amateriat
We're all light!
The name may only be vaguely familiar, but the influence strikes a somewhat familiar key.
Edit: I saw a good deal of her work published in the 70s and 80s in Camera 35 and Modern Photography, among others. Evocative and gritty...and now, bringing back the New York I remember all too well.
- Barrett
Edit: I saw a good deal of her work published in the 70s and 80s in Camera 35 and Modern Photography, among others. Evocative and gritty...and now, bringing back the New York I remember all too well.
- Barrett
Last edited:
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Jill Freedman's book "Cops" is outstanding. I hope those of you in NYC go to her show. It should be enjoyable & informative. Thanks for making it aware of it.
oftheherd
Veteran
I remember the name, but not really any photographs.
John Rountree
Nothing is what I want
Ms. Friedman is quite an accomplished photographer with a long list of credits. Funny, she started out as a model but decided she was much more comforable behind the lens. I think she is best known for her first book: Circus Days. I have a very niice rejection letter from Life magazine concerning some photographs that I submitted for the first "Day in the life of America" project. I submitted photos of the Clyde Beatty/Cole Brothers circus. Life asked to keep the pictures beyond the deadline for returns because (according to the letter) they really liked the work and hoped they could use it. But in the end, since Friedman was under contract to photograph the Ringling Brothers Circus on that day, they used her pictures instead.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Thanks for posting that. I vaguely remember her name, but I don't seem to recall much about her work.
I know that both I and David G. have done some experiments in channeling Weegee. I just added some to the blog a couple weeks ago.
Yes, and one of the reasons I got outa there in the 70s!
amateriat
We're all light!
What's funny is that my memory of Freedman was rather shaky when I first started writing this thread, and suddenly a little door opened somewhere in my head and there was that rush of remembrance. I'm definitely going to that exhibit.
Just looked, and really like it. (I make sure to check your blog periodically; I loved "Beneath the Windy City", among a few others.
While you went West, I went North, but still within NY State (long and occasionally bizarre story). Was away for as much as a year at a time, but was back full-time by around 'late '75. Survived the '77 blackout (while in the South Bronx, no less!). Actually was brave enough to head out that day with my cameras, but don't know where the negs wound up: I'll have to do a search to see what remains. Can't say I miss a lot of the craziness of the time, but I completely grok Freedman's reaction when she first confronted the "improved" Times Square: certainly safe for nationwide consumption (not to be sneezed at in today's sucky economy), but its soul is thoroughly freeze-dried. Being bored beats being mugged, but the Crossroads of the World has been crossed off my walk-through list, until further notice.
- Barrett
Last edited:
40oz
...
eh, I was in Manhattan a year and a half ago, and if anyone thinks New York is all polished dollar bills these days, they aren't looking.
And it has always seemed to me that if Times Square was ever a cross-section of the real life in New York, it is just as much today. I wasn't super-fond of Times Square when I was there, but I can't help feeling that those who avoid it today because it is what it is are no different than those who avoided it "back in the day" for the same reason - it is what it is.
It's not like there aren't peep shows, porn shops, and plenty of seedy joints around Times Square today, if that's what really interests you. But it's not like that's all Times Square has ever been. It was just run down for a brief period. I suppose if you grew up seeing it run down it might seem like that's all it has ever been, but I'm guessing there were plenty of older folks avoiding the square during that period because it wasn't like THEY remembered it. God forbid somebody put any effort to returning it to the way they remember it, albeit through their own rose-colored glasses.
And it has always seemed to me that if Times Square was ever a cross-section of the real life in New York, it is just as much today. I wasn't super-fond of Times Square when I was there, but I can't help feeling that those who avoid it today because it is what it is are no different than those who avoided it "back in the day" for the same reason - it is what it is.
It's not like there aren't peep shows, porn shops, and plenty of seedy joints around Times Square today, if that's what really interests you. But it's not like that's all Times Square has ever been. It was just run down for a brief period. I suppose if you grew up seeing it run down it might seem like that's all it has ever been, but I'm guessing there were plenty of older folks avoiding the square during that period because it wasn't like THEY remembered it. God forbid somebody put any effort to returning it to the way they remember it, albeit through their own rose-colored glasses.
amateriat
We're all light!
40oz: Well, that's the trick, I suppose. Depending on when you grew up, it was the Great White Way or the Great Grey Way, you take what you remember and synthesize it a given way, for better or worse. I'm not one to rhapsodize the Bad Old Days on the Square, but the theme-park routine of the present-tense Square leaves me quite cold. Which is fine: it's not meant to appeal to me, but to tourists (and their wallets). There's far more to my fair city than the usual "must-see" sights.
- Barrett
- Barrett
dmr
Registered Abuser
I haven't seen the "improved" version of Times Square yet. No particular reason, just not on my must-do list. I wasn't particularly fond of the earthier version either, actually. Touristas and con artists looking for a mark.
Back when I was camera shopping years ago, I picked up rather quickly that the closer you got to Times Square (walking up from the 30s) the dealers became increasingly sleazier and more deceptive.