That's a fun shot, Paul. But a number of people were "out-Friedlandering" Friedlander a long time ago.
The 70's,Paul, the 70's. Piles of pictures back then. Even me. I never have figured out what the big deal with Friedlander was. Connections I guess.
He did so many different kinds of things. I think a lot of his work, on some level, was about pictures. Szarkowski described his approach as being a kind of game, to see if each picture could be put together using a set of visual rules never used before. So the rules of the game, by their nature, changed with every click of the shutter (I'd quote him directly, but my copy of Looking at Photographs is in storage).
I don't think this describes all Friedlander's work by a long shot. But it fits the bodies of work i return to most often. Some samples from the web ...
He's probably the most prolific photographer to answer a thread like this, since his work didn't reject formal principles as much as play with them and poke at them endlessly.
You are right. He did a lot with composition. The triangle sign with a crown of clouds and evergreen lieutenants ...
Thanks for bringing it back.
It's fun revisiting his work. Almost overwhelming. Of course you post a million of his portraits, or motel room pictures, or jazz musician magazine pics, etc. that don't play with form in any of these ways.
I wish people would pay more attention to his yosemite pics. After a 100 years of pictures of the place seeming like they came out of the same rule book, Friedlander's are refreshing.
Just looks like tons of other tricks from the early 70's that I've seen elsewhere. Maybe the way he poked fun a little less blatantly than others - how you kinda
trip over it unexpectedly in certain images - is what made him attractive. I dunno. Not saying these things aren't interesting, but... And titling this thread about
"breaking" composition rules is nonsense to begin with. Not all of us share the same rules as a paint by numbers hobby store kit.
Bookmarks