Lee Friedlander - Genius or Talentless

My teacher, to my great horror, is a huge fan of Friedlander. Now I

don't understand Friedlander at ALL! Is he a great photography genius

of a level so high that I simply do not comprehend, or is this a case

of the Emperor's new Clothes where no one is willing to admit how

badly he sucks.

<br>

<a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/friedlander/friedlander_mechanics_monument.jpg"Here's</a> a typical Friedlander shot<br>

 

 

erm..yeah..or <br>

<a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/friedlander/friedlander_leslie_katz.jpg">

<br>Looks like a soccer mom let loose with a camera.</a>

 

or <a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/friedlander/friedlander_nina_szarkowski.jpg">

<br>where the "classic error" of letting a shrub grow out of your

subject's head</a> is committed.

<p>

<a

href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/F/friedlander/friedlander9.html">

See it for yourself </a>

</p>

 

and they say 'Lee Friedlander is, arguably, the greatest living

American photographer.' Ok I'm ranting. My favourite living

photographer is Ellen von Unwerth. What are your opinions on Friedlander.<p>

 

<b>MODERATOR'S NOTE:</b>: DO NOT POST COPYRIGHTED IMAGES THAT YOU DO NOT OWN. IN THE FUTURE, THREADS ON THIS FORUM WITH COPYRIGHTED IMAGES WILL BE DELETED. I really don't have the time to do all this editing when people post copyrighted images.

I think the problem lieswith you Sam. There are amny different genres of photography.

The photorapher you think is great, is a fashion photographer -- in effect a very well paid

salesperson. Nothing wrong with that, but let's be honest about what she or any

advertising photographer does: help sell products. If you don'tunderstand something ask

questions try to find out why others think the way they do, don't just dismiss out of hand

because right now you don't get it.

If you shoot for yourself (rather than with the intention of being considered "great"), you can dispense with other people's norms.

 

The photographs above bore me to tears... Maybe looking at them today, Lee would not like them either. Maybe he took them in the thrill of the moment. Who can say? There are many, often selfish, reasons why artists create.

 

(P.S. The "error" in the last shot is probably a parody.)

I'd have to agree with Sam. Those pictures look straight from someone's snapshot photo albulm. Maybe its a bad representation of his work, I don't know. Being a highly acclaimed and recognized photographer has as much to do with marketing yourself as it does with talent.

<p>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.

<p> 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.

I bet that if we put Lee Friedlander's work on the photocritiques he'd score very low.<BR>

<i>I bet that if we put Lee Friedlander's work on the photocritiques he'd score very low.

</i><p>

 

I can't think of a worse criteria for "quality" of images.<p>

 

It doesn't seem like you are listening to what people are saying. That's probably happening with your reaction to your teacher also.

Looks at this digital link perhaps to get a bit more perspective...http://www.artdaily.com/index.asp Don't worry about what your teacher thinks is great....you can't change it...You're only in class to collect a mental toolbox. Know the tools in the box and how to use them creatively.

what i'm most concerned about is the viewer seeing things that weren't there in the first place. It's almost like you take a random shot and people start seeing things in the photograph that you never even thought you took a picture of.

 

This is different from Cartier-Bresson and his decisive moments.

<i>This is different from Cartier-Bresson and his decisive moments.</i><p>

 

If the only right way to shoot was like C-B and his decisive moments, photography would be very boring. Your comments still sound like you're not listening, either here on in your class.

Sam, the "soccer mom" shot is brilliant. There's so much "story" in it, if you study it. I find the composition emotional and very original.

 

What Jeff said about ratings on this site is spot-on.

 

I think Friedlander and his old buddy Winogrand have a seemingly random way of making photos, but what they cull from it works.

 

As for the "shrub growing out of the subject's head"--can you really imagine that L.F. was not aware of this cliche'd "rule"?

Some of his people pictures are rather interesting but his 'cityscapes', or whatever you'd call them, do nothing for me. For myself, I'd say he's neither a genius nor talentless.

Check out Friedlander's book, "Like A One-Eyed Cat". More or less a retrospective. Typically, people either love'em or hate'em. Friedlander's work requires viewer participation and thought. Most of his photography IS NOT meant to be an easy read. I have found that most people, not all, who don't like his work don't understand it and don't have the energy to contemplate it. He definitely is not a calendar photgrapher. There is always a purpose to his images, of course not always the same purpose.

Most of what we are told in our formal education makes good sense and fits easily into our understanding of the world. Of course, some of what we are told makes no sense and is justly ignored. But then there are those magical moments when what we are told makes no sense, yet is true. These conundrums are the seeds of deeper, fuller understanding. <p>

 

Sam, I commend you for standing up and questioning why Friedlander is held in such high esteem by the teacher, art critics, and by some of the folks in this forum. I predict that when you truly understand the reason for his prominence, you will have a deeper understand of photography generally. Perhaps you will understand things about photography beyond what you even know to ask about now. <p>

 

For those of you that know the answer, speak up and help him out. Explain why Friedlander (or these pictures in particular, if you dare) is held in such high regard. (Frankly, I haven't a clue.) That's what this forum is for. <p>

 

I think that if you <b>explain</b> it, Sam will be listening. <p>

 

Joe

I remember seeing a Friedlander photo at Cruel and Tender, at the Tate - a woman in a

fast food restaurant. One of his 'worker' photos. What stuck in my mind is that in the

crushingly dull surroundings, she was wearing a Marvin Gaye / Tammy Terrell t-shirt,

which seemed optimistic and upbeat.

 

For some reason, I've never shaken that image out of my mind. Then again, I thought

some of his office worker photos were themselves dull, even though it was dullness and

the limiting of individuality that he seemed to be driving at.

 

I don't know what I mean by this, but the fact that it makes me think, tells me that

Friedlander is not by any means talentless. If any of my photos ever provoke similar

introspection in viewers, I'll be well pleased.

<I>'I bet that if we put Lee Friedlander's work on the photocritiques he'd score very

low.'</I></I>

<P>That alone places him in the outstanding photographer category. Last year

Friedlander got 7 - 7 and photographer of the month at the MOMA in New York.

<I>This is different from Cartier-Bresson and his decisive moments.</I><P>No actually it

isn't.

<I>This is different from Cartier-Bresson and his decisive moments.</I><P>No actually it

isn't. here is the test: trying doing it for a year or two: making photos that are are as

formally rigourous as Friedlander's are and that still retain that casual unstructured look.

The Emperor's New Clothes ....

<i>Now I don't understand Friedlander at ALL! Is he a great photography genius of a level so high that I simply do not comprehend, or is this a case of the Emperor's new Clothes where no one is willing to admit how badly he sucks.</i><P>

A few rehtorical questions for you: Are your tastes in photography now identical to what they were three years ago? Ten years ago? Do you think your current tastes in photography represent the highest possible level of sophistication/insight/understanding? Or stated another way, do you believe that your cultural and educational background provides you with the one, "true" perspective on what's good and what isn't? Do you see the possibility that your tastes might further develop (or simply change)?<P>

Personally, I don't find Friedlander's work that appealing. On the other hand, I was a fan of Eggleston's work (also commonly accused of being little more than banal snapshots) from the first time I saw it. Maybe I'll come to appreciate Friedlander's work more in the future. Maybe not. Even if I don't, it doesn't take away from the value of Friedlander's images.

"what i'm most concerned about is the viewer seeing things that weren't there in the first place."

 

Can you name a work of art where that doesn't and can't happen?

The sample photos, especially the last two, seem to be intentionally "bad" in the sense of using photography rules: Rule of thirds, watch the backgrounds, keep the camera level, etc. I'll bet Ansel Adams had some duds in his days, too, though, so I'd be reluctant to judge him on a few selected "bad" shots, though.

 

"bet that if we put Lee Friedlander's work on the photocritiques he'd score very low. I can't think of a worse criteria for "quality" of images." Cool! My photos are scoring low, so they must be really good!

If you can't question your preconceived aesthetics, your work won't evolve. Frielander is

fabulous and funning because of your initial reactions to his work. Congratulations ! ! !

Beauty--or art--as they say, is in the eye of the beholder.

 

A few years back a former girlfriend gave me a copy of Friedlander's "Like A One-Eyed Cat," which, as a previous poster mentioned, is a fair retrospective of his work. I kept the book for about three years, studied the photographs closely, and probably looked at every page of this book no less than a hundred times.

 

I TRIED to like it. Eventually I gave it away to another photographer friend. At the time I gave the book away, I was no more attracted to Friedlander's work than the day I received the book as a gift. The opinion I had the first time I saw his work was that it was pure tripe. I still feel the same way today. I just don't get it.

 

Of course, that's just my opinion and reflects my own taste in photographic art. And my opinion is no more valid than anyone elses.

I like Friedlander's work quite well, although I think you're well within your right to question its merit if that's how you feel. Why do I like it? Not entirely sure, although I've noticed that I have slowly grown to appreciate it more and more as I've learned more about photography and its history.

 

I think with Friedlander in particular, as with Frank and many others, you have to view the photos as part of a larger body of work, a larger vision, and not so much as single, self-contained pictures that you can absorb quickly and then move on. Atget's portrait of Paris consisted of thousands of pictures, all informing each other. That said, I think Friedlander has numerous pictures that stand alone as brilliant compositions of revealing moments in our society.