Product Description

Product Details

• Amazon Sales Rank: #71625 in Books
• Published on: 2008-12-01
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Binding: Hardcover
• 410 pages

Review
"Fried . . . selects particular pictures to address and teases out the ways in which their meanings are created and transmitted. In these cases his writing is engaging, intriguing, and often delightfully paradoxical."-Andy Grundberg, American Scholar (Andy Grundberg American Scholar 20090101)

"Fried's book-more than any other I have read-challenges its readers to interpret more cogently the resurgence of the tableau in photographic form. The gauntlet has been tossed."-Robin Kelsey, Artforum (Robin Kelsey Artforum )

"A powerfully argued book, this is the new benchmark against which future discussions of photography must stand."-Ottawa XPress (Ottawa XPress )

About the Author
Michael Fried is J.R. Herbert Boone Professor of Humanities and the History of Art at The Johns Hopkins University.

Customer Reviews

Difficult, flawed, but a must read for art (and non-art) photography
This book was reviewed in the Jan 2009 issue of ArtForum by Robin Kelsey, an art history professor at Harvard University and himself the author of several books on photography. Kelsey criticizes many aspects of the book, and points out some of the very same faults that people here have, including Fried's annoying habit of talking about himself and his work and his determination to make his theory work even when it requires ignoring, dismissing, or rationalizing evidence that seems to go against it. Still, he takes what Fried is saying very seriously and, in the end, recognizes the book as an important work about photography by an important art historian and critic.

I myself found the book a difficult and at times exasperating read but at the same time a, for the most part, interesting, even fascinating one. It showed me a way of looking at and thinking about photography that I had not encountered before. The key idea is the opposition between theatricality and antitheatricality. A theatrical work of art is one that addresses the beholder in some way, tells him something, asks him something, presupposes his presence. An antitheatrical work of art is one that does not do any of this, that is fully self-sufficient, asks nothing of the beholder, does not acknowledge his existence.

Fried talks about being both an art historian and an art critic. As an art historian he sees the two kinds of art as both existing and one or the other as having the upper hand vis-à-vis the other at a given point in (art) time. Fried the critic clearly strongly prefers antitheatrical to theatrical art, and loves to see antitheatrical art rise up and triumph over theatrical art. He is writing about the photography he is writing about in the book precisely because it is, to his mind, antitheatrical.

So what photography is it? Loosely speaking it is the art photography that started to appear in galleries and museums (and in the art market) about 1980 and is still going fairly strong today. It is the photography of the large print, particularly the art of the Canadian Jeff Wall, of the Bechers and their students - esp. Thomas Struth and Thomas Ruff -, and a few others, mostly European, including Thomas Demand, Rineke Dijkstra, Luc Delahaye, and Beat Streuli (one of several videographers/filmmakers he looks at).

Fried presents discussions of the photographers in the set that focus on specific images (many of which are reproduced, all reasonably large and in color where the original was color) and bring in things the artists have said about the images and their work in general in statements and interviews. The discussions are intelligent and - at least if you like the photographers and their works - interesting. (An exception for me was when he gets into philosophy and starts quoting Hegel and Heidegger and Wittgenstein.) Sometimes his single minded adherence to his theory leads him to a complex and unconvincing interpretation where a much easier, more natural one is available. (His discussion of Struth's museum pictures was an example for me. I have actually seen some of them and their affect - for me at least - is much more in line with what other critics have said than what Fried is constrained by his theory to say.)

It is fine for Fried the critic to focus on the photography he likes - the photography of his title, the photography "that matters as art". But surely Fried the art historian has the responsibility to say something about other photography, and particularly the photography that came immediately before the photography he is focusing on, including that produced by the Conceptualists and their more image-focused successors the Pictures Generation, i.e. Cindy Sherman, Richard Prince, Sherrie Levine, Laurie Simmons at al, and also that of John Szarkowski's MoMA establishment. The photography "that matters" didn't come out of nowhere. It's part of the photographic tradition. The Bechers appeared in the 1975 New Topographics show beside Robert Adams, Lewis Baltz and Stephen Shore.

This is not to say that he was obligated to lay out a complete (art) history of photography from 1960. But he could have said enough to put his photography into context and highlight the differences between it and the rest. It would have been especially to the point to identify some photography of the broader period (1960- on) that was theatrical, and let people look at theatrical and antitheatrical photography side by side and form their own understanding of the distinction he is so committed to.

One last point. As he himself acknowledges, his theory of theatrical and antitheatrical ultimately goes back to the 18th century encyclopedist Denis Diderot. He refers to him a number of times in this book, but only in an allusive way, and leaves it to the reader to go to his earlier book Absorption and Theatricality: Painting and Beholder in the Age of Diderot (1988), to find out what he (Diderot) said and how it informs his (Fried's) theory. It would have been nice if he could have recapped the main points in this book, and in particular to have drawn attention to the very close relationship between his (Diderot's) views on painting and his views on the theater. For as far as I can see Fried's concept of antitheaticality in pictorial art is at heart simply the static analog of Diderot's rule of the fourth wall in theater, which is widely known and fairly intuitive and easy to apply to specific cases.

I'll conclude by essentially echoing what Robin Kelsey said in his review. Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before has its problems, but it is must reading for anyone with a serious interest in art photography. It opens up a whole new dimension in how to look at and think about photographs (and not just art photographs). Hopefully others will follow up and clarify the theory and apply it to a broader range of work. 4 stars.

A Second Edition is in Order
I must say that this book brings out my inner editor. I want to bet someone that I can eliminate 25% of the words in this book without any diminution in meaning. I agree with other reviews that there are entirely too many references to Fried's prior works and quotes of critics quoting Fried (!) and notes about which famous photographers he knows. What is frustrating me the most is that underneath all of that, there is a genuine thesis that is interesting and adds to the photography discourse. I have to fault the editor. So I guess I would say grit your teeth, wade through it, and see what you think.

find a copy you can pre-read before you buy
The title basically says it all. I so looked forward to this book's release. It is a bit dense, and not for those who are just getting into photographic theory or criticism, but if you're familiar with contemporary issues on the subject, it could possibly be a decent reference. Not having previously read any of Fried's books made this a little difficult to navigate, due to his referring to previous essays and books. Also, his recounting of his friendship with artists is wholly unnecessary, feels a bit too much like name-dropping, and is distracting. I only found portions of this book helpful in terms of my own research. For anyone considering purchasing it, I would try to track down a copy of it to peruse. Otherwise you're out a good chunk of change that may perhaps be better used for other, more readable, texts.