It's nice to see publicity for such important (and fascinating) work. But, like Gary, I didn't really agree with John's take on the Friedlander exhibition. (I saw it twice when it was in SF.)
For one thing, the photos themselves are kinda just passed over, except to note the range of subject matter and that the self-portraits were compelling. But aside from that, the review focused mainly on the number and the size of the prints.
As far as the number is concerned, not only is the show a retrospective (which is going to include a larger number in the first place), but Friedlander's entire body of work embodies the principle that numbers adds something important to the whole. That is, I think, one of Friedlander's key contributions: prolific, visual exploration. In any case, I know I was happy to have such an abundance of images to linger over; and I noticed (paid extra attention to) different photos both trips.
It seems that "super-sized" prints are a current (and debatable) trend: imho much smaller format work simply shouldn't be printed in large sizes, as it just falls apart unless viewed from across the room. The smaller prints (and they were almost all vintage) of most of the Friedlander exhibit were entirely appropriate: you could inspect individual photos close up (nose against the glass if you wanted), or take them in in groups to notice patterns and motifs, and they were tightly printed (smooth tones, retention of detail, etc.).
For me, it was Friedlander's later medium format work (with the Hassleblad superwide) that I simply couldn't relate to. I found his desert landscapes, in particular, to be visually harsh and chaotic: tones were just chalk and soot and the profusion of vegetation detail simply overwhelmed. Analytically I can appreciate that harsh contrast printing resonates with the hard lighting that is 'natural' to desert environs, but I find it too unrelenting and unappealing. And Friedlander's sticking the camera into the middle of desert bushes often resulted in such a complex curtain of branch detail that my eyes simply glazed over. Such a "way of seeing" just didn't please me, even while I can appreciate it intellectually. I suppose that many people have a similar reaction to his urban photography, with its cacophony of layered planes, surfaces, frames, and spaces, all jumbled together. However, for me personally, having grown up in a large city, such urban visual "chaos" makes sense, and the printing of these images was sensitive and featured good tonal range. His self-portraits, especially those of himself reflected in glass and surfaces or his shadow cast on things, also resonates with me as well, having grown up in a city with an enormous surface area of glass window panes.
I thought it was a terrific show for getting an introduction to the whole of Friedlander's body of work!
