marvin_g.

oh totally. love that film. jarmusch is great.

beautiful screenshots here.

http://www.dvduell.de/_dvd_kritik/stranger_than_paradise.htm

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

your point is clear.

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.

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.)

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.)

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.

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

a terrible photo*

have you looked at*

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)

i love Godard films.

aronofsky is great. matthew libbatique is amazing.

requiem for a dream is beautiful cinematography.

"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.

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

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