Discuss a Lee Friedlander photograph

[Sparky]

And I have to stop being such a thread whore! Can you tell I'm actually avoiding doing construction work at home???

 

[lee]

I am a big fan also of Siskind and he was a very early inspiration when I was a young man. I saw the 100 year retrospective at the Center for Contemporary Photography in Tucson several years ago. Aaron would have been 100 years old. There was a lot of work and it covered all the different aspects of his life. Great show.

lee\c

 

[Kino]

And I have to stop being such a thread whore! Can you tell I'm actually avoiding doing construction work at home???

LOL. Good night.

 

[Sparky]

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

I know this is going to be kind of a lame comment - but I believe it to be true... but "isn't that just the incredible beauty of it though??".

This is one of the things I LOVE about photography. I guess you could say it about a lot of things. And this is exactly WHY I was trying to suggest that there are many many different ways of looking at the same photograph. I think that in looking at, and talking about images - as long as you keep the ego out of it - and keep it free of 'judgement' - you can never go wrong!

 

[Sparky]

LOL. Good night.

night, all.

 

[lee]

agreed and good night.

lee\c

 

[david b]

Hey Sparky....is there someplace we can see some images you made?

 

[Sparky]

Hey Sparky....is there someplace we can see some images you made?

uh oh...! Am I going to get TRASHED???

I hope to have some web stuff up in the next few weeks. But I'm really sorely behind. I don't have anything up anywhere that I'd be proud of - or that really demonstrates my personal work (mostly commercial stuff for the moment - but I'm shy about it!). I started a thread a week ago or so about finding my old negatives - you can see some stuff I did when I was 18 there if you're interested (just click on my name and follow the threads....).

Otherwise - when my sites are done - I'll make them public. If there's anything in particular you'd like to see - give me a holler by PM.

 

[david b]

No one will be getting trashed. You seem well versed in photography and are very capable in talking about it, so I was just wondering what kind of work you do.

No big deal.

 

[SuzanneR]

Looks like a great discussion last night! I'm with Jim Chinn on Friedlander, I think. I have looked at his work from time to time, and when I first encountered it, I just did not like it. And, yet, I was drawn to keep looking.

The pictures appear to be about nothing. But, I have to say, that as I've looked at his work again, and again, I've started to like it more. These empty streetscapes, telephone poles, mailboxes, fences all organized within the frame to create a kind of tension and build such distinct view of America. As mentioned before, quite banal, too. But then again, so is much of the American landscape. You "think" you've seen these in everyone's snapshots albums because his subject matter is so commonplace. And he's really making you look at just how commonplace it is. I think his work is very intriguing, and I come back to it a lot. It's worth the effort. I wish I could have seen the retorspective in New York last year!

Sisskind, on the other hand... just can't get myself interested in his work.

 

[philldresser]

I looked at all 4 images and they do nothing for me. Infact, if I had managed to take them they would have made it straight to the bin. What is he trying to say?

Phill

 

[reellis67]

I don't feel strongly about these images, but I don't think that they are crap either. To me, these selections evoke a kind of urban wasteland feeling, as well as a certain interest in the elements of the objects depicted. I've not seen a lot of this photographers work, but I would not pass on viewing more given the opportunity.

I understand the urge to know what the photographer was trying to do with any given photo, but for me, only documentary photographs really need context to have power. Knowing that these photos are not specificaly documentary, I feel free to evaluate them as any other piece of artwork. I see their lines etc. and they look interesting, but even though I see these elements, I'm not overly moved by them. What moves me more is the suggestion that rather than looking at pretty scenery, this photographer has presented us with a more 'real' vision of our world.

I also found the discussion about whether it is OK to like, or dislike, some art interesting. I've recently had this same conversation with a couple of painters that I know and the results were very similar to those expressed here. I tend to side with the 'I don't have to like it' crowd, but I always try to keep an open mind because I know that I don't know everything, nor will I ever, nor will anyone else. I like or dislike a piece of art for my own reasons, and even after someone explains the piece to me I still have the right to feel the way I do about it. Understanding an artwork does not imply that I will automaticly like it - I can appreciate the piece and still dislike it.

- Randy

 

[Lee Shively]

I don't particularly like these photos but....

Friedlander continues the type of honest photography that I admired in Walker Evans. It's modern, it's formal, it's often a mess but it's Friedlander and it doesn't pretend to fit into our preconceptions of what a photograph should show. While I don't think it's necessary to know the context of a phtograph in order to enjoy it, it's helpful to know something about intentions, concepts and ideas. Some photographs are enjoyable based on the old camera club ideals, some are "difficult". Doesn't make them bad, just hard to get your head around. Knowing Friedlander's work helps when seeing Friedlander's photos. The more I know about his work, the more I enjoy seeing it. It's very often a challenge and I still don't always understand it, but I do enjoy it. In the thread on your choice of the four greatest photographers, I placed Friedlander number three.

 

[blansky]

OK, so tell me if I am wrong, but your thesis seems to imply a universally acknowledged "ultimate interpretation" of these photos ......

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?

A lot of what is in these sentences is what bothers me about the whole "art thing. People interpreting any type of art. It always seems so highbrow, so "arty intellectual" and so vapid.

"Well here in this picture of these two rocks we have the classic Wysterburgersstein, which is of course yet another in his marvelous style documenting mans inhumanity to man".


"This inspiring picture of a tree is obviously Glatcheststeinholdht telling us how the trials and tribulations of the underclass in post World War One Europe (circa 1928) encouraged the emergence of the decadent 1930 that gave birth to fascism".


This gobbledegoop is what completely turns me off from the "art crowds" claptrap about what they think they know about any given work of art.


Michael

 

[Donald Miller]

A lot of what is in these sentences is what bothers me about the whole "art thing. People interpreting any type of art. It always seems so highbrow, so "arty intellectual" and so vapid.

"Well here in this picture of these two rocks we have the classic Wysterburgersstein, which is of course yet another in his marvelous style documenting mans inhumanity to man".


"This inspiring picture of a tree is obviously Glatcheststeinholdht telling us how the trials and tribulations of the underclass in post World War One Europe (circa 1928) encouraged the emergence of the decadent 1930 that gave birth to fascism".


This gobbledegoop is what completely turns me off from the "art crowds" claptrap about what they think they know about any given work of art.


Michael

Michael,

I think that these vapid attempts at interpertation and furthermore to believe that these interpertations have any validiity for others (outside of one's individual consciousness) is akin to attempting to put legs on a snake.

 

[copake_ham]

I found the first photo interesting for a couple of reasons.

1) I've taken a number of photos using faded white picket fences in wintertime in the foreground of street scenes so was interested in someone else doing so. Actually, this featured photo looks similar to a street scence I've shot in Lenox, MA.

2) I just learned the other day that the house in the background has what is called a "hipped" roof line. I learned this from a historic plaque on a house in Cooperstown, NY so it helps me "place" the photo to probably from the US Northeast.

The second picture has some interest but the rest do nothing for me.

 

[Donald Miller]

My opinion about this series of photographs is that the king has no clothes.

 

[Gerald Koch]

In my experience - it can be difficult, if not impossible, to know how to respond to a photograph without understanding the intent of the artist.

???
Do we need to know what Leonardo was thinking in order to appreciate the Mona Lisa? In most cases we have no idea why the photographer felt compelled to make a particular image. We either respond to a photograph or we do not. Our response is often influenced more by our own experience than that of the photographer. Picture #4 appeals to me because it reminds me of things I saw when I first moved to Florida in the early 50's.

 

[Lee Shively]

"Do we need to know what Leonardo was thinking in order to appreciate the Mona Lisa?"

No. But there have been lots of people for lots of years wanting to understand more about Leonardo's reasons behind the painting. I dare say most people appreciate the Mona Lisa more because it's an icon.

 

[naturephoto1]

I too am not too partial to the selection of the Lee Friedlander photographs. Perhaps I may find others more to my liking.

Rich

 

[Sparky]

"This inspiring picture of a tree is obviously Glatcheststeinholdht telling us how the trials and tribulations of the underclass in post World War One Europe (circa 1928) encouraged the emergence of the decadent 1930 that gave birth to fascism".

Blansky. Cease and desist! You leave Glatcheststeinholdht OUT of this!!

bastard...!

 

[Sparky]

???
Do we need to know what Leonardo was thinking in order to appreciate the Mona Lisa? In most cases we have no idea why the photographer felt compelled to make a particular image. We either respond to a photograph or we do not. Our response is often influenced more by our own experience than that of the photographer. Picture #4 appeals to me because it reminds me of things I saw when I first moved to Florida in the early 50's.

I used to work for this guy, a photographer/artist (whatever you want to call it). The first time I saw his work, I was left feeling pretty nonplussed. However, as I started working with him, I saw the unbelievable amount of research and care he put into the work. It took him close to a year to make a single photograph, and we'd build elaborate sets, spend all kinds of money, etc... while that in itself is sort of an impressive thing - it's more the carefulness and thinking that went into the work that gave me a whole new understanding and respect for the work. I know that won't help the viewer who's closed off to the work, or who DOESN'T see that. But it completely changed MY perspective.

What if you're looking at a photograph of a naked corpse - and let's say you're jewish - would it not make a difference to find out that it's a picture of a dead nazi vs. an imprisoned jew? Doesn't understanding details external to an image have some sort of meaning?

What about the famous vietnam pic of the girl running down the road covered in napalm? If you didn't know about vietnam - then you're likely to dismiss the picture as something entirely different - yet that photograph was HUGE in shifting the tide of opinion against vietnam. Here, the photo was utterly dependent on this external referent.

I'm not saying every photograph needs explanation. I think too, that images should generally be seductive in their own right. But then if it's actually a QUALITY image - it's got something more to say. So it's got to answer to the viewer on several more levels too. To me, the Friedlanders are pretty successful on their own, without explanation. They're not QUITE for me. Though I would really love to know his thinking behind it. I think it would be great if we allow the artist to give a statement accompanying every image. It should be a basic right - even if not necessary.

But anyway - I think everyone's different and sees different things in an image. For me - the last two are FAR more successful images than the first two. But I'm coming from a purely aesthetic, shallow place in that assertion. I think they're the most interesting images, and are the best composed. I think they're about line, and about atmosphere on the surface.

 

[Sparky]

A lot of what is in these sentences is what bothers me about the whole "art thing. People interpreting any type of art. It always seems so highbrow, so "arty intellectual" and so vapid.

This gobbledegoop is what completely turns me off from the "art crowds" claptrap about what they think they know about any given work of art.

Michael - I think the guy was just trying to make a point - not impress us. If anyone's guilty of 'art talk' it's probably me. But the thing is (here's the thing) what you refer to as claptrap - is actually pretty useful language (depending specifically on what you're referring to, of course!) to talk about images. There's a crapload of concepts that are really useful in talking about photographs and we'd be a bit lost without them;

Depth-of-field
negative space
frame, framing
context
subject/object
narrative (between images in a series)
line, form
grain, blur
tone (light vs. dark, also high and low key)
the list goes on...

I don't go jumping on everyone who says 'hasselblad' because I think they're name-dropping. But if there's something that you don't understand, it would probably be good to quote the offending phrase and push for clarity. I don't think that's such a horrible thing, nor do I think it's difficult.

 

[jovo]

viz a viz the conundrum of covering war impartially if that can even be done, is this piece from the NY Times this morning regarding journalistic photography:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/14/business/media/14balance.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

 

[blansky]

But the thing is (here's the thing) what you refer to as claptrap - is actually pretty useful language (depending specifically on what you're referring to, of course!) to talk about images. There's a crapload of concepts that are really useful in talking about photographs and we'd be a bit lost without them;

Depth-of-field
negative space
frame, framing
context
subject/object
narrative (between images in a series)
line, form
grain, blur
tone (light vs. dark, also high and low key)
the list goes on...

The essence of all the above words would be to me, little more than an autopsy. You've taken a "living" creation and dissected it down to a clinical level in an attempt to
1. impress
2. teach
3. copy
4. you decide...


I'm not talking about you personally at all. But as Mr Cardwell stated in another thread, I think, when he observed the spiral in the picture, he then attached, mystery and a bunch of other attributes that to me, clearly weren't there.

I'm not impressed by images that don't engage me on any number of levels but can be touted as having "great line and form" or wonderful "spacial arrangement" but are essentially dissected cadavers.

An image should be judged by its life, not by photographic archeologists or people wishing to engage in "organ" transplants into their own photographs.


Michael