Rating: 
Summary: "I decided to go to extremes..." -- Piercer's Apprentice
Review: "Those who make their dress a principal part of themselves, will, in general, become of no more value than their dress." ---William Hazlitt. I agree that this is a fascinating and well done book, but I do not agree with the standard comparison of this book to a "road accident" or other "I shouldn't be looking at this..." sort of experiences. I, too, like the photographer, am fascinated by people and what makes them tick and how they live and, yes, what they look like... Including what they look like naked. Folks looking for some sort of erotic thrill will not likely find it herein. Folks looking for hot "model-perfect" bodies in the buff will also be disapointed. But those who are wondering, or have wondered who people are-- people they see or meet walking down the proverbrial street-- will find that this book provokes more questions than anything else. I want to know more about these folks, more than just the one or two word sentences on the jacket. What were they thinking before posing? Why did they pose in the first place? What statement to they make about themselves and their place in the world by posing clothed and nude? I quote the author from the intro: "I photographed each person clothed and naked in order to show the two sides of the same person, the public as well as the private. The clothed version, as they are seen every day in society, is only part of the truth." Similar to this idea is the book, "Self Images: 100 Women."
Rating:
Summary: "I decided to go to extremes..." -- Piercer's Apprentice
Review: "Those who make their dress a principal part of themselves, will, in general, become of no more value than their dress." ---William Hazlitt. I agree that this is a fascinating and well done book, but I do not agree with the standard comparison of this book to a "road accident" or other "I shouldn't be looking at this..." sort of experiences. I, too, like the photographer, am fascinated by people and what makes them tick and how they live and, yes, what they look like... Including what they look like naked. Folks looking for some sort of erotic thrill will not likely find it herein. Folks looking for hot "model-perfect" bodies in the buff will also be disapointed. But those who are wondering, or have wondered who people are-- people they see or meet walking down the proverbrial street-- will find that this book provokes more questions than anything else. I want to know more about these folks, more than just the one or two word sentences on the jacket. What were they thinking before posing? Why did they pose in the first place? What statement to they make about themselves and their place in the world by posing clothed and nude? I quote the author from the intro: "I photographed each person clothed and naked in order to show the two sides of the same person, the public as well as the private. The clothed version, as they are seen every day in society, is only part of the truth." Similar to this idea is the book, "Self Images: 100 Women."
Rating:
Summary: Very interesting
Review: A lot of people would think this is quite a boring book, but I found it fascinating to see how much clothing changes someone's appearance. It just reinforces the idea that we're all naked under our clothes.
Rating:
Summary: Very interesting
Review: A lot of people would think this is quite a boring book, but I found it fascinating to see how much clothing changes someone's appearance. It just reinforces the idea that we're all naked under our clothes.
Rating:
Summary: NAKED IS NATURAL
Review: Friedler shows to fine effect in this book the contrasts between our public and private selves. I really appreciated what the 30ish woman (a brunette social worker) had to say about her reasons for posing. Kudos to her! Granted this book speaks to the voyeur in each of us. But it also shows how liberating it is to be naked and proud.
Rating: 
Summary: Very frank, but not the whole truth...
Review: Friedler's photos stuck in my mind ever since I saw them in an underground mag a few years back. Needless to say, I was very excited when I found the book.Much of the commentary in the reviews has been to the effect that his book is so intriguing because his subjects are so unsexy and unattractive. On that point, I beg to differ. There is something about the vulnerability of his subjects and the amazing varieties of bodies and shapes that is very attractive. I think Friedler underscores this point by including a photo of a porno actress whose silcone manufactured, "ideal" breasts come across as looking ugly and alien in a sea of naturalness. I think Friedler celebrates the beauty of all people, if we would just care to look. Also, many of the reviews seem to equate nudity with the truth of who a person really is, as does Friedler in his preface. Although I agree that this is one sort of "truth" of a person, I think the truth of a person goes beyond the accident of their body shape and appearance and also exists somewhere within them. For example, the photo of the young botonist comes to mind. I think her "truth" comes somewhere between the drab sexlessness of her clothes and the startling image of her sheer voluptousness when naked. Is it her scientific mind or her body that is her "truth?" Nudity is not the whole truth by any means... In any event, I think just about anyone would benefit from seeing this book, expecially in our perfect body/clothing compulsive culture. I plan on leaving this book on the coffee table. I think it would be really interesting to see how other people would react to its sheer humanity
Rating:
Summary: Not Just Your Usual Norton Anthology
Review: Greg Friedler succeeded in getting over 70 ordinary New Yorkers to pose for him, both clothed and naked, in this strange but intriguing book. The subjects are all photographed in the same fashion. They apparently showed up for the shoots wearing street clothes, were photographed in them and then photographed "naked." Friedler explains the difference between the words "nude" and "naked", and I think he is correct here. "As I see it, photographing someone naked is about trying to get at some kind of truth, whereas photographing someone nude is linked more to sexual gratification, eroticism, or our conventions of beauty." The subjects to a person all stand looking straight-on and unsmiling into the camera. They are all shot against an ugly brick wall and lit with unflattering, shadowless flat light. Ranging in age from 19 to 75, they are for the most part white with some black models and and a couple of what job applications might label "other." There is a pregnant woman, a grossly overwight woman, skinny folks, a breast implant or two, tall, short, et al. As the photographer says in his definition of "naked", there's not much pretty here. And being "naked" certainly is a great equalizer. A walk through a steam room or communal shower proves Mr. Friedler's theory of equality. All we know about the models is their occupations and ages. While there are a couple of upper income types here-- a pediatrician and an attorney, for instance, most of them are at the other end of the pay scale-- school bus driver and cashier-- to name two. Perhaps they had less to lose by baring their all. There are some occupations on the edge here, transexual karate instructor, porno star, prostitute, dream interpreter, closet queen-- whatever that means--junkie-- I thought that was a condition rather than an occupation--piercer's apprentice, erotic masseur. Then there is a limo dispatcher aka New York's most