Lee Friedlander - Genius or Talentless

[troutnut]

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.

[mike dixon]

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.

[emre]

Jason: <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/printable/?fact/020819fa_fact">Speaking of experts...</a>

[terribletomterrific]

Hi Sam,

 

I just took a look at your two ala Friedlaner photos. I dunno how to say this

Sam, I wanna let you down easy, but you just don?t make it as a Friedlander

wannabe. Your two pictures are no where near as bad as his. For cripe's

sake, in one of 'em you?ve got two people placed at the intersection of rule of

third lines. This will never do. You've got to work hard if you wanna be as bad

as Friedlander.

 

(I'm so sorry about all the dumb looking ? marks in place of commas and

some punctuation marks. I typed this out in word and pasted it in, and it was

full of ? marks, and I'm too tired after writing this tome to go through it all and

correct it. I hope you'll bear with it and read it anyway. TF)

 

I'm so surprized that the words "modernism" and "postmodernis" have not

come up in this thread. Most of the intellectuals and artists who have

promoted Friedlander and his ilk would be throwin' those terms around like

applesauce in a food fight at this point. I've hung around these folks for

awhile, and listened to a lot of their talk, and I think I have some vague

understanding of where they?re coming from, and how Friedlander fits in. I?m

going to use my response to your forum question as an opportunity to work it

out on paper and see if it makes sense. And if it makes any sense at all to me

at the end of it, I'll pass it on to you all, and you can all throw applesauce at

me.

 

First of all, I think it is necessary to understand and accept that those artists

and intellectuals who promote the likes of Friedlander?the curators of most of

the photography museums and galleries from MOMA on down, as well as the

academics who teach art history and photo history in our colleges and

universities, as well as the publishers and editors of magazines such as

Aperture?are politically and intellectually of the left wing?and the post

Marxist ideas on the study of symbols, including semiotics, and

deconstruction, are all part of their intellectual turf.

 

They are of quite a different political and philisophical stripe than, say, the

editors and publishers of our daily newspapers, the editors of the old time

Look and Life, or, (maybe this is a little over the top), the publishers of the

Reader? Digest publication, ?This is America, a Photographic Journey,? which

was a book to be found on my aunt and uncle?s coffee table back in the

sixties, and contained photo after photo of sunsets over the grand canyon,

brooklets with moving water, contented cows, and the like. My aunt and uncle

were, you guessed it, Goldwater republicans. But even here, I would say, the

influence of this group of left intellectuals and artists could be felt.

 

Usually when talking about art movements, or how you categorize a

movement or a style, we do so by identifying the curves, the lines, the frills, the

gestures on the artifacts themselves, rather than by understanding what gave

rise to the movement.

 

I?d like to use music as an example, as I?m a little more sure of my footing with

music history than with art history.

 

Bach is usually categorized as baroque because of certain harmonic

innovations of his time, because of his use of counterpoint, and a certain type

of embellishment, and other stylistic cues. That he is categorized as baroque

has little to do with the particular kind of Protestant Lutheran Christian Bach

was, as opposed to the music of other Christians before him, such as the

Catholic Palestrina. The distinction between the two seems to me to be

profound, yet it is hardly ever spoken or written about.

 

Similarly, Haydn and Mozart are categorized as classical because, although

they used a similar triadic harmony to Bach?s, they relied little on counterpoint,

and the embellishment they used was distinctly lighter and more delicate.

That they are categorized as classical has little to do with the function of their

music--that of socialization.

 

So something very profound happened in those few generations between

Bach, and Haydn and Mozart. Music turned away from being in the service of

God to being in the service of the earthly society. That?s a big deal. Yet we

understand these musical categorizations as being about embellishments,

and the use or non use of counterpoint. We miss the point this way.

 

Something just as profound happened going from modernism to post-

modernism?at least it was profound to those left-wing socialists cum Marxist

artists and intellectuals of whom I?m speaking.

 

There was a profound change in their relationship, and the relationship of

artistic expression, to popular culture, and to capitalism.

 

The linchpin of modernism was art?s automnomy from the sordid daily

concerns of popular culture. The modernist artist seperated him or her self

from the banalities of everyday life to create what postmodernists consider

useless and and disassociated art objects. This modernist art was

contemptuous of the given, everyday world, and sought to create alternative

worlds.

 

Postmodernists felt that the modernists were suffering from an illusion in

attempting to isolate themselves from mainstream culture, because the very

material of their work?in the case of photography, images-- came from the

mainstream culture. Further, they felt that the self exile of artists precluded

access to the energy of the culture, and severed any connection to an

audience beyond an artistic elite.

