We can talk all we want about technical issues: sharpness, contrast, detail in the extremities, but that's not what a photograph is about. We can talk about composition, balance, color and contrast; but again these attributes do not a photograph make.
A message, more or less explicit that the written word, is the aspect of an image which makes it successful or not. It can be forthright, concealed or subconsciously understood, but it is essential to create a reaction from the viewer. I've come to realize that in our modern world there are so many images to which we respond that their creators have generally opted for an immediate impact, an instant message. But in the arena of fine photography, the message can be quite elusive or difficult to interpret; somewhat like a symphony or a poem. And herein lies the pleasure for this photographer.
Interpreting the photographer's message in an image is the reason people look them. And when a message is absent or obscure to the viewer, that viewer will lower their esteem for the image, as a naive viewer of the Mona Lisa might. As a photographer, I want people to understand what I'm trying to convey in my images more than anything else. Even if they don't like the message, getting the message makes the photograph successful.
Successfully conveying a message using an image is difficult and problematic because we don't have a lingua franca we can utilize when we construct a photograph. Viewers schooled in classical art will have different criteria for an image than someone schooled in graphic design. And so as a viewer of photography, we have to discern the "language" through which the photographer is speaking. In music, some people like the baroque style and some do not; and in photography some people like a photographer's style or not. And some people can't recognize the language at all.
Getting back to the greatest living American photographer. Let's look at one of Lee Friedlander's images and try to understand the message he crafted into the photograph.
So we have this three dimensional object surrounded by two dimensional shadows, one of which is created by the photographer - a self portrait. The irony, of course, is this is an inverted portrayal of what a photographer intrinsically does - takes a three dimensional world and compresses it into two dimensions. Here he is out of place (outside) and alone where there should be others.
Based on this photograph we might infer that to interpret Lee Friedlander we look for:
- Irony or humor
- Ordinary objects
- Odd juxtaposition
- Unstylized composition
- Self deprecation
- Clever use of shadows and reverse images
Use these criteria to decypher other of his images and you can refine your Friedlander codex and enjoy perusing his work for years to come. I am sure that those whom have declared him the best living American photographer have their own codex by which they evaluate his specific pieces as conforming or not. A quintiessential Friedlander would comply on all accounts. His message is interpreted by the interaction of these factors in the viewer's mind; and sometimes there can be multiple interpretations.
It's not merely his specific set of traits or techniques that make him a great photographer. Its the consistent use of these characteristics in a large body of work. At some point the viewer can think in "Friedlander" and easily understand his ideas. I can only hope to be able to accomplish this with my work. Salieri wants to be Mozart.
I don't get to decide who has created a consistent broad style over a body of work which conveys witty ideas to those whom have taken the time to analyze it. But I can say I know why they think Lee Friedlander is the greatest living American photographer.
Regards,
Steven dosRemedios
