View Full Version : Lee Friedlander' Madonna Nude Foto: $10K (US)
35mmdelux
01-16-2009, 13:21
Here: http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Music/01/16/madonna.auction/index.html
Spleenrippa
01-16-2009, 13:32
Gawd, I'd be scared to see that on my wall. Someone get a hedge trimmer ;-)
newsgrunt
01-16-2009, 13:40
Gawd, I'd be scared to see that on my wall. Someone get a hedge trimmer ;-)
I am so glad my cup of tea was sitting on the desk and not being sipped...woulda been serious sprayage, whew :D
While I'm no real fan of her style of music I've always admired the woman. She has a huge amount of drive and has never been afraid to be herself (obviously). 20th century pop culture has numerous ikons and to me she is one the most notable!
No hedge trimmer needed! :angel:
I wouldn't spend that kind of money for her -much less for the picture of her....but what do I know?
Pherdinand
01-16-2009, 13:53
only her eyes are recognizable.
I remember sneaking a peak at that issue of Playboy at the local drugstore as I wasted my allowance on hockey cards. Little did I think that years later I would become a much bigger fan of the photographer than the subject.
^ Ya, seriously. The 80's were cool in some regards, but... :O
Actually it was '79.
I have a great appreciation for much of his work but Friedlander's nudes are all just about as unsentimental as this. This is one aspect of his oeuvre (ooh! I just got to use that word in a sentence!) that I personally find perhaps a bit too detached.
-J.
I have a great appreciation for much of his work but Friedlander's nudes are all just about as unsentimental as this. This is one aspect of his oeuvre (ooh! I just got to use that word in a sentence!) that I personally find perhaps a bit too detached.
-J.
You know what word I like to use? Assignation.
P.S. I just noticed her armpits are hairy too!:p
i think madonna was rather naive at this time in her life. she didn't lock-down the rights and it was freidlander that sold them to playboy.
In Oz the area of a woman's body that Madge is showing us all so proudly is known coloquially as 'the map of Tasmania.' (look at your atlas!)
When I look at that pic I tend to think more of Madagascar! :angel:
35mmdelux
01-16-2009, 16:37
A friend of mine sat a few booths away from Madonna at restaurant in L.A. and did not know it was the material girl until the waitress whispered. In street clothes, not the commanding presence she has on stage.
wlewisiii
01-16-2009, 17:23
It's really a remarkably average image. If it wasn't Her, would anyone care? In this I think Friedlander got caught up by the Bellocq photos he's famous for - trying to recreate that ambiance or something of the Storyville prostitute portraits of Bellocq. Unfortunately for Friedlander, he seems to lack the essential compassion for his subjects that Bellocq had for his. As a result they're just cheesy average nudes unlike the rather artisitic portraits he's trying to emulate. And really the only reason they rise to the level of average is that he's got his technique down so that at least they're in focus and exposed correctly.
There does seem to be something about Madonna Ciccone that causes bad nudes to come about though - anyone else here willing to admit having perused "Sex"? Sheesh.
William
When I look at that pic I tend to think more of Madagascar! :angel:
I'm thinking rain forest.
Actually, that's a Friedlander Nude. I don't know the size but the ones at his recent show were some of the bigger photos shown.
.
There does seem to be something about Madonna Ciccone that causes bad nudes to come about though - anyone else here willing to admit having perused "Sex"? Sheesh.
William
"Sex" is not the best book of photos ever published by a long stretch, but I'd have to say that Stephen Meisel did a far better job of capturing Madonna than did Friedlander. Among all photographers she's worked with throughout her career, I still think that she and Herb Ritts had the best collaboration, especially the work they did together for "The Immaculate Collection". They clearly had a great time doing that shoot.
-J.
amateriat
01-17-2009, 11:43
In Oz the area a woman's body that Madge is showing us all so proudly is known coloquially as 'the map of Tasmania.' (look at your atlas!)
When I look at that pic I tend to think more of Madagascar! :angel:
That description fits.
In one of my "Honey, get a look at this!" moments, I showed galfriend the photo in that link. She smiled, and wryly referred to the "It" Girl's nether region as "well-forested." I'm going to remember that one. ;)
- Barrett
It's really a remarkably average image. If it wasn't Her, would anyone care? In this I think Friedlander got caught up by the Bellocq photos he's famous for - trying to recreate that ambiance or something of the Storyville prostitute portraits of Bellocq. Unfortunately for Friedlander, he seems to lack the essential compassion for his subjects that Bellocq had for his. As a result they're just cheesy average nudes unlike the rather artisitic portraits he's trying to emulate. And really the only reason they rise to the level of average is that he's got his technique down so that at least they're in focus and exposed correctly.
the words "friedlander" and "emulate" don't belong in the same sentence. he does his own thing. :cool:
buzzardkid
01-17-2009, 14:15
another vote for deforestation here.
Keith, I believe Australians are quite sympathetic to bush (this belief of course stems from the eighties being filled here with countless episodes of Flying Doctors on the telly)? :p
Get the lawn mower out!
In French, that area is known as "Le gazon maudit". The cursed lawn.
Indeed ... and no doubt many a poor soul has been lost attempting to trim that particular 'herbe!'
Nicolas Chauvin was probably a mythical Frenchman
At risk of dragging this thread back on topic, am I the only one here thinking that it ain't lurid enough to be porn, but not artistic enough to be erotic? For a big-name photographer (Freudian slip? I typed it as "hotographer"), I was expecting something far more impressive.
Adrian
(ETA: Having reread it, spending less time s******ing at the innuendos and euphemisms, no, it isn't just me. Phew!)
Edited again to add don't you just love American filth filters?
Pherdinand
01-18-2009, 03:31
it's a great art. We hoi polloi just cannot see behind the tree.
Or the forest, in this case.
This is is what happens if you fool about with a bottle of Regain and the top is not on properly.
Al Kaplan
01-18-2009, 05:08
As long as it doesn't tickle my nose or get tangled with my moustache...I can't see that close without my glasses anyway.
Tuolumne
02-12-2009, 14:35
Okay, which one of you was it?! ;)
"A nude photograph of pop singer Madonna was sold for $37,500 Thursday afternoon at a Christie's Art House auction.
The photo, originally expected to go for between $10,000 and $15,000, was purchased for more than double its original estimated selling price, a Christie's spokesperson confirmed. The 13-inch by 8 5/8-inch framed photograph was purchased by an anonymous bidder over the phone."
Never realized that photo was so small! Barely larger than an 8x12".
What else is there to invest in these days?
/T
LeicaTom
02-12-2009, 14:47
Gee I hope some of my Pinups bring that sorta money someday.......most surely after I`m dead :p
Tom
Gee I hope some of my Pinups bring that sorta money someday.......most surely after I`m dead :p
Tom
Tell your models to stop waxing ... maybe that's the secret! :p
LeicaTom
02-12-2009, 14:54
Tell your models to stop waxing ... maybe that's the secret! :p
Dammm....now that`s what I call REALLY Retro! :eek:
Tom
That's not her REAL pubic hair, people. It's a wig!
Al Patterson
02-12-2009, 15:15
They overpaid. It is amazing that people will pay big money for a picture of a famous skanky ho...
Gawd, I'd be scared to see that on my wall. Someone get a hedge trimmer ;-)
really? man... women are beautifull.
I wouldn't spend that kind of money for her -much less for the picture of her....but what do I know?
i don't care for her music either but Madonna did more for photography than all the posts on the internet about Leica boket. just a fact.
At risk of dragging this thread back on topic, am I the only one here thinking that it ain't lurid enough to be porn, but not artistic enough to be erotic? For a big-name photographer (Freudian slip? I typed it as "hotographer"), I was expecting something far more impressive.
Adrian
(ETA: Having reread it, spending less time s******ing at the innuendos and euphemisms, no, it isn't just me. Phew!)
Edited again to add don't you just love American filth filters?
it's a great picture of a powerfull woman done by a great photographer. just mho.
It's really a remarkably average image. If it wasn't Her, would anyone care? In this I think Friedlander got caught up by the Bellocq photos he's famous for - trying to recreate that ambiance or something of the Storyville prostitute portraits of Bellocq. Unfortunately for Friedlander, he seems to lack the essential compassion for his subjects that Bellocq had for his. As a result they're just cheesy average nudes unlike the rather artisitic portraits he's trying to emulate. And really the only reason they rise to the level of average is that he's got his technique down so that at least they're in focus and exposed correctly.
There does seem to be something about Madonna Ciccone that causes bad nudes to come about though - anyone else here willing to admit having perused "Sex"? Sheesh.
William
compassion? he was quite distanced sometimes. Belloq's power come from a surreal quality and compositions that were avnt garde for his time. Some of the pics reminds of Annie Leibowitz.
DougFord
02-12-2009, 16:13
love Friedlander; madonna pic, not so much.
this gallery is a good place to start to see more of his work
http://www.fraenkelgallery.com/
i am not at all creeped out by this thread.
Irrespective of the merits of this pic, I generally don't really get why people rave about Friedlander. There were people -- like Robert Frank -- doing the style he is noted for long before him and some of his shot are just plain bad.
I have tried to keep an open mind -- I did not really judge until I could see the actual prints. A few months back I did - at a huge retrospective in San Fran, and . . . ick. Just not that impressed.
It is not like I don't like this sort of style -- love Winogrand, for example, but Lee . . . just don't get him.
Oh well, de gustibus I guess.
frank and friedlander share the same style? anyhow...
i think friedlander appeals to a person's sense of wit, playfulness, and bewilderment. lots of people didn't like the retrospective because it was just too much to deal with, but i thought it was the only way to go for a jazz man. he's not walker evans, you know.
35mmdelux
02-12-2009, 20:31
Irrespective of the merits of this pic, I generally don't really get why people rave about Friedlander. There were people -- like Robert Frank -- doing the style he is noted for long before him and some of his shot are just plain bad.
I have tried to keep an open mind -- I did not really judge until I could see the actual prints. A few months back I did - at a huge retrospective in San Fran, and . . . ick. Just not that impressed.
LF was big into self-publishing early on. This, combined with small shows cascaded into the renown he has today. I bought his huge book from the Whitney show and his nudes in particular were abysmally lackluster.
why lackluster? just because he used regular looking women as models and shot in regular looking bedrooms and living rooms? they're unusual nudes, but in a good way.
$37500 was the final bid.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.