<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://s2.wp.com/wp-content/themes/vip/newyorkobserver/stylesheets/rss.css"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Observer &#187; Friedlander&#8217;s Impassive Eye:  America From Strange Angles</title>
	<atom:link href="http://observer.com/2005/07/friedlanders-impassive-eye-america-from-strange-angles/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://observer.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 19 May 2013 14:00:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language></language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='observer.com' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://observer.com/osd.xml" title="Observer" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://observer.com/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
				
		<title>Friedlander&#8217;s Impassive Eye:  America From Strange Angles</title>

		<comments>http://observer.com/2005/07/friedlanders-impassive-eye-america-from-strange-angles/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0400</pubDate>
					<link>http://observer.com/2005/07/friedlanders-impassive-eye-america-from-strange-angles/</link>
			<dc:creator>Mario Naves</dc:creator>
				
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.observer.com/2005/07/friedlanders-impassive-eye-america-from-strange-angles/</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/article_hanging_naves.jpg?w=241&h=300" /><i>Five hundred works of art</i>: Just thinking about taking in so many<br />
during the course of one exhibition is enough to provoke a migraine. What<br />
single artist has created that much, let alone that much worthy of serious<br />
consideration? There's Edgar Degas. The retrospective of his paintings,<br />
drawings, prints and sculptures seen at the Met in 1988 contained, if I recall<br />
correctly, close to 400 items. That was some show. Then again, that was Degas,<br />
the man with the Midas touch.</p>
<p class="newsText">The<br />
American photographer Lee Friedlander (born 1934) isn't an artist of Degas'<br />
caliber, but that's not to say everything he touches doesn't turn to gold—or<br />
something resembling it, anyway. The career-spanning retrospective of Mr.<br />
Friedlander's works at the Museum of Modern Art contains 477 black-and-white<br />
photographs and six in color. (There's a smattering of artist's books as well,<br />
yet they come across more as historical documents and side projects than as<br />
integral components of the oeuvre.)</p>
<p class="newsText">It's<br />
a testament to his remarkable gift that this enormous exhibition never loses<br />
its momentum. Indeed, when the show does seem to sputter—for me, somewhere<br />
around the three-quarter mark—one feels it is due more to the limitations of a<br />
viewer's attention span than to the work itself. The curators have done their<br />
job in providing flow. Groups of photographs are organized around specific<br />
motifs: musicians, J.F.K., historical monuments, the female nude, office<br />
workers, politics and sex, and—least compellingly because most self-conscious—self-portraiture.</p>
<p class="newsText">The<br />
themes aren't cut-and-dried; at times, they're called into question. In one<br />
instance, a series of pieces dedicated to expanses of foliage is interrupted,<br />
with hilarious subtlety, by a photograph of costumed revelers taking part in a<br />
parade in Philadelphia. That this juxtaposition is no juxtaposition at all<br />
demonstrates the consistency of Mr. Friedlander's eye.</p>
<p class="newsText">Looking—or,<br />
rather, reimagining <i>how we</i> look—is<br />
his great subject; it is not a slight on his talent (though it is, perhaps, on<br />
the scope of his art) to say that it is his only subject. And while it is, of<br />
course, every artist's responsibility to help reorient us within our<br />
surroundings, Mr. Friedlander succeeds at this endeavor with greater panache<br />
than others.</p>
<p class="newsText">His<br />
pictures set the world awry, and only rarely without humor. Mr. Friedlander<br />
toys with the act of looking by obscuring the viewer's vantage point. His<br />
photographs thrust objects into our field of vision or refract them through<br />
windows and doorways. A dry absurdity—Surrealism minus the theatricality and<br />
psychological stigma—sets the tone.</p>
<p class="newsText">Fleeting<br />
images on television—an oversized eyeball, an actress mugging for the<br />
camera—invade suburban environs with eerie intent. Inanimate objects, situated<br />
within meticulously framed compositions, are endowed with preternatural<br />
vitality. People and places are given their due yet remain peculiarly neutral.<br />
A fire hydrant makes lascivious advances upon an alarm box; a pair of factory<br />
workers are fused at the head; statuary becomes unsettlingly sentient; and the<br />
view from the seat of a car is transformed into a prospect of an alien cosmos<br />
known as America.</p>
<p class="newsText">The<br />
