Quote Originally Posted by blansky
If I were an "artist" I wouldn't want my pictures in any type of grouping. Not in a book or a gallery. It lessens the impact of any given picture. Granted there is commerce involved. But I would want every picture to be it's own experience and not something to be compared to something else.
Well, personally - I don't think you can avoid it. Context is always there. And someone from a different culture is going to see things very differently. I remember seeing some thread on here last year about a guy talking about a photo he sold. He was shocked when he found out the reason the guy who bought it LIKED it so much was because of the dog in the corner of the shot that reminded him of a dog he'd had when he was younger (or something like that). We're all programmed differently. MHV above acknowledged that the series of Friedlander shots actually makes them more interesting than if they stood alone (if I'm not mistaken) - so there's some proof maybe that context CAN strengthen, rather than water down. I think it's simply the responsibility of the artist to take advantage of whatever context they're operating in. That's all.

But we all see things differently - once again. I'm not a huge fan of Friedlander - I have respect for the guy. To me, he's far more masterful than someone like Weston - but then again - he's building on Weston's contributions. So it should be easy.

Soooo... anyway - just curious - does anyone think any of my (early) comments are relevant to the photos? Or if not, how do you think we should talk about Friedlander?