WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! these,s are great you have to love the way the greg brings out the look in everyday people .keep up the great work would love to see lots more.
I loved this! How many times have you wondered what someone you just passed on the street would look like naked. I could've done without the old guy, LOL, but hey that's reality!
Please continue to publish the photographs of Greg Friedler, but spare us his trite observations about Los Angeles. Mr. Friedler is right when he says that New York and Los Angeles are different, but he fails to illuminate that difference, prefering to spout meaningless cliches (New York is "the good, the bad and the ugly" ... LA is "the fake, the bad and the beautiful"). If I had time, I would write a point-by-point rebuttal to Mr. Freidler's assertions; plastic surgery, personal training, and priveleged children are abundant in New York, and astrological inquiries are not common among the people I know here in Los Angeles. Friedler's subjects from both cities seem to be mostly younger arty types that are plentiful in any major city. I don't recall any lawyers or studio execs in the New York selections published by Nerve (I don't have a copy of either book). The subjects represented also seem similarly groomed, trimmed, and toned, so where are the vast differences? So, please let his pictures speak for themselves and cut out the inept socio-anthropology. Also, perhaps Mr. Friedler would have had more success in photographing "the same broad spectrum of humanity" in Los Angeles had he not headed his ad: "Get Naked, Get Famous."
Commentarium (4 Comments)
WOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! these,s are great you have to love the way the greg brings out the look in everyday people .keep up the great work would love to see lots more.
I loved this! How many times have you wondered what someone you just passed on the street would look like naked. I could've done without the old guy, LOL, but hey that's reality!
Please continue to publish the photographs of Greg Friedler, but spare us his trite observations about Los Angeles. Mr. Friedler is right when he says that New York and Los Angeles are different, but he fails to illuminate that difference, prefering to spout meaningless cliches (New York is "the good, the bad and the ugly" ... LA is "the fake, the bad and the beautiful"). If I had time, I would write a point-by-point rebuttal to Mr. Freidler's assertions; plastic surgery, personal training, and priveleged children are abundant in New York, and astrological inquiries are not common among the people I know here in Los Angeles. Friedler's subjects from both cities seem to be mostly younger arty types that are plentiful in any major city. I don't recall any lawyers or studio execs in the New York selections published by Nerve (I don't have a copy of either book). The subjects represented also seem similarly groomed, trimmed, and toned, so where are the vast differences? So, please let his pictures speak for themselves and cut out the inept socio-anthropology. Also, perhaps Mr. Friedler would have had more success in photographing "the same broad spectrum of humanity" in Los Angeles had he not headed his ad: "Get Naked, Get Famous."
Your work is great. If you ever do a book Naked in Detroit I'd be interested in posing.