Lee Friedlander - Genius or Talentless

[beeman458]

"To create this polarity of Genius vs Talentless, besides being pretty stupid, is also mean spirited and as far as I'm concerned betrays a lack of respect for anyone's artistic efforts, including your own or those of the people you admire."

 

So far, your respect comment was doing fine.

 

""What the f* have you ever done?""

 

But ya flamed out with this quote.

[dean_g]

"...But ya flamed out with this quote." Oh darn. Does that mean I don't win the convertible?

[fate_faith_change_chains]

"Without Friedlander there would be no William Eggleston..."

 

And without Atget there would be no Friedlander.

 

Anyway, I too find Friedlander a very special photographer.

[h._p.]

"The net is great for all of us to spout our wisdom, whether we've earned any credentials or not."

 

I'm intrigued by this statement. Are you saying that only people with a certificate of some sort should be permitted to comment? If so, what form does this certificate take and where can it be obtained?

[beeman458]

"If so, what form does this certificate take..."

 

Vapor of course.

 

"and where can it be obtained?"

 

From Photo.net:)

[will_perlis]

"Are you saying that only people with a certificate of some sort should be permitted to comment?"

 

More nonsense, of course. However, I don't understand why arguments ultimately based on "I can't see it so it must not exist" are taken seriously either. To do so is like arguing with a two-year-old kid about the taste of Scotch or olives.

[h._p.]

"To do so is like arguing with a two-year-old kid about the taste of Scotch or olives."

 

But doesn't the two-year-old have a perfect right to dislike the taste of Scotch or olives? If not, at what age does one gain the right to dislike something?

[agardner58]

"But doesn't the two-year-old have a perfect right to dislike the taste of Scotch or olives? If not, at what age does one gain the right to dislike something?"

 

A two-year-old might not like the taste of scotch or olives, but would they be able to tell the difference between a a cheap American Whisky and a single malt scotch? Between an Atalanta or a Gaeta olive?

 

I'll never forget years ago I was at one of my old haunts, and two kids hardly old enough to drink came in and asked the bartender Huey for a couple of shots of "JD" (Jack Daniels). The bartender (who was more than a little bit hard of hearing) went over to pour their drinks...and I heard him saying to himself "J&B, J&B. Two shots of J&B". When he brought the drinks back to the lads, they downed their shots, and said to each other "nothing like a shot of Jack". They really couldn't tell the difference without looking at the label.

[beeman458]

I guess I'm just too old then.

 

On my wedding day, I ordered a CC & 7. The waiter brought me my drink, I tasted it and said the bartender miss poured as it wasn't CC&7. Well he checked with the bartender and brought be back a correct drink with the correct pour.

 

I explained to the waiter that there was both a color difference between the two and the Seagrams had more of an oak flavor as they toast their barrels more than Canadian Club does to give it more of an oaky flavor which I didn't like as I preferred the cleaner flavor of the CC.

 

The waiter said the bartender sends his compliments. I still had to pay for the drink:)

[will_perlis]

"But doesn't the two-year-old have a perfect right to dislike the taste of Scotch or olives?

 

Sure. And I didn't waste my time trying to convince them otherwise. I also didn't stop liking Scotch or olives.

 

"If not, at what age does one gain the right to dislike something?"

 

IMO, age isn't relevant, nor are "credentials". You're entitled to dislike Scotch and olives from birth to death. It matters not at all to me.

 

When it comes to modifying *my* opinion of something, what's important is the pointing out of factors I might have missed before or interpreted differently, and I couldn't possibly care less where the knowledge of those factors came from.

 

In other words, give me something observable to *me* to back up your likes or dislikes. Telling me "I don't see it" or "Any kid could do it" or "Wow! We fooled an alleged expert" is instantly dismissable.

 

I don't hear high audio frequencies. Should anyone at all familiar with music take seriously my loud and repeated complaints about the value of the piccolo to an orchestra? Would it help to play the pieces over and over? The only sensible response would be to say "You're deaf" and walk away.

[h._p.]

"The only sensible response would be to say "You're deaf" and walk away."

 

Wouldn't you say that was offensive? Are you saying that someone should have the right to be offensive to anyone who just doesn't like what they like?

[will_perlis]

It's no more offensive than:

 

"My teacher, to my great horror, is a huge fan of piccolos. Now I don't hear piccolos at ALL! Are they great instruments of a level so high that I simply do not comprehend, or is this a case of the Emperor's new Ears where no one is willing to admit how silently they play?

 

a typical piccolo solo

erm..yeah..or"

 

Look familiar?

[h._p.]

"Look familiar?"

 

So, are you saying that the person who doesn't hear the piccolo is analogous to the person who doesn't share your taste in photography? Is that not the same as saying that because someone doesn't share your tastes they're defective?

[will_perlis]

Only in the case of people repeatedly playing the "Are you saying...? " gambit. Those people are indeed defective.

[john falkenstine]

Sam: Friedlander is well known as a photographer and you're not. That's the real issue. work at it for a while and see if you will become famous...I tried becoming a famous race car driver many years ago, thinking that I could drive better and faster than those who did. As you can see, I was highly unsuccesful in an extremely short period of time...:)

[mike dixon]

Genius is as genius does?

[h._p.]

"Those people are indeed defective."

 

So anyone who asks you questions is defective? Or is it you who's defective because you can't think of a valid answer?

[john falkenstine]

What Sam needs is a good photographic assignment from the teacher who knows nothing.

[ray .]

Lee's photos are great. Lots of visual puns everywhere. To me

his work is about photography to its very core. He constantly

plays with composition and photographic "rules" and the

juxtaposition of objects, line, or tone, creating subtle comedies.

