sam_chua Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 I was told, to understand Friedlander, one must attempt to shoot a few rolls in his very chaotic seemingly random style in order to gain an appreciation of his work. And here we go...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_chua Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 My biggest worry is that Friedlander is simply the Forrest Gump of Photography and his random shots appeal to people because they see something of themselves in it.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_ogara1 Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 This whole discussion reminds me of a wonderful Spy magazine recurring feature called; Face it; it sucks. One month they did fusion jazz. People really want to like it, they know they are supposed to like it, they know that it's not smart *not* to like it, but face it, it sucks. Friedlander sucks. So does Winograd. Taking a lot of pictures and culling an occasional "good" one (that people don't even agree is good) is hardly art. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 I like Friedlander, but not all his work. His last book "Sticks and Stones: Architectural America" is brilliant: shots of towns and cities in which the phone booths, traffic signs, chain link fences -- the visual crud of American cities -- take over the image. Here he is shooting cities the way they really are, not pretty pictures of beautiful views -- and the truth he shows becomes beautiful. Interestingly, the book is all shot with the Hasselblad SWC (the equivalent of a 21mm lens on a 35mm camera): I never liked using very wide angle lenses because I thought they created a artificial type of space, but Friedlander usies this brilliantly. --Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fate_faith_change_chains Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_chua Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 When you're starting out, you're taught all these wonderful rules of composition and how to take good pictures and all that advice. Then along comes supposedly one of the greatest living photographers and he seems to not have a clue that we're supposed to do this and that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutnut Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 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?<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 <i>When you're starting out, you're taught all these wonderful rules of composition and how to take good pictures and all that advice.</i><p> Here's the core of the problem. If you believe that those "rules" are supposed to make great photographs, you're dreaming. The "rules" are learning tools at best. Lots of great art violates the "rules." There is only one rule to composition, and that is that the rules work. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kai_griffin Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 The glowing idolisation of patently bad "art" is often the subject of comedy skits - with the hapless protagonist feeling totally left out while surrounded by ooing and gooing crowds examining something utterly meaningless. So at least it makes for good comedy. <p> Well put, Jason, and I'm sorry to say that I can't help you with the spoon. Is it a <a href="http://www.the-office.com/bedtime-story/owlpussycat.htm">runcible spoon</a>, by any chance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emre Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 <blockquote><em>A scientist would not get respect for promoting a deliberately idiotic hypothesis.</em></blockquote> Get a load of <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0312204078/qid=1110144998/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-9147307-0056168?v=glance&s=books&n=507846">this</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kai_griffin Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Emre, that sounds like wonderful reading - I've just added it to my amazon wish list - Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rj Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 I can't say I am a fan of Friedlanders. Most of the stuff of his that I have seen has left me with, well, with nothing. My dislike has nothing to do with how many rules of photography he has broken, whatever those are, but with the fact that the shots don't take me in and make me want to look at them. I personally like Jackson Pollock's work very much, not a rule to be had, but his paintings leave me with a lasting impression. They make me want to look at them. To each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
will_perlis Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 "A scientist would not get respect for promoting a deliberately idiotic hypothesis." No? Remember "Cold Fusion"? Been following "Intelligent Design"? However, the problem is determining what's idiotic. Quantum Mechanics and the earlier Heliocentric theory were not at all universally and immediately accepted with great applause, and the conflicts at their birth makes the Leica Forum at its worst seem like Mr. Roger's Neigborhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutnut Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 You're right Emre--I wondered if anyone would bring up the Sokal Hoax when I wrote that. That is the one exceptional case where a scientist became famous for publishing deliberately absurd ideas. Of course, the ridiculous ideas he published in Social Text weren't scientific ideas he was actually trying to get accepted. They were bait in a parody to make a point about the absurd academic standards of social theorists. And that point was very real. So Sokal's respect came from the very valid point he was making about intellectual standards. The ridiculous scientific statements he published were just tools in his experiment. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
troutnut Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Also, bear in mind that by getting respect (regarding scientists, anyway) I mean the respect of qualified peers in the field. "Intelligent design," for example, may have the respect of some random uneducated members of the public, but it's no more a respected scientific theory than palm reading, tarot cards, and horoscopes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_chua Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 Friedlander takes a shot, everyone oohs and ahhs and proclaims brilliance because he shot it. Someone else takes the same shot, everyone laughs at the amateur who didn't hold the camera straight, focus, and try to avoid clutter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rj Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Sam, you seem to feel quite strongly about this. Maybe you should concentrate your photography to be anti-Friedlander. What I mean, is that maybe your photography should be more of a study in technique and perfection of the image. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 >>>Friedlander takes a shot, everyone oohs and ahhs and proclaims brilliance because he shot it. Someone else takes the same shot, everyone laughs at the amateur who didn't hold the camera straight, focus, and try to avoid clutter.<<< You're like the people who, looking at an abstract painting, say, a Picasso or a Pollock, used to say "my seven-year old child can do better." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pics Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 At the onset of your career if you convince enough influential elitists that your subpar work is meaningful and thought-provoking than your destined to be a legend. I dont think breaking the rules of photography automatically designates you a "renegade" genius who thinks outside the box. There are probably a thousand Friedlander-type shots taken everyday, but only he gets a free pass to put them in a gallery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 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. Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 face it...Friedlander and Winogrand's work just is not for everybody. not all art can be comprehended by everyone. that is just the way it is. if you just don't get it you can either work at trying to understand it or walk away. the fact that it is appreciated by many might give one the motivation to look deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pics Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Claudia I agree 100% when you say his work is not for everybody. Apparently many love him and thats fine. The problem I have is when you suggest that the dissenters aren't able to "comprehend" his work or "just don't get it." This implies that its not a matter of taste or style but rather intelligence. Lets not suggest that his devoted following are on a higher psychological and intellectual level than us simple peasants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sam_chua Posted March 6, 2005 Author Share Posted March 6, 2005 Now Garry Winogrand's work I enjoy and really admire.<BR> <a href=" http://www.masters-of-photography.com/W/winogrand/winogrand_central_park_zoo_full.html" target="new"> This is one of my favourites</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
claudia__ Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 Daniel, your point is well taken. what i should have said rather than "don't get it" is "don't appreciate it" which is in no way related to intelligence or psychology and does not demean anyone. but, you do have to look at an artist's body of work when they have been deemed "important" rather than a few images. in my case, there are many artists and photographers that i did not appreciate when first exposed to their work, but over time found that questioning my first impression and learning more about why others found their work to have merit caused me to change my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumpster001 Posted March 6, 2005 Share Posted March 6, 2005 yeah, that Winogrand guy couldn't even hold a camera straight and he called himself a photog.. that Pollock guy had a good ol' time dripping paint here and there and called it Art??? and what's this fascination with cubic and squarish people??? that Hendrix guy sold feedback as "music"? don't even get me started on the Friedlander and Eggleston's stupid pictures.. i mean, it's all emperor's clothes, don't it? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now