Lee Friedlander' Madonna Nude Foto: $10K (US)

At risk of dragging this thread back on topic, am I the only one here thinking that it ain't lurid enough to be porn, but not artistic enough to be erotic? For a big-name photographer (Freudian slip? I typed it as "hotographer"), I was expecting something far more impressive.

Adrian

(ETA: Having reread it, spending less time s******ing at the innuendos and euphemisms, no, it isn't just me. Phew!)

Edited again to add don't you just love American filth filters?
 
Last edited:
Double Negative said:
Okay, which one of you was it?! ;)

"A nude photograph of pop singer Madonna was sold for $37,500 Thursday afternoon at a Christie's Art House auction.

The photo, originally expected to go for between $10,000 and $15,000, was purchased for more than double its original estimated selling price, a Christie's spokesperson confirmed. The 13-inch by 8 5/8-inch framed photograph was purchased by an anonymous bidder over the phone."

Never realized that photo was so small! Barely larger than an 8x12".
Click to expand...

What else is there to invest in these days?

/T
 
Krosya said:
I wouldn't spend that kind of money for her -much less for the picture of her....but what do I know?
Click to expand...

i don't care for her music either but Madonna did more for photography than all the posts on the internet about Leica boket. just a fact.
 
Muggins said:
At risk of dragging this thread back on topic, am I the only one here thinking that it ain't lurid enough to be porn, but not artistic enough to be erotic? For a big-name photographer (Freudian slip? I typed it as "hotographer"), I was expecting something far more impressive.

Adrian

(ETA: Having reread it, spending less time s******ing at the innuendos and euphemisms, no, it isn't just me. Phew!)

Edited again to add don't you just love American filth filters?
Click to expand...

it's a great picture of a powerfull woman done by a great photographer. just mho.
 
wlewisiii said:
It's really a remarkably average image. If it wasn't Her, would anyone care? In this I think Friedlander got caught up by the Bellocq photos he's famous for - trying to recreate that ambiance or something of the Storyville prostitute portraits of Bellocq. Unfortunately for Friedlander, he seems to lack the essential compassion for his subjects that Bellocq had for his. As a result they're just cheesy average nudes unlike the rather artisitic portraits he's trying to emulate. And really the only reason they rise to the level of average is that he's got his technique down so that at least they're in focus and exposed correctly.

There does seem to be something about Madonna Ciccone that causes bad nudes to come about though - anyone else here willing to admit having perused "Sex"? Sheesh.

William
Click to expand...

compassion? he was quite distanced sometimes. Belloq's power come from a surreal quality and compositions that were avnt garde for his time. Some of the pics reminds of Annie Leibowitz.
 
Irrespective of the merits of this pic, I generally don't really get why people rave about Friedlander. There were people -- like Robert Frank -- doing the style he is noted for long before him and some of his shot are just plain bad.

I have tried to keep an open mind -- I did not really judge until I could see the actual prints. A few months back I did - at a huge retrospective in San Fran, and . . . ick. Just not that impressed.


It is not like I don't like this sort of style -- love Winogrand, for example, but Lee . . . just don't get him.

Oh well, de gustibus I guess.
 
frank and friedlander share the same style? anyhow...

i think friedlander appeals to a person's sense of wit, playfulness, and bewilderment. lots of people didn't like the retrospective because it was just too much to deal with, but i thought it was the only way to go for a jazz man. he's not walker evans, you know.
 
marknyc said:
Irrespective of the merits of this pic, I generally don't really get why people rave about Friedlander. There were people -- like Robert Frank -- doing the style he is noted for long before him and some of his shot are just plain bad.

I have tried to keep an open mind -- I did not really judge until I could see the actual prints. A few months back I did - at a huge retrospective in San Fran, and . . . ick. Just not that impressed.
Click to expand...

LF was big into self-publishing early on. This, combined with small shows cascaded into the renown he has today. I bought his huge book from the Whitney show and his nudes in particular were abysmally lackluster.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom