2/28

I met with my new mentor a few weeks ago for the first time so I wanted to show her all the work I had done in my first two semesters. After she looked at about six of the urban landscape photos she stood up and grabbed a book from her bookshelf. It was Lee Friedlander's 'Sticks and Stones Architectural America' and when I looked at it, it was the closest thing I had seen to what I was trying to do. It was really nice to see something similar to my own work (especially being Friedlander) but I wondered later why not a single faculty member had mentioned this book or seen the connection between what Friedlander had done and what I was trying to do (medium format black and white images taken mostly in cities). The best anyone could come up with at the time was to either shoot color or to look at Lewis Baltz.
Lewis Baltz? His work was of suburban houses from California in the '70's and other than being black and white had little or nothing in common with what I was trying to do with an urban environment in 2008. When I thought more about it I realized that Friedlander probably isn't considered postmodern enough to be relevant. So even though Friedlander is one of the most important and prolific American photographers, a book of his work published in 2004 (and produced in the previous ten years) is either ignored, discounted or unknown by the faculty. It took about twenty seconds for my mentor to see the connection, but not a single faculty member could do the same. It's stuff like this that makes me want to beat my head against the wall.