Discuss a Lee Friedlander photograph

Sparky · Aug 13, 2006

blansky said:
If I were an "artist" I wouldn't want my pictures in any type of grouping. Not in a book or a gallery. It lessens the impact of any given picture. Granted there is commerce involved. But I would want every picture to be it's own experience and not something to be compared to something else.

Well, personally - I don't think you can avoid it. Context is always there. And someone from a different culture is going to see things very differently. I remember seeing some thread on here last year about a guy talking about a photo he sold. He was shocked when he found out the reason the guy who bought it LIKED it so much was because of the dog in the corner of the shot that reminded him of a dog he'd had when he was younger (or something like that). We're all programmed differently. MHV above acknowledged that the series of Friedlander shots actually makes them more interesting than if they stood alone (if I'm not mistaken) - so there's some proof maybe that context CAN strengthen, rather than water down. I think it's simply the responsibility of the artist to take advantage of whatever context they're operating in. That's all.

But we all see things differently - once again. I'm not a huge fan of Friedlander - I have respect for the guy. To me, he's far more masterful than someone like Weston - but then again - he's building on Weston's contributions. So it should be easy.

Soooo... anyway - just curious - does anyone think any of my (early) comments are relevant to the photos? Or if not, how do you think we should talk about Friedlander?

Sparky · Aug 13, 2006

Gay Larson said:
I wrote it like this one. so I'm going to see if it happens again. Thanks (now I see I wrote it before his name which was the finish. Sorry)

Gay - that'll happen if you (mistakenly or otherwise) delete the end-quote.

Sparky · Aug 13, 2006

Sparky said:
Gay - you just wrote your piece before then end of Blansky's quote. That's all. It's there. Just italicized. It's all good.

HERE - I JUST DELETED THE END QUOTE.

hmmm...guess not. I stand corrected on the end-quote thing.

Kino · Aug 13, 2006

Sparky said:
(snip) But the one thing I think that's VERY important in learning to be a photographer, an artist, a visual person, what-have-you... is to learn FIRST to step outside of your little box, your preconceived notions. I don't think it's possible to pass judgement on ANYTHING until you understand it. "Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes", right?

Sparky,

Not to be difficult but...

I could make the argument that, indeed, his photographs are successful in all aspects of his self-crafted aesthetic and his entire work is a cohesive body of work that conforms strictly to that aesthetic and is therefore an unqualified academic success... and argue that it still does nothing for me.

All points would be valid. I can appreciate the effort (for any artist) and not like the results, agreed?

Personally, the image, presented to me in the context of "fine art" conveys elements of either a cynical, reflexive poke at the viewer (do you buy-in or don't you?) and/or a study in data structures and tensions of balance of composition.

Of course, I could be full of sh*t too...

Jim Chinn · Aug 13, 2006

Friedlander is a tough one for me. Looking at his work reminds me of when I first saw a Jackson Pollock drip painintg in person and thinking to myself, "I am supposed to like this. Everything I have read tells me how important it is".
It took a few years to realize I liked his work not because of some great new vision or aesthetic he brought to art, but simply because I liked the way some of the pictures made me feel when I seriously looked at them.

So with Friedlander I am in the same boat. I know he is an improtant figure in contemporary photography, but I am not yet to the point where I personally feel any real connection with the work.

However, the neat thing about this forum is it provides me an opportunity to listen to others and take another more critical look at a photographers work.

In the images presented I will admit that there is something interesting about the third image. the desolation, the long shadows and thin gauntness presented by the verticle elements provides an impact to the image.
Someone mentioned meticulous composition. I notice in this one how carefully he made sure almost exact amounts of the posts and shadows are in the image so a certain static balance is there. Of course a photograph freezes time, but that image makes me feel that if I was standing on that corner, time would literally stop. Maybe another analogy for those old enough to remember the show, it looks like it could be the opening shot from an original Twilight Zone episode.

One quick aside. It's kind of funny how recent experience can mold ones thinking. When looking at the third image I noticed the two posts that cross each other. First thing those posts reminded me of was a person. I think that was due to recently being at the Art Institute of Chicago and seeing the Alberto Giacometti sculptures that have a resemblence with thier stick figure style. Go figure.

Sparky · Aug 13, 2006

Kino said:
Sparky,
... and argue that it still does nothing for me.

