tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4869912814463770475.post889647625896159814..comments2022-02-28T22:08:01.943-05:00Comments on All the Little Houses: The Ghost of Lee FriedlanderKellyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16202622271566173162noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4869912814463770475.post-50720448660222764742011-02-26T15:42:10.928-05:002011-02-26T15:42:10.928-05:00I see Kerouac and Friedlander as appreciating the ...I see Kerouac and Friedlander as appreciating the world in a similar way--they're creating (art)works, but that seems peripheral to the fact that they're just wandering around being fascinated. To me, a lot of their work is documentary in that it's a record of living, of searching for something. Is it romanticized? Absolutely, but I think that's because both of them are, in their work, kind of searching for something that can't be found--a concrete sense of self, a world that makes sense... Romanticizing the versions of themselves and their lives that come out in their art makes that reality tolerable.<br /><br />I love the grass photograph too. The soil and rocks and brush become arteries, organs, and skin. He's sinking into the earth.<br /><br />He did a whole photography book of his wife, Maria, which is my favorite book he put out. This photo isn't actually from that book though, it's from his "Self-Portrait" book. I love that a self portrait for him is a photograph of his shadow cast on Maria, but the appeal of this photograph, for me, is more superficial: I love her expression. It's completely indulgent. You can tell that this probably happens a lot, that there's probably a camera between the two of them often, and she loves him still. <br /><br />I recommend you take a look at Self Portrait (1970). About 85% of the portraits are shadows, murky reflections, or bits and pieces of him. We rarely get a clear picture of him. It's really strange, really frustrating, and really beautiful.Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16202622271566173162noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4869912814463770475.post-58063431663681833052011-02-25T08:07:39.184-05:002011-02-25T08:07:39.184-05:00Really enjoy the two photos you posted (the top on...Really enjoy the two photos you posted (the top one on a more technical appreciation of seeing the grass and stones and being able to visualize what a great shot they would make under his shadow, and the latter for a legitimately interesting photo born of a startlingly simple concept).<br /><br />Not sure I agree (or fully understand I suppose - are you saying the real world is imperfect, or the world that they captured was imperfect?) with your Kerouac analogy, I thought the world I read in "On the Road" was highly romanticized. <br /><br />I should take a look at the rest of his pictures - the two here (to me) suggest a different sort of existential dichotomy... actually, not so much of a dichotomy as a fusion. <br /><br />The first photo (imo) is a gorgeous blend of man (complete with a camera and bag of equipment) with the natural environment. There's something inherently uncivilized in the "spiked" head and the scattered rock pattern. What I see (and take away as a viewer) from the photo is a man embracing the natural world, visually becoming one with his surroundings as he takes in his environment (and simultaneously leaves a - now changed - impression upon it as well). <br /><br />The second photograph I assume is of his wife, and I think is the stronger of the two. To me, it's about his relationship with his wife. While he's clearly left an impression (of sorts) upon her - in his own mind it seems insubstantial. That his supposed impression is in actuality little more than a shadow. To me it speaks of the same sort of insubstantialbility you wrote of, but directed more at his role in his marriage than at his own existence. <br /><br />If the majority (or entirety!) of his self-portraits are nothing more than shadows, I can definitely see how a consistent theme of intangible impact would lead to questions of existence - but I think that's something that needs to come out of a whole body of work (strangely enough) rather than a few examples. <br /><br />It's interesting in this case, as it would appear that the individual parts seem (dualy) greater than their sum.Johnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07992048903441736737noreply@blogger.com