country's diversity of culture, people and landscape feeds Mr. Friedlander's<br />
art, but it's a mistake to consider the photos a chronicle of—or a commentary<br />
on—what it is to be American. (He's documented other places as well, Japan and<br />
Italy prominent among them.) The pictures reveal a man for whom race and class<br />
are constant if not pressing fascinations. Mr. Friedlander's love for American<br />
idioms—the music of African-Americans, in particular—is manifest. Yet he isn't<br />
Walker Evans or Garry Winogrand or Robert Frank; he doesn't plumb the character<br />
of the land.</p>
<p class="newsText">It<br />
is our diversity as physical fact—whether expressed in the architectural jumble<br />
of Manhattan, the arid expanses of Death Valley or his own backyard—that<br />
attracts Mr. Friedlander's omnivorous, impassive lens. To borrow Cézanne's<br />
famous comment on Monet, Mr. Friedlander “has only an eye, but my God what an<br />
eye.” That explains why we leave Friedlander surprisingly untaxed: The demands<br />
the work places upon us are never truly personal or profound. Mr. Friedlander's<br />
achievement is faceless and beautiful.</p>
<p class="newsText">Friedlander<br />
is at the Museum of Modern Art, 11 West 53rd Street, until Aug. 29.</p>
<p class="newsText">
<p class="newsText"><img src="./images/skinnyblueline.gif" width="510" height="1"></p>
<p class="newsText">
<p class="newsSubHead3">Acquired Taste</p>
<p class="newsText">An<br />
untitled drawing by Mark Grotjahn, done with colored pencil on paper and seen<br />
in the exhibition <i>New Work/New<br />
Acquisitions</i>, strikes me as one of only two good things MoMA has spent its<br />
money on in recent years. (The other is a large oil-on-paper by the justly<br />
hyped and seemingly ubiquitous Neo Rauch.) How good is hard to tell.</p>
<p class="newsText">Frankly,<br />
it would be hard for Mr. Grotjahn's kaleidoscopic abstraction, with its tightly<br />
ordered array of zooming, multicolored wedges, not to catch the eye. It is,<br />
after all, surrounded by post-conceptualist bric-a-brac—this, that and the<br />
other thing, redolent of nothing so much as the aesthetic bankruptcy of<br />
contemporary taste. Anything that provides even the slimmest visual experience<br />
would stand out in such a threadbare crowd.</p>
<p class="newsText">It's<br />
probably best to cut this Los Angeles–based artist some slack; let's see more<br />
of the work before passing judgment. As for MoMA: Any institution that casts<br />
doubt upon the ongoing relevance of abstract art—the museum's maddeningly equivocal<br />
wall label describes Mr. Grotjahn as “belonging to a new, international<br />
generation of artists who explore the viability of abstraction today”—deserves<br />
to have its slack withdrawn.</p>
<p class="newsText"><i>New Work/New Acquisitions</i> is at MoMA until Sept. 26.</p>
]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignleft" src="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/article_hanging_naves.jpg?w=241&h=300" /><i>Five hundred works of art</i>: Just thinking about taking in so many<br />
during the course of one exhibition is enough to provoke a migraine. What<br />
single artist has created that much, let alone that much worthy of serious<br />
consideration? There's Edgar Degas. The retrospective of his paintings,<br />
drawings, prints and sculptures seen at the Met in 1988 contained, if I recall<br />
correctly, close to 400 items. That was some show. Then again, that was Degas,<br />
the man with the Midas touch.</p>
<p class="newsText">The<br />
American photographer Lee Friedlander (born 1934) isn't an artist of Degas'<br />
caliber, but that's not to say everything he touches doesn't turn to gold—or<br />
something resembling it, anyway. The career-spanning retrospective of Mr.<br />
Friedlander's works at the Museum of Modern Art contains 477 black-and-white<br />
photographs and six in color. (There's a smattering of artist's books as well,<br />
yet they come across more as historical documents and side projects than as<br />
integral components of the oeuvre.)</p>
<p class="newsText">It's<br />
a testament to his remarkable gift that this enormous exhibition never loses<br />
its momentum. Indeed, when the show does seem to sputter—for me, somewhere<br />
around the three-quarter mark—one feels it is due more to the limitations of a<br />
viewer's attention span than to the work itself. The curators have done their<br />
job in providing flow. Groups of photographs are organized around specific<br />
motifs: musicians, J.F.K., historical monuments, the female nude, office<br />
workers, politics and sex, and—least compellingly because most self-conscious—self-portraiture.</p>
<p class="newsText">The<br />
themes aren't cut-and-dried; at times, they're called into question. In one<br />
instance, a series of pieces dedicated to expanses of foliage is interrupted,<br />
with hilarious subtlety, by a photograph of costumed revelers taking part in a<br />
parade in Philadelphia. That this juxtaposition is no juxtaposition at all<br />
demonstrates the consistency of Mr. Friedlander's eye.</p>
<p class="newsText">Looking—or,<br />
rather, reimagining <i>how we</i> look—is<br />
his great subject; it is not a slight on his talent (though it is, perhaps, on<br />
the scope of his art) to say that it is his only subject. And while it is, of<br />
course, every artist's responsibility to help reorient us within our<br />
surroundings, Mr. Friedlander succeeds at this endeavor with greater panache<br />
than others.</p>
<p class="newsText">His<br />
pictures set the world awry, and only rarely without humor. Mr. Friedlander<br />
toys with the act of looking by obscuring the viewer's vantage point. His<br />
photographs thrust objects into our field of vision or refract them through<br />
windows and doorways. A dry absurdity—Surrealism minus the theatricality and<br />
psychological stigma—sets the tone.</p>
<p class="newsText">Fleeting<br />
images on television—an oversized eyeball, an actress mugging for the<br />
camera—invade suburban environs with eerie intent. Inanimate objects, situated<br />
within meticulously framed compositions, are endowed with preternatural<br />
vitality. People and places are given their due yet remain peculiarly neutral.<br />
A fire hydrant makes lascivious advances upon an alarm box; a pair of factory<br />
workers are fused at the head; statuary becomes unsettlingly sentient; and the<br />
view from the seat of a car is transformed into a prospect of an alien cosmos<br />
known as America.</p>
<p class="newsText">The<br />
country's diversity of culture, people and landscape feeds Mr. Friedlander's<br />
art, but it's a mistake to consider the photos a chronicle of—or a commentary<br />
on—what it is to be American. (He's documented other places as well, Japan and<br />
Italy prominent among them.) The pictures reveal a man for whom race and class<br />
are constant if not pressing fascinations. Mr. Friedlander's love for American<br />
idioms—the music of African-Americans, in particular—is manifest. Yet he isn't<br />
Walker Evans or Garry Winogrand or Robert Frank; he doesn't plumb the character<br />
of the land.</p>
<p class="newsText">It<br />
is our diversity as physical fact—whether expressed in the architectural jumble<br />
of Manhattan, the arid expanses of Death Valley or his own backyard—that<br />
attracts Mr. Friedlander's omnivorous, impassive lens. To borrow Cézanne's<br />
famous comment on Monet, Mr. Friedlander “has only an eye, but my God what an<br />
eye.” That explains why we leave Friedlander surprisingly untaxed: The demands<br />
the work places upon us are never truly personal or profound. Mr. Friedlander's<br />
achievement is faceless and beautiful.</p>
<p class="newsText">Friedlander<br />
is at the Museum of Modern Art, 11 West 53rd Street, until Aug. 29.</p>
<p class="newsText">
<p class="newsText"><img src="./images/skinnyblueline.gif" width="510" height="1"></p>
<p class="newsText">
<p class="newsSubHead3">Acquired Taste</p>
<p class="newsText">An<br />
untitled drawing by Mark Grotjahn, done with colored pencil on paper and seen<br />
in the exhibition <i>New Work/New<br />
Acquisitions</i>, strikes me as one of only two good things MoMA has spent its<br />
money on in recent years. (The other is a large oil-on-paper by the justly<br />
hyped and seemingly ubiquitous Neo Rauch.) How good is hard to tell.</p>
<p class="newsText">Frankly,<br />
it would be hard for Mr. Grotjahn's kaleidoscopic abstraction, with its tightly<br />
ordered array of zooming, multicolored wedges, not to catch the eye. It is,<br />
after all, surrounded by post-conceptualist bric-a-brac—this, that and the<br />
other thing, redolent of nothing so much as the aesthetic bankruptcy of<br />
contemporary taste. Anything that provides even the slimmest visual experience<br />
would stand out in such a threadbare crowd.</p>
<p class="newsText">It's<br />
probably best to cut this Los Angeles–based artist some slack; let's see more<br />
of the work before passing judgment. As for MoMA: Any institution that casts<br />
doubt upon the ongoing relevance of abstract art—the museum's maddeningly equivocal<br />
wall label describes Mr. Grotjahn as “belonging to a new, international<br />
generation of artists who explore the viability of abstraction today”—deserves<br />
to have its slack withdrawn.</p>
<p class="newsText"><i>New Work/New Acquisitions</i> is at MoMA until Sept. 26.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://observer.com/2005/07/friedlanders-impassive-eye-america-from-strange-angles/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="http://2.gravatar.com/avatar/becf95fa833b8aeb13f7720732bd6dc6?s=96&#38;d=identicon&#38;r=G" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">jhanasobserver</media:title>
		</media:content>

		<media:content url="http://nyoobserver.files.wordpress.com/2011/06/article_hanging_naves.jpg?w=241&#38;h=300" medium="image" />
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
