

your point is clear.

confusion?.. wow thomas..*

"wow.. thomas. i resent the fact that you feel that you had to point that out."

 

I just didn't want anybody coming back and stating, for the record,... "Hey!" "That's not a Friedlander shot!" :)

 

The comment was made in the spirit of clarification and tring to prevent any confusion as context gets lost real easy around here:)

 

My apologies if the comment was taken in a bad way.

 

"nice shot, btw."

 

Thanks! :)

i also dig the "Stairway on First Street" shot.. i really like that one. the angle. what lens did you shoot that with?

Thanks! :) 14/2.8 Tamron, tripod mounted, MLU, timer release.

 

You might be right about the effect jading has on one's thinking and how they might respond to Friedlander's images.

I almost feel the same way as Sam Chua. However, looking at his, I learned a few new things, like who is that person in the photo that looks as if a soccermom took it (she's a writer).

I suppose Friedlander, by his photographs, is saying something about his subjects.

Check out his self portrait - Mirror of Myself, 1965 - a photo of his reflection in a mirror taken with a Leica. It's the photo that always comes to my mind when I see an old Leica.

Artists come in different flavours...

Interesting!

I really enjoy Friedlanders work, I partculary love Albuquerque 1972, as it encourages us to construct a menaing, or at least try to forge on from the bizarre almost connecting elements within it. That dog is pretty funny too, what is it doing?

 

I also like the way his pictures seem to be like collages, and layered and more interesting the more you look. I hope one day to make images as great as these ones, or at least somewhere close.

 

I enjoyed reading your discussions but its frustrating, as some people will never be able to see past the simple formal aesthetic qualities of an image, I used to think that pictures just had to be pleasing to the eye, now I understand they can conatin all sorts of things.

 

Friedlanders seem to be ambiguous, purposefully, I dont think these are snapshots, but I dont think they have a clear meaning either, the good bit it the idea that he can make us try to find one, its like hes revealing that they can reveal, its all about the critical process we go through when looking. I also like that they are witty and sometimes ironic.

 

which book can I find albequerque 1972 in? I also like Route 9W New York but cant find the book for this one either. any help?

 

cxxx

this seems more like an argument between fine art and commercial photography. I dont think you can say a photographer is shit just because you dont appreciate it.

 

All types of photography seems to be important, right down to simple passport photos. I believe everyone here is here because they do not wish to be ignorant to the history of photogrpahy, and its many facets, Its alot bigger than I thought it was when I first started taking photogrphs, and it just keeps growing. Is there no end to the power of a photograph? Its strength repeatedly shocks me.

Who cares? Anyone confident in their views does not need to explain them in this "vs" method

<p>At this late date I'd like to add that the reason so many have trouble with Friedlander is that he has created what amounts to a completely new and original visual language that takes some study before it can be understood. His work demonstrates an entirely new and profound syntax of images and formal considerations that show us things and ways of seeing that we have not experienced before, pictures that essentially reorder our visual universe. Yes, he really is a genius. </p>