 

They?the postmodernists?felt that the answer was to embrace popular

culture, and make it the basis of artistic expression. In the case of

photography, this results in a celebration of the ?snapshot,? and the

development of a whole body of photographic criticism concerning something

called the ?snapshot aesthetic,??as well as to photographers such as Lee

Friedlander and others of his ilk.

 

And so--to those of us trained in a ?higher? art, to those of us who know about

rules of compostion, and hierarchies of subject matter, and texture and tonal

values?when we look at a Friedlander photo, we see a snapshot.

 

And we see a snapshot that isn?t interesting. It isn?t interesting because it

doesn?t contain our grandchildren, our dogs, our homes, and everything that

is important to us as individuals.

 

The Friedlanders of the photo world are using the banalities of the snapshot?

the flash overxposure of foregrounds, the out of focus faces, the inclusion of

the dogdish in the corner?apparantly thinking that the banalities are the

message. I think they miss the boat here. The power of snapshots is not in the

banalities, but in the fact that that is someone?s daughter in that snapshot. The

people comprising the ?popular culture? simply overlook the banalities of their

snapshots, and go directly to the content. They must be really confused when

they go to a gallery and see the same kinds of banalities they overlooked in

their snapshots, called ?art.?

 

And so the postmodernists have come full circle, having rejected an elite art?

modernism?only to conjure up an even more elite art meant to express the

popular culture?postmodernism. It doesn't.

 

Tom

 

[Spearhead]

<i> For photographers, that means focusing on creating works that please the eyes</i><p>

 

Mike has already pointed out the folly of this statement, but I will add that most of the photographers I know have a wide variety of interests in producing photographs, and many of those have nothing to do with "pleasing the eyes." <p

 

This is an incredibly simplistic view of photography, suiting the mind of someone who sees the 4 year old mind as incapable of seeing some pretty amazing things.

[beeman458]

Sam.<p>

 

The following link is to a write-up on <a href="http://photography.about.com/library/weekly/aa110199a.htm">Lee</a> and the write-up should give you a better idea about the who and what of Lee Friedlander. Follow the hot links included in the write-up and take the time to read all that's attached to the hot links. When you go to class on Monday, or whenever your next class meeting is, you'll be in a much better position to discuss your feelings about Lee with your instructor.<p>

 

Lee is a talented photographer who was marketed by genius', but great he wasn't. Why? Cause few contemporary artistic photographers qualify as "Genius" or "Great" as little ground, if any at all was broken by his photojournalistic style, replicated by many, going back to Atget and those who came before which he might have admired.<p>

 

These terms (Genius, Talented, Greatest living American photographer) are terms freely flung about in the prejudiced art establishment cause it serves the marketing types for the purpose of making money. No hype, no monistic appreciation. Remember, it's a business first and foremost for the educators, the museums, and the galleries. No money, no job as the purity of Stieglitz and Ansel Adam's is long gone.<p>

 

For the sanity of the forum, I'll reserve expansion on my above.<p>

 

Just a couple insightful thoughts Sam:<p>

 

A collection of junk doesn't increase in value until it ages (history) or gets hyped; exampled by the recently hyped historical auction of the Kennedy's summer house contents.<p>

 

And<p>

 

It's a long historical journey back to the Renaissance and the Ancients (humanities) so as to understand the hype (who and why) of today's contemporary photographic artists; like them or not.<p>

 

Hope my above helps give you some insight as to the conflict between what your instructor sees (admires) and what you see (rejects).<p>

[troutnut]

Can someone post an example of a decent photograph that neither pleases the eyes nor conveys an emotion?

 

The other type of decent photo I didn't mention was the kind that simply documents what something looks like: here's my house, here's a spleen, here's the family at Christmas, here's poison ivy don't touch it, etc. So that's a very valid, non-artistic use for photography.

 

However, for artistic photography, I stand by my statement: I think that if an "artistic" photo isn't pretty and it doesn't convey a mood/emotion, it sucks. (Bear in mind, those are VERY broad requirements.) If you disagree, show me an exception.

[mike dixon]

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 <i>really</i> 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 <i>do</i> appreciate its merits). Why not cut out the (pretentious?) verbiage, and go directly to the heart of the game:<P>

Is too!<P>

Is not!<P>

Is <b>too</b>!<P>

Is <b>not</b>!<P>

<b>Is too!!<P>

Is not!!<P>

IS TOO!!!<P>

IS NOT!!!!!</b> . . .

[jon w.]

'that means focusing on creating works that please the eyes and communicate a mood'

 

Or asking an interesting question; or communicating an interesting idea; or being witty; or denouncing an injustice; or informing the viewer of something they may not have known before, etc., etc.

 

Looking at Friedlander's work gives me pleasure, because his photos are clever and witty. It is often difficult to say precisely what they are photographs of. I may have been introduced to him because of the attention of critics like Szarowski, but I don't feel any need to justify my taste by reference to them or anyone else. They stimulate me, and make me think, which is what I want photographs to do. I also admire his commitment to photographic history, which reveals a lot about his intentions: he went to great pains to find a way of printing Bellocq's negatives of early 1900s New Orleans when these were rediscovered, and no one could figure out how to get an acceptable print (they were glass, and extremely contrasty). An example of one of these Bellocq prints is the only 'name' photo I have ever been tempted to buy: not because of what was in it (tho I find some of Bellocq's images very moving), but because of the historical layers it contained as an artefact and the commitment it represented.

[beeman458]

"They stimulate me, and make me think, which is what I want photographs to do."

 

Okay. I'll bite. Dumb question. What do Friedlander's images make you think of and what exactly is stimulated in your thinking processes.

 

I read this sort of comment all the time, but little mentione is made in which to flesh out this overarching claim of intellectual stimulation. Not saying someone's images such as Friedlander's can't stimulate someone's thought processes, it would be nice for someone to fill in the blanks of how and what it is in their intellect that's stimulated.

 

As a simplified example below:

 

For me, Walker Evans fails to stimulate but Dorthea Lange fails not to stimulate; emotions. For me, Garry Winogrand stimulates; humor/life's dynamics but Lee Friedlander leaves me empty; okay, when's the show gonna begin? Atget shows me nothing; static, but Stieglitz gives life; action. Early Sherman; cool idea, contemporary Sherman; immature as in; "Come on girl, that's all ya got?" Lewis Hine, daring, sensitive, risk taker. Berenice Abbott, safe and predictable by comparison. Mapplethorpe; beautiful, sensitive and skilled when compared to the crass; ("That's the best ya got?) nature of Serrano. WeeGee, the first papparazzi when compared to the Grand Guignol (Freaks are us.) nature of Lisette Model 55.

 

Thanks in advance:)

[beeman458]

"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.

[will_perlis]

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

 

You don't see anything funny in that shot of Nina Szarkowski with the shrub growing out of her head? I mean, even if there's nothing deep in the parallel with the other tree, that's *Szarkowski's* kid.

 

IMO, it's not hilarious nor earth-shaking, but it's worth at least a quick grin.

[claudia__]

the loaf of bread attached to the head in this one always gives me a chuckle.......<a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/images/full/friedlander/friedlander_wade_wards_granddaughters.jpg">ClickyClicky</a>

[sam_chua]

shrub in the head funny? It's the Ernest P. Wally type funny. It's the Wayans brothers humour. It's so dumb that you wonder.

 

Famous Photographer sticks shrub on head - funny.

Regular Joe does it - not funny.

 

I agree with some of you, Garry Winogrand is hiliarious in a more subtle way. But try as I might, Friedlander is not funny.

[sam_chua]

hahaha! ok Claudia. Loaf of Bread part IS funny *LOL*

[pics]

I don't consider that good photography but I have to admit it is pretty damn funny.

[jsbc]

Personally, I like Eggleston, whose colour photos are extremely moody and powerful statements of a personal vision. I'm less familiar with Lee Friedlander, but I really think that the 2nd and 3rd examples are wonderful. They definitely do not look like snapshots, but rather careful compositions which take on a deliberate chaotic look and pack a powerful emotional punch.

 

I do not think the first one is that great. I admit I don't really get it. However, you should not dismiss an artist by just picking on just one of two bad pictures by a photographers. You have to look at his entire portfolio.

 

Anyhow, I think that photos that you take cannot really equate to Lee Friedlanders' better photos. If you can't see the difference then too bad.

[beeman458]

"I mean, even if there's nothing deep in the parallel with the other tree, that's *Szarkowski's* kid."

 

If it helps, (not trying to be disrespectful,) I'd find it equally poor aesthetics if Friedlander created an image of a tree growing out of my kid's head:) The humorous efforts at ironic irony fails me; this, understanding who John and Nina are. To me, it's sort of like a noted rock personality (Elton and Mick) of today, taking shots of them and their buddies goofing off at Malibu; so personal in nature as to lose any artistic merit. And then for John to promote the image is a bit self-serving in nature and calls into question his nutrality as both a critic and curator.

 

But then again, just for argument's sake, to be easy going, I'll find the irony, ironic and humorous.

 

"Check it out dude!" "Friedlander's got a tree growing out of Szarkowski's kid's head." "Now that's funny!" :)

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

For me the dynamic of this thread has not been "IS TOO!" v. "IS NOT!", but people such as Mike Dixon and Jeff Spirer accepting Sam's and others' feelings and perceptions as valid, but trying to show him where they are coming from, whereas most of the anti Friedlander posters are trying to label the people who like LF's work as somehow phoney, or greedy, or deluded; politically suspect ("socialist"), etc. The ad hominem argument: you are either a "fool or a knave" if you disagree with me.

 

Way too much generalisation about writers, critics, curators, etc, from folks who I suspect have little or no personal contact with them.

 

Sam: your attempts at Friedlander type pix fail because they are not chaotic enough. They are very direct and simple compositions.

 

Friedlander's best work is random and chaotic looking, deliberately, but in fact tells a pretty coherent story. The first one you directed us to: "a typical Friedlander shot" is about work: within the frame (and the tree on the left is a framing device) you have the workers around the hoardings; the sculpture of muscular individuals in action; the pickup truck; the port-a-potty; the construction mess around it; and the Steel frame of the building in the background.

 

It doesn't matter if your granny can do this with a point n' shoot-of course she can. It's photography. If she can do it on a regular basis, in the thousands, recognise it and appreciate it, she's an artist, and I recommend she find an agent.

 

Blows my mind that you can appreciate Winogrand but not LF. What is it that you see in Winogrand, that Friedlander doesn't do?

 

Sorry about the longwindedness. Best, John

[beeman458]

"Friedlander's best work is random and chaotic looking, deliberately,..."<p>

 

Most of Friedlander's efforts, that I'm familiar with are clean as opposed to chaotic. "Best work...," at best is a subjective interpretation:)<p>

 

<a href="http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.afterimagegallery.com/friedlander.htm">Lee Friedlander: Jazz Portraits</a><p>

 

<a href="http://photography.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://artscenecal.com/ArticlesFile/Archive/Articles1998/Articles0998/LFriedlanderA.html">Lee Friedlander by Jody Zellen</a><p>

 

<a href="http://www.fraenkelgallery.com/exhibitions/e_friedlander2004.html">Fraenkel Gallery; Lee Friedlander</a><p>

 

<a href="http://www.tfaoi.com/aa/4aa/4aa501.htm">Lee Friedlander At Work</a><p>

 

It's as if people are talking about a different person then the one so freely published:)<p>

 

"Way too much generalisation about writers, critics, curators, etc, from folks who I suspect have little or no personal contact with them."<p>

 

Yes. It seems that that's what folks are doing in regard to Lee's efforts. Too bad he's not aware of this thread and can weight in on it. That would be cool.<p>

[jack_lo_..._t_o]

Hard to know what you're on about Thomas.

 

One entitled "Albuquerque 1972"-which I think is brilliant. You have: a dog cut in half by a street sign pole that diappears through the top of the frame; afire hydrant; stop signals; 1/2 a highrise apt. bldg; part of a car; a short block wall with the shadow of the street sign on it; a suburban house; a telephone pole, the wires to all these poles running-dare I say chaotically?-across the top of the frame; the road and the lines on the road, a scraggly patch of grass, etc.

 

One entitled "Chicago 1966" a couple of figures hidden amongst an iron column; a steel phone box on a pole, etc., with an obscured bank or restaurant sign as backdrop; 1/8 of another sign hangs at the top.

Some would say this looks chaotic.

 

Then there's the one I alluded to in my previous post.

 

Yes he has tight images; the shadow of his head on the head of the lady in front of him-a kind if variation of the tree growing out of the head; [he has a few jokes like these]-; the jazz pix.

 

Maybe what I like about him is he's a smart photographer; even a smart-ass photographer. Not too many conventional images; he shoots in an abrasive way and makes you react.

[beeman458]

"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.

[sam_chua]

His Jazz portraits are nice!

As for the rest...I'll quote Oscar Wilde: It is only an auctioneer who can equally and impartially admire all schools of art.

[troutnut]

<i>"that means focusing on creating works that please the eyes and communicate a mood"<br><br>

 

Or asking an interesting question; or communicating an interesting idea; or being witty; or denouncing an injustice; or informing the viewer of something they may not have known before, etc., etc.</i><br><br>

 

All of those things: asking questions, communicating ideas, being witty, and so on, are better done with words than pictures if they are the only goal. The reason to use pictures instead of words is to capture some emotion you're trying to communicate along with your message.

[steve_swinehart]

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.

 

However, even after spending some time seriously looking at his work, you may find it much like I find sushi - inedible except when accompanied by copious amounts of gin and tonic. That's okay. A famous philosopher once said, "A man's got to know his limitations."