Thanks for the input Kino. But I guess the point that I've been trying to somewhat painfully labor over is that - well, we're photographers, right? Okay - we've established that. Here's a rare chance that we can actually increase our understanding of a visual language. So - okay - let's try not to engage in "i like it" or "i don't like it". That's not the point - and it's just not constructive. It's not going to get us anywhere. But "I don't like it" is GREAT - IF you care to express WHY you think a give image is unsuccessful.

For example - you think that, for example, if the photographer was trying to evoke the "emptiness of contemporary urban life"... then let's have some examples relating to the images of WHY he failed. Or why he didn't.

But I THINK these little sessions (which I think are BY FAR the most valuable thing that we could have on APUG in terms of the service they could be doing) need not to be taken lightly. Imagine if we could put an equivalent amount of progress into our understanding of photographs and analysing them as we do money into our camera collections - or our knowledge of platinum or azo printing, or camera technique...! Don't you agree? At least in principle?

Sparky · Aug 13, 2006

Jim Chinn said:
Friedlander is a tough one for me. Looking at his work reminds me of when I first saw a Jackson Pollock drip painintg in person and thinking to myself, "I am supposed to like this. Everything I have read tells me how important it is".
It took a few years to realize I liked his work not because of some great new vision or aesthetic he brought to art, but simply because I liked the way some of the pictures made me feel when I seriously looked at them.

So with Friedlander I am in the same boat. I know he is an improtant figure in contemporary photography, but I am not yet to the point where I personally feel any real connection with the work.

However, the neat thing about this forum is it provides me an opportunity to listen to others and take another more critical look at a photographers work.

In the images presented I will admit that there is something interesting about the third image. the desolation, the long shadows and thin gauntness presented by the verticle elements provides an impact to the image.
Someone mentioned meticulous composition. I notice in this one how carefully he made sure almost exact amounts of the posts and shadows are in the image so a certain static balance is there. Of course a photograph freezes time, but that image makes me feel that if I was standing on that corner, time would literally stop. Maybe another analogy for those old enough to remember the show, it looks like it could be the opening shot from an original Twilight Zone episode.

One quick aside. It's kind of funny how recent experience can mold ones thinking. When looking at the third image I noticed the two posts that cross each other. First thing those posts reminded me of was a person. I think that was due to recently being at the Art Institute of Chicago and seeing the Alberto Giacometti sculptures that have a resemblence with thier stick figure style. Go figure.

Jim - thanks so much for that considered look at the photos. I think that your mentioning the reminiscence of a giacometti sculpture is a valuable addition. Is there something that you think that the two may share in common? (the motif in that photo you refer to vs. the giacometti?) For example, Jonathan Green, in his book, American Photography, talks about Aaron Siskind's stone compositions (series of stones balancing on eachother) as being 'about contiguity'. Do you think that in this photograph, it's possible that Friedlander was interested in these Giacometti-like motifs and the way they were expressed?

Sparky · Aug 13, 2006

Here's the Siskind print I was talking about.

David H. Bebbington · Aug 14, 2006

Responding simply to the Friedlander pictures as pictures, I think the first one (of the fences) is by far the most interesting. Compositionally it reminds me of a Cubist painting, conceptually it seems to encapsulate the mentality of the people who put up the fences, all trying to divide off a little piece of private real estate for themselves. I really enjoy pictures where there are no people but you can very strongly sense the presence of people who have been at the place in question.

Someone posted a picture of doors (in an office building?). Looked hard, couldn't see anything beyond the commonplace.

Yet again, a good choice of images for discussion.

Regards,

David

Sparky · Aug 14, 2006

David H. Bebbington said:
Someone posted a picture of doors (in an office building?). Looked hard, couldn't see anything beyond the commonplace.

Yes, David. That was me. I posted that as an example (granted - it's only one photo) as being emblematic of one of his 'peopled' pictures for the sole point of talking about his 'empty' photos. I'd probably agree with you that that particular image is much more about formality. It's all about composition - I think it's a superb composition - but really seems to lack the depth and feeling of the images presented for discussion. That's sort of interesting in itself, to me.

lee · Aug 14, 2006

I suspect that most here are responding to these images as photographers and not as artists. Friedlander and certainly Siskind approched this work trying to solve not photographic problems but ART problems. One of Siskinds best friends was an abstract expressionist in the 50's and 60's and Siskind was often invited to exhibit with this group of artists. In fact, the only one working in photography. I believe that Franz Kline was the abstract expressionist that was Aaron Siskind's friend.

lee\c

Sparky · Aug 14, 2006

lee said:
I suspect that most here are responding to these images as photographers and not as artists. Friedlander and certainly Siskind approched this work trying to solve not photographic problems but ART problems.

