Lee Friedlander, et al.

[Merg Ross]

Elsewhere on this forum is a discussion of the work of Lee Friedlander.

This caught my attention, as we exhibited together in an international exhibition of photography in 1963 sponsored by Eastman House. It was an invitational exhibition, with familiar names on the nominating committee including, Adams, Callahan, Siskind, Newhall, Szarkowski and White. The international participants were well represented with works from Italy, Brazil, Germany, France, Switzerland, England, Canada, Japan and the United States.

The purpose of the exhibition was to "acknowledge and encourage" the wok being done by a younger generation of photographers. Nathan Lyons, Assistant Director of George Eastman House, directed the exhibition. Of the 148 participating photographers, I was the youngest at twenty-one years of age. Among the photographers from the United States were Meatyard, Uelsmann, Caponigro, Friedlander and Winogrand.

I believe that the comments by Nathan Lyons in his foreword to this 1963 exhibition are relevant to the current discussion of Lee Friedlander's work. They address the concept at the heart of the discussion.

The following excerpt is from the foreword to "Photography 63/An International Exhibition" by Nathan Lyons:

"To truly understand the abilities of the photographer his work must be experienced as an individual synthesis, each photograph seen in the context of other photographs he has taken. The exhibition is designed as a graphic index of photography as practiced by a younger generation of photographers.

On what basis, therefore, might we begin to assess the work in this exhibition beyond obvious technical or stylistic considerations? When we look at the work of a photographer can we sense the unity within his own work? It may be well to say that man seeks to find form for the expression of his ideas and feelings, but to what degree are we willing to share or understand what it is he is attempting to say? The extension of expression, to challenge our feelings rather than satiate them, demands an understanding of the significance of vision and the value of personal expression."

Nathan Lyons, 1963

[mdm]

Beautifully put. Thank you for quoting that. If there is anything I learnt from that thread it is that there are many reasons and ways to make photographs. Aesthetic, intellectual, exploratory, psycoanalytic, commercial, etc. They are all photography.

[paulr]

To truly understand the abilities of the photographer his work must be experienced as an individual synthesis, each photograph seen in the context of other photographs he has taken.

I'd love to see more people adopt this as a mantra. So often people offer individual images for critique, and I don't see the point. Without the context of at least a few more images, I can't even know how to look at the one. The only criticism that's possible in most such cases is of the most superficial, conventional kinds ... Like, is it pretty? Does it conform to certain conventions of composition or craft? Often in these cases good = boring!

[kev curry]

I don't have very sharp tools for these kinds of discussions and my understanding of art history and the history of photography in particular is probably at best nothing more that superficial.

Still, and maybe as a result... I fail to see why a single particular piece cant stand alone in its own right?

Of course I can think of the exception of the artist himself that produces pieces to be seen in the context of a series rather than in individual isolation. That's different.

I'm sure most of us could easily cite examples of prints or other forms of art that have great appeal or power or beauty or message without the viewer having any or little understanding of the art or the artist or any reference to any context other than itself.

Deepening an understanding of the artist and his/her art within the historical, artistic, political, social and intellectual context of the times in which they work/ed could only serve to give the viewer a far deeper and penetrating understanding of the artist and the art, but I guess that's a different discussion.

[Jim Jones]

At last! a discussion on this topic with wisdom and without rancor. Thank you, Merg, David, Paul, and Kev.

[Richard Mahoney]

Deepening an understanding of the artist and his/her art within the historical, artistic, political, social and intellectual context of the times in which they work/ed could only serve to give the viewer a far deeper and penetrating understanding of the artist and the art, but I guess that's a different discussion.

Kev. Years ago now I read Greek and Roman Art and Architecture. One of my papers was on Greek statues of Aphrodite, actually -- if my memory isn't failing me -- mostly Roman copies of Greek originals, most once or twice removed. Initially I had thought that this would be quite a simple and rather amusing subject. After a good while looking at various works and trying to describe and date them on stylistic grounds I realised that I was mistaken on both counts, it was neither simple or amusing. What I did learn though is that `little' things like the arrangement of the pose, the relative proportion of the body, the arrangement of the hair, the depth of the eye sockets, the texture of the marble, the attitude of the subject, all these little things are important, and that their importance only becomes apparent after one has spent a long time looking and comparing. It strikes me that it is no different with photographs and photographers.


Kind regards,

Richard

[Mark Sawyer]

Among the photographers from the United States were Meatyard, Uelsmann, Caponigro, Friedlander and Winogrand.

One thing that strikes me is that these young photographers were all selected while their best work was still ahead of them. I wonder whether the nominating committee was that accurate in recognizing their importance early, or if the show began a self-fulfilling prophecy, giving them recognition and momentum they built on very well. Either way, I would never argue that they didn't deserve it, and the show should probably be as well recognized as the "New Topographics" for its influence. I would have loved to have seen that show, and met those young photographers at the opening reception!

I'd love to see more people adopt this as a mantra. So often people offer individual images for critique, and I don't see the point. Without the context of at least a few more images, I can't even know how to look at the one. The only criticism that's possible in most such cases is of the most superficial, conventional kinds ... Like, is it pretty? Does it conform to certain conventions of composition or craft? Often in these cases good = boring!

Agreed; and what meaning is in a critique if it has no bearing on the photographs to follow? For this reason, books are one of my favorite ways to see photographs. A body of work, carefully chosen.

But I'll take minor exception to your last sentence, Paul. In all types of photography, (but especially in portraiture), I think the best choose their conventions and style of craft (from a long menu of conventions and styles), and work within it. It's mastery becomes part of the consistent context, and a qualifier that this is indeed what is intended. It's the work's own deliberate, self-contained environment, and a statement in itself. Good use of convention can still be boring, but generally, one hasn't much to do with the other.

[paulr]

... I fail to see why a single particular piece cant stand alone in its own right?

It depends on what you're looking for from the piece.

A suite of pictures or a series is capable of articulating a vision in a manner that is both broader and deeper than what a single picture can do. When you create context through additional images, you not only add more information, but you subtract possibilities for interpretation ... you focus attention on a particular line of exploration rather than a near-infinite number.

For example, someone shows you a close-up photograph of a bell pepper. You might find it esthetically pleasing; a nice piece of design. It might conjure whatever associations you have with the vegetable, good or bad. It might even have formal qualities that you find moving in some way. But as far as what it's about or what it's exploring ... the possibilities are so unlimited that none is given any kind of room for articulation.

If you had to imagine another nine images to complete the series, you might imagine:

-other pictures documenting all kinds of vegetables, from many angles and in many settings.
-other close formal studies or mundane objects.
-other close-ups, portraits, and landscapes, that are obvious Weston rip-offs.
-other pictures of this particular pepper; a monet-like study of form and changing light
-other pictures of this particular pepper, in various stages of being grown, picked, cut, cooked.
-a documentary series on some aspect of small farm agriculture

I made up that list off the top of my head. You could go on forever. The point is, each of these imagined series focusses our attention on a particular line of exloration. The other images tell you more in addition to what the pepper picture tells you; they also frame the pepper picture in a way that urges a particular kind of looking and questioning.

With the context, you are able to engage that individual pepper picture on a much deeper level than you are when you see it out of context.

I'm sure most of us could easily cite examples of prints or other forms of art that have great appeal or power or beauty or message without the viewer having any or little understanding of the art or the artist or any reference to any context other than itself.

I assume when you say "without any reference to any context other than itself" you mean other pieces of art in a series, and that you're not dismissing the broader cultural context that makes appreciating art possible at all.

I can think of a few examples. But not many that wouldn't be enriched by by additional context from a body of work.

Scale makes a difference. The "bigger" something is, the better able it is to provide its own context. I don't just mean square inches, but the amount of stuff that is put into those square inches. A painting like "Guenica" can provide more of its own context than one of Stieglize's Equivalents.

Works as large scale as a feature film, a 3-act play, a novel, an opera ... these can typically stand alone. They also have the oportunity of working over time, which pure visual arts typically don't.

Short stories, non book-length poems, one-act plays, paintings, photographs ... these smaller scale works are rarely able to satisfactorily articulate a vision on their own.

Any statement this simplistic is bound to have exceptions ... I'd be curious to hear any examples people think up. I'm not 100% convinced by my own example (Guernica ...)

[ic-racer]

Elsewhere on this forum is a discussion of the work of Lee Friedlander.

Where?

[Eric Biggerstaff]

Hell, I just think it is cool that you were the youngest member to exhibit in such an outstanding show and that is one heck of a panel to be judged by! I see your print every morning when I come own my stairs, it will always be a favorite.