His work is a commentary on photography and society, exposing

the sides of both that are usually ignored or go unseen, but have

their own element of truth, nonetheless.

 

Just as with Atget and Evans, Friedlander's way of photographic

seeing has been influential on a grand scale, more so than

most people realize.

[paul_grossmann1]

look at the work he did for Atlantic records if you need proof of his talent. Brillant portraits of musicians from many genres.

 

also his street work is very good. some is very funny, some is very detached.

 

his self portrait book remains the ONLY book of self portraits that I have ever seen that I actually like.

 

Lee Friedlander is a good photographer...

[h_t4]

Answer: Genius

[steve_patterson]

I'm coming late to this, but I thought folks might be interested in the following story which ran in the Sunday New York Times:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/29/arts/design/29geft.html

 

It addresses many of the issues that have come up on Friedlander's work, but it leaves little doubt that the Powers that Be consider his work to be stellar and unique.

[cálico]

I can understand why some people may or may not consider certain people "geniuses." Today, the word is overly used and thrown about too freely and carelessly. Much like the word, "hero."

 

I remember, as a child, seeing some of Picasso's work and thinking to myself, "Are they kidding me? This is the most amateuristic junk I've ever seen!" I honestly thought the guy was pulling off a hoax on the general public and maybe he WAS! Well, one day, I came across an article where they showed some of his work at the age of 14 and 15... whoa... I was totally blown away by his talent! STILL, I couldn't appreciate his "modern" work back then, and still can't today. (Hold it, I'm not saying that an artist should compete with a camera!!!)

 

Well, I also know that I didn't like or believe much of what my Art History teachers said about some of the past "geniuses." I simply couldn't see what all the fuss was all about! I still have difficulty with the nonsense they wanted me to believe and so did many of the artists I've met throughout my life (er... no, NOT grafitti "artists").

 

One day, back in the mid-80s or so, I read in the Daily News how a curator was speaking to a group at a very prestigious museum here in NYC about a particular work on display... "Notice his use of color to portray... and notice his shadows... here, see how he demonstrates... [blah, blah, blah]" when a junior high school student blurted out, "Hey, mister, according to my school text, that picture's upside down!" Guess what? The kid was RIGHT! The picture had been upside down for a number of years, too; and no one had noticed, not even the highbrow curators with all their training! That taught me a lesson! (Can you figure out what that was?)

 

I am reminded of the main character, Roark, in Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead," which also reminded me of the Emperor's New Clothes." But, I do know that a painting by the late actor Henry Fonda or the late actor Anthony Quinn (yes, both were superb painters) will sell more than any of my paintings.... THE NAME, yes, THE NAME on the canvas, that's the secret.

 

How much something costs depends on what people will pay; and how much someone's work is considered "genius" or "masterful" depends on what the highbrow, affuent consider... what a shame, no? I am reminded of "The Fountainhead."

 

The work of past photographers is revered because of the fact that they were pioneers, I suspect. Yes, and they did these works with the most crude camera gear, as compared with any number of today's cameras! They also set many standards we take for granted today. AND, they left us with a history! Genius? I dunno...

[marvin_g.]

wow.. this thread is pathetic and sad. full of misunderstanding and misconceptions and people just being flat out super-jaded in trying to prove some stupid point. here's a fact, and well known one at that and its needless to say. there will always be differences in likes and dislikes. i actually didn't like Friedlander at first and when i picked up the Times and read the article i thought it was stupid how they were completely overanalyzing his work. but of course, like i'm sure this has happened in your life and any one else life, it started to grow on me. then I actually went to the MoMA and saw the exhibit. my outlook on Lee took a complete turn around. all of sudden i saw what was so great about his work. you see. that's the goddamn problem, people expect a fucking miraculousness to every fucking thing that they see. lee's photos, as i saw them and as i told my girlfriend, is essentially, to me, the enigma and of everyday life and people hidden behind the mask of normalcy. and thats why you fucking hate it, and don't understand it. The pretty girl has her mask and you're dying to see her face. Please, go see his exhibit. and its not "like those "modern artists" who paint a square and call it art". definitely not, and i'll give you the benefit of the doubt, because, yeah, sure, it's very easy to think that, as i did, before i went to the exhibit. like.. god. there's this one photo, where it's basically a shot of a window and a plant pot. and the windowpanes shadow is cast on the white wall at an angle. and to the left side of the photograph is a black line going straight down the center and a doorknob in the midframe. the way he shot that door, you have no idea where it's coming from. or how it bends, whether its going in or out. if you don't like friedlander, look at that shot and if you still feel the same.. then i don't know. theres nothing normal or overrated about that shot and a bunch of other shots like that. and yes.. i recall reading a good point about how 'when friedlander shoots, people think its amazing, but if someone else shot it, people wouldn't think so much." i've thought the same about music, about a certain band or song by that certain band that mainstreamers go crazy over... it's a mystery really but the artist is not to be blamed. never are they to be blame. there's just something wrong with the people. so DON'T put Friedlander down because of that.

 

another that's amazing but the deathknell of it all, photography that is, is that with the whole realm of digital photography and technological advances, EVERYONE THINKS THEY'RE A FUCKING PHOTOGRAPHER AND THINK THEY CAN DO EVERYTHING and actually have the audacity to critcize photographers like Friedlander for all the wrong reasons. it's stupid and it's bullshit.

 

whatever the fuck.

 

-mg

[beatrice_flowers]

Hm!! I love your style, Marvin. You da man.