kkdanamatt
Well-known
"America By Car" at the Whitney is Lee Friedlander's attempt to combine landscapes, street shots, portraiture, and photojournalism styles using the inside of cars as his frame. He drove across the USA during a fifteen year period in rented sedans, shooting with the square Hasselblad SuperWide to record scenes through the windshield and side windows of Suburus, Hondas, and Fords. After viewing about two hundred black and white prints hung in very tight quarters, I came away slightly amused, but not awed. Sure, Friedlander is very clever. He incorporates the car's A-pillar, window frames, steering wheel, and instrument cluster into each composition, sometimes effortlessly and at other times with a jarring effect. Store signs are misspelled, American flags are hung backwards, and incongruity abounds in his interpretations of rural, urban and suburban America.
It was fun finding all the cleverly hidden "stuff" in the first fifty or so photos, but looking at the last one hundred and fifty became tedious for me. More became less.
Perhaps I don't get it...Friedlander has always mystified me, and his "America By Car" didn't solve that mystery. This isn't Robert Frank's "The Americans", or Winogrand's "The Animals", but worth seeing if you like Friedlander's style.
It was fun finding all the cleverly hidden "stuff" in the first fifty or so photos, but looking at the last one hundred and fifty became tedious for me. More became less.
Perhaps I don't get it...Friedlander has always mystified me, and his "America By Car" didn't solve that mystery. This isn't Robert Frank's "The Americans", or Winogrand's "The Animals", but worth seeing if you like Friedlander's style.
Pablito
coco frío
many have commented on the crowded installation; many feel there are too many hung too close together.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I saw this show and loved it.
robklurfield
eclipse
gotta get there before it closes.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
I think his work is an aquired taste that makes more sense with time. I didn't like it when I was younger, but I love it now. It's just smart work. It likely will not appeal to those who are more interested in making hipster magazine / fashion shots or calendar / nature photos. Nothing wrong with that stuff, but his work is just not as easy on the eye and requires a little more, for lack of a better word, thinking.
kkdanamatt
Well-known
Don't really understand what the OP means by "cleverly hidden "stuff.....
Two examples immediately spring to mind: one was the intersection of two telephone lines pointing to a "Studio" 'way behind the car, reflected in the sideview mirror. Was it a photo studio?
Another was the blurred image of a moving windshield wiper, barely recorded on the negative, which looked very much like the funnel of a tornado.
Only a really studied view of his work makes it possible to reveal these hidden gems. But, alas, I grew tired of the sheer number of prints on exhibit.
Two examples immediately spring to mind: one was the intersection of two telephone lines pointing to a "Studio" 'way behind the car, reflected in the sideview mirror. Was it a photo studio?
Another was the blurred image of a moving windshield wiper, barely recorded on the negative, which looked very much like the funnel of a tornado.
Only a really studied view of his work makes it possible to reveal these hidden gems. But, alas, I grew tired of the sheer number of prints on exhibit.
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
I agree that photography in general possesses the attributes of a visual language, and like any other form of communicative expression the language contained therein can be simple or complex. As in learning any language, study and practice is required in order to gain a fuller understanding of the author's intent. I'm not certain it is fair to label forms of expression initially opaque and obscure as mere elite cultural snobbery. It may be that we, as casual viewers, may require more study on our part, a deeper immersion into the specific visual language being employed, in order to comprehend the concepts encoded therein.
To me, happening across an artist's work that initially seems incomprehensible seems more like confronting an obtuse language that only a few are adept at reading. It doesn't mean there's nothing of worth contained therein, more like it is required of me more effort at understanding. The major caveat is that, in order to make such an undertaking rewarding, one desires for the payoff in the end, some unearthing of truth or insight that one would otherwise miss out on experiencing. The reward has to be commensurate to the effort required.
~Joe
To me, happening across an artist's work that initially seems incomprehensible seems more like confronting an obtuse language that only a few are adept at reading. It doesn't mean there's nothing of worth contained therein, more like it is required of me more effort at understanding. The major caveat is that, in order to make such an undertaking rewarding, one desires for the payoff in the end, some unearthing of truth or insight that one would otherwise miss out on experiencing. The reward has to be commensurate to the effort required.
~Joe
kkdanamatt
Well-known
ChipMcD
Well-known
Saw it today
Saw it today
I saw this exhibition today and spent the afternoon watching old guys (my age, basically) play street bocce in Bryant Park, then watched a complete melting pot of NYC skate on the open air rink there while my wife and I had a very nice lunch. A splendid day.
My observation on the exhibition is prosaic in comparison to much of what has been said here, most of which my primitive mind cannot understand. The prints made by Friedlander on display and those appearing in the book of the exhibition are nearly identical. This is really difficult to do well, and, if the essays in the MOMA book on Friedlander's 2005 exhibition there are to be believed, it is something that Friedlander and his collaborators focus on maniacally. It shows. The difficulty of printing books of photos well is something I never focussed on before reading the essay at the back of the MOMA photo book.
Saw it today
I saw this exhibition today and spent the afternoon watching old guys (my age, basically) play street bocce in Bryant Park, then watched a complete melting pot of NYC skate on the open air rink there while my wife and I had a very nice lunch. A splendid day.
My observation on the exhibition is prosaic in comparison to much of what has been said here, most of which my primitive mind cannot understand. The prints made by Friedlander on display and those appearing in the book of the exhibition are nearly identical. This is really difficult to do well, and, if the essays in the MOMA book on Friedlander's 2005 exhibition there are to be believed, it is something that Friedlander and his collaborators focus on maniacally. It shows. The difficulty of printing books of photos well is something I never focussed on before reading the essay at the back of the MOMA photo book.
ERV
Well-known
I went to this show today and cannot say that I was impressed with his work.
I thought that the images were redundant- door frame, AC vent, steering wheel, something framed through the door.
Individually they do not hold their own, and taken together as a group, they are so similar that one can only ask why? Maybe a set of 5 or 6 or 10 would have been more effective.
I thought the same thing about a retrospective of his work a couple of years ago. The early work is very good, but the later work in not so interesting for me.
I thought that the images were redundant- door frame, AC vent, steering wheel, something framed through the door.
Individually they do not hold their own, and taken together as a group, they are so similar that one can only ask why? Maybe a set of 5 or 6 or 10 would have been more effective.
I thought the same thing about a retrospective of his work a couple of years ago. The early work is very good, but the later work in not so interesting for me.