• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Appreciation of Lee Friedlander

 
Stems

 
 
@cliveh I have to thank you for this one. I have the big Friedlander MoMA 2005 retrospective book. Bought it at MoMA in 2006 or 2007. Looked at it a lot back then, but it's been sitting, unopened, on my book shelves for at least 15 years. I going through it today with immense pleasure thanks to this thread.
 
I always appreciated his work but I wonder how much is because he was featured in the Sarkowski's and other photo history books, like Winograd, Myerowitz, etc all New York City denizens who promoted each other, got shows and publications, etc.? As opposed to so many unknown and unappreciated photographers who didn't get fifty-plus years of attention from the photo elites.

{Moderator deletion of material tending toward the political/religious}
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Pieter12
  • Deleted
  • Reason: response to deleted part of post
Alex Benjamin said:
The world is uncomposed. It is messy and chaotic. It's made of a bunch of things that have nothing to do one with the other. It makes no sense.
Click to expand...

Musing further on this theme, it seems to me that how we approach photography is mostly about how we approach the mixing of order and chaos.
Lee Friedlander seemed to gravitate to the chaotic, with little bits - very important bits - of order sprinkled in.
Henri Cartier-Bresson was great at finding the most amazing and structured order in a chaotic world.
And Crewdson and Jeff Wall? They structure an ordered world for the camera, and then add a "seasoned to taste" bit of chaos to it.
Some Jeff Wall as an example:




 

You've inspired me to pull out my copy* and go through it again too. It's been a while.

*I'm such a psycho that I have a second copy still sealed in the shrinkwrap
 
What I personally find impressive is at the age of 90 is preparing a new book with new (!) photographs coming at March 2026 called Life Still
 

I really like your examples. They show how insufficient the term "composition" is to adequately embrace the many possibilities of the medium to "approach the mixing of order and chaos."
 
When I look at any number of Friedlander's landscapes, I just see an imposition or overlay of clutter. Ignore what's actually there, and make everything artificially nervous and busy. I guess that's fine for him as a pretentiously artsy compositional style; it certainly drew him attention. But I'd have to drink thirty cups of expresso a day to get in that hyper state. It's clever, no doubt, but also awfully obnoxious.
 
DREW WILEY said:
Ignore what's actually there, and make everything artificially nervous and busy.
Click to expand...

It's more like everyone else adopts a viewpoint that, as much as possible, ignores all the crap that's usually all over the place. He took photos of what was actually there. The photo above with the reflection of Mt. Rushmore is just as much a photo of Mt. Rushmore as one taken from a pristine vantage point. It just says more about it.

Friedlander's photos are often commentary - or just jokes. Perhaps that's what you don't like. That's understandable. He is, however, pretty close to unique as a photographer.
 
No, he superimposes with a heavy hand. Of course, he's trying to poke fun at more traditional manners of composition, but it's so blatantly done that it can be annoying. There are an awful lot of artsy-fartsy clones of his style these days. Some of it is quite interesting, much merely cloying. What is clever and creative to one generation becomes an oppressive creative-correctness regime to the next. Wry humor and deliberately piqued composition has its place. But once that itself becomes a dominant art form, it can get just as monotonous as any other.

I prefer nuance - which is a pretty rare species these days. Everyone seems to want instant pie in the face reactions instead.
 
Summer ´24 I was in Arles. Chatting with the lady at the entrance of another show, about the Friedlander show at the Luma foundation, she compared his photographs with the captcha pictures where you must find all buses, all bikes, etc. At the Friedlander show later that day I found she was right (IMO).
 
DREW WILEY said:
There are an awful lot of artsy-fartsy clones of his style these days.
Click to expand...

I don't know that there is much in the way of a widespread attempt to copy Friedlander. I'm not sure he even has a very big fan club. He's well known, but that doesn't immediately mean well-regarded. And his "style" is nothing consistent. He has large groupings of photos that fit some style and other large groups that don't fit at all.
 
I don't know that there is much in the way of a widespread attempt to copy Friedlander. I'm not sure he even has a very big fan club. He's well known, but that doesn't immediately mean well-regarded. And his "style" is nothing consistent. He has large groupings of photos that fit some style and other large groups that don't fit at all.

Yes, not my cup of tea.
 
Alex Benjamin said:
Stems

Click to expand...

One of my favorite books. Simply love these. Among other things, I think he has actually invented a new visual syntax, but explaining that is above my pay grade. And I particularly love Western Landscapes, shot with a Hasselblad SWC, mostly with a little flash in the foreground.
 

That's a book I return to fairly often as well. He finished that project while recovering from double knee replacement surgery. He's nothing if not wholly dedicated to his photography.
 
I just got an email from a gallery promoting one of Friedlander's images. The text provides a good insight into his style:

"Friedlander’s reputation rests in large part on his portrayal of the "social landscape”, and his depictions of public spaces are often characterized by the dense profusion of elements within them. Friedlander tended towards a compositional style typified by a pleasant jumble of visual information—he gives you a lot to look at. His favored subjects were unassuming situations like this one where, lacking any central drama, the eye is invited to wander, and stitch together its own narrative."
 

Yes, but you could write such pretentious crap about anyones photographs. He is not in the same league as someone like HCB.
 
cliveh said:
Yes, but you could write such pretentious crap about anyones photographs. He is not in the same league as someone like HCB.
Click to expand...

Maybe my radar is malfunctioning here but I didn’t find that quote pretentious at all. It was clear and plain-spoken, without artspeak that gets so much pushback.
 
warden said:
Maybe my radar is malfunctioning here but I didn’t find that quote pretentious at all. It was clear and plain-spoken, without artspeak that gets so much pushback.
Click to expand...

It's not pretentious. It's pretty accurate.
 
cliveh said:
Yes, but you could write such pretentious crap about anyones photographs. He is not in the same league as someone like HCB.
Click to expand...

Same league? That's like comparing football and baseball, not the Bills and the Browns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register