Do you think there's any difference - except in the name? Granted, there are different subcultures of each. But don't you think that, in the final analysis, it's just a label?

Kino · Aug 14, 2006

Sparky said:
Thanks for the input Kino. But I guess the point that I've been trying to somewhat painfully labor over is that - well, we're photographers, right? (snip for space)Don't you agree? At least in principle?

I don't think I really understand your position at all.

OK, so tell me if I am wrong, but your thesis seems to imply a universally acknowledged "ultimate interpretation" of these photos IF you think you can divorce personal aesthetics from dissection of the image itself.

Of course, if you have in excruciating detail a treatise on what the photographer intended, you could do some dry, academic dissection of a photograph that mechanically reinforces the STATED goals of the photographer, but that is nonsensical in light of how the viewer interprets the photograph. How can you tell the viewer, "your interpretation of the image is wrong; here's the real scoop"; if that is the case, the artist should be a pamplet writer, not a photographer.

I thought art and photography was about, among other things, conveying ideas, concepts and feelings via abstractions inherent in the mechanism of the medium. If the means of conveying these constructs fail (by the hand of the artists themselves), shouldn't that be a valid area of study?

I do not know of any situation whereby you purchase a photograph with a legally binding set of rules of interpretation OR why I should be bound by those rules!

Art without pleasure? You post modernist wag!

Yes, I feel it important to discuss visual language, but NOT if it only has room for one interpretation! Regardless of what the artist intended, there is the separate issue of personal interpretation you can hardly divorce from the proceedings.

Maybe I am way off base, but if so, I am totally confused...

lee · Aug 14, 2006

Yes, I think there is a difference. What lable? I think Siskind was a painter in photographic clothes. He used photography in a way that had not been done before of at least not by very many before him. His visual language was influenced by painters not photographers. He just used photography to express that visual language. I think!

lee\c

lee · Aug 14, 2006

Kino,

that is very funny when you said. "Art without pleasure? You post modernist wag! "

lee\c

Kino · Aug 14, 2006

lee said:
Kino,

that is very funny when you said. "Art without pleasure? You post modernist wag! "

lee\c

Lee,

Just trying to avoid one of those horrid, art world knuckle-bruising brawls that erupt here from time to time by defusing the situation with humor...

Frank

lee · Aug 14, 2006

Still....

lee\c

Sparky · Aug 14, 2006

Kino said:
I don't think I really understand your position at all.

OK, so tell me if I am wrong, but your thesis seems to imply a universally acknowledged "ultimate interpretation" of these photos IF you think you can divorce personal aesthetics from dissection of the image itself.

Of course, if you have in excruciating detail a treatise on what the photographer intended, you could do some dry, academic dissection of a photograph that mechanically reinforces the STATED goals of the photographer, but that is nonsensical in light of how the viewer interprets the photograph. How can you tell the viewer, "your interpretation of the image is wrong; here's the real scoop"; if that is the case, the artist should be a pamplet writer, not a photographer.

I thought art and photography was about, among other things, conveying ideas, concepts and feelings via abstractions inherent in the mechanism of the medium. If the means of conveying these constructs fail (by the hand of the artists themselves), shouldn't that be a valid area of study?

I do not know of any situation whereby you purchase a photograph with a legally binding set of rules of interpretation OR why I should be bound by those rules!

Hmmm... lots to respond to here maybe...? I'm not sure if it's one point or several separate and subtly differentiated ones.

Anyway - just to recap - are you thinking that I'm suggesting that there's only a single, proper interpretation? If so - I grievously apologize. I'm not saying that at all. I'm trying to gently suggest that there are as many interpretations as there are people multiplied by 'moods of those people'.

I'm just saying that - well, if you're going to say "that sucks" or "I don't like that" - well, then let's hear about WHY you don't like it. I'd really like to get some constructive image talk going here... I think it'd be just amazing to do that. I see people here starting, just starting to talk about these things - and then suddenly, it's all "amidol this" and "stand develop that"... people seem VERY uncomfortable with talking about these things.

As for the intentions of the person who made the photo - I wasn't suggesting it was at ALL mandatory. I fully agree with Blansky and others that an image SHOULD stand on it's own. BUT - if we're going to look at several images by the same photog - then I thought it would be really helpful/useful to hear what THEY said about their own work. But not necessary.

The only think I care about at ALL - is that we TALK and in a constructive way... push things to where we start seeing similarities and differences - and start understanding what it is that photographers think when they're setting up a shot. It seems like a good thing to me.

Jim Chinn · Aug 14, 2006

lee said:
I suspect that most here are responding to these images as photographers and not as artists. Friedlander and certainly Siskind approched this work trying to solve not photographic problems but ART problems. One of Siskinds best friends was an abstract expressionist in the 50's and 60's and Siskind was often invited to exhibit with this group of artists. In fact, the only one working in photography. I believe that Franz Kline was the abstract expressionist that was Aaron Siskind's friend.

lee\c

Yes it was Franz Kline. Siskind later did a number of images of grafiti and abstract paint patterns on walls as an homage to Kline who died pretty young (mid 40s?) from I believe a heart condition.

From what I have read in different sources, Siskind hung with Kline, DeKooning, Motherwell, Barnett Newman among others.

lee · Aug 14, 2006

"The only think I care about at ALL - is that we TALK and in a constructive way... push things to where we start seeing similarities and differences - and start understanding what it is that photographers think when they're setting up a shot. It seems like a good thing to me."

I thought that we were doing a good job here with that. Several of us anyway.

lee\c

Sparky · Aug 14, 2006

lee said:
Yes, I think there is a difference. What lable? I think Siskind was a painter in photographic clothes. He used photography in a way that had not been done before of at least not by very many before him. His visual language was influenced by painters not photographers. He just used photography to express that visual language. I think!

lee\c

Lee - to me a photograph is a photograph is a photograph. It's a guy behind a camera trying to make an image which pleases him. Some have artistic pretention, some are pastoralists, some are into 'street photography' - but I'd like to include in my definition of photography 'making images with a camera'. I just think that when one starts compartmentalizing - one also starts making excuses. That also creates (a little bit of) alienation - which I'd prefer to avoid. Sure, someone like Siskind might be thinking something different from someone like Eggleston, or Robert Adams, or JH Lartigue... but in the end - I think they're just human beings looking at their contact sheets - saying "oh, I like that one - it's better than this one". And they don't often know the reasons why. And to me, that's where the barriers collapse.

Sparky · Aug 14, 2006

lee said:
I thought that we were doing a good job here with that. Several of us anyway.
lee\c

I fully agree. I'm proud of this 'getting into it' thing. I'm just saying that's what I care about. I was just trying to react to an earlier comment or two in the thread - and suggesting (perhaps wrongly) that if people are just going to say they don't like something - that maybe they try to suggest why they don't. Everything should be (in an ideal world mind you!) constructive, and not simply 'negative'. Even a 'negative' comment could be a really good thing if it's based on keen observation and an open mind. Know what I mean? I'm not nay-saying or pot shooting... and I'm certainly no moderator - it's just a hope, and I was hoping I could encourage others.

that's all.
I hope that makes SOME sense.

Sparky · Aug 14, 2006

Jim Chinn said:
Yes it was Franz Kline. Siskind later did a number of images of grafiti and abstract paint patterns on walls as an homage to Kline who died pretty young (mid 40s?) from I believe a heart condition.

From what I have read in different sources, Siskind hung with Kline, DeKoning, Motherwell, Barnett Newman among others.

I'm actually a HUGE siskind fan. He was one of the first photographers who REALLY inspired me. At least when I was a teen. But googling for that image sort of brought it all back. It's actually a great thing - doing a google image search for a certain name - it gives you a huge rich catalog of works by them... right before your eyes. Great stuff.

Friedlander's always left ME a little bit cold, too. But I do have respect for the guy - I think he really deserves it... very few people were doing anything as brave as he did when he was doing his thing.

lee · Aug 14, 2006

Sparky,

You are possibly correct. Quite possibly they (Siskind and his ilk) don't know the reasons why but I think they recognize there is a question and the work may or may not supply the answer. We all look at images the way you described but there may be more there than we originally think there is. I have run across negs and contacts from several years ago and thought, "Man, that is a much better image that I originally thought". I certainly don't have any answers.

lee\c

Kino · Aug 14, 2006

Sparky said:
I'm just saying that - well, if you're going to say "that sucks" or "I don't like that" - well, then let's hear about WHY you don't like it.

Fair enough! I'd like to tackle this thread again when I have more brain power, but for now, to bed and sleep.

I need my sleep the deal with the mind-numbing, buracracy (see I can't even spell bureaucracy) of work.

And people wonder why Wallace Stevens was a poet...

Discuss a Lee Friedlander photograph

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency