I didn't much like Lee Friedlander: A Ramble in Olmsted Parks, though I like Friedlander's work.
I wrote one paragraph and it was straightforward. Clearly that's not the way to go. The Financial Times gives it 12 paragraphs, and I really have no idea what they think about it. Or if they have any understanding of photography at all. Are they faking it? Making it up?
Shot in the park
"His new exhibition reveals what happens when Friedlander turns his painterly, avant-garde lens on the landscapes of North American parks."Painterly? Really?
"Friedlander's genius in capturing and cropping images permits him to transform natural shadows into spectacular forms. Here he is perfectly served by his technique of shooting in black and white on gelatin-silver print, a method that results in silky, metallic monochromes ideal for rendering contrasts of light and shade."Yep. That's pretty painterly and avant-garde of him to use that unusual technique of shooting in black and white on gelatin-silver print. It seems much advanced over other photographers, who just shoot on black and white film and then make gelatin-silver prints.
Which is traditional black-and-white photography.
I'm going to have to look into that rendering contrasts of light and shade thing, too -- it sounds great, if one is dead set on capturing and cropping images.