So - for example - if we speak of a Friedlander photo of this era - I think that the following aspects are noteworthy;
1. The tension between the deliberately 'casual' aspects of his composition with the FORCING of a casual aesthetic. I'm not sure (I doubt) this is the same sort of tension that Blansky refers to. Regardless, I think it's a safe bet to say that he's EXTREMELY concerned with composition.
2. The way that, in confronting the Banal (note capital B), there are two things going on. One is that the mind tends to treat the image more plastically - that is to say, we pay more attention to composition and other surface characteristics. The second thing that happens is we enter into a social critique of america, in terms of the alienating/alienated world that Friedlander represents.
3. It is important to consider in his use of depth-of-field a certain 'suspension of disbelief'. That is to say, the great depth of field combines with the 'casual' framing and allows one to actually inhabit the scene portrayed in a way that shallow depth of field would force us to consider the work as a graphic entity.
4. I find the way that Friedlander populates his scenes interesting. He's not at all afraid of portraying people - but I don't think it's ABOUT the people. The empty scenes seem especially conspicuously absent - and the people who DO appear in his photos don't have the same sort of presence/personality they might in a Winogrand photo, say.
Any responses to this?
Last edited by Sparky; 03-31-2007 at 03:51 AM. Click to view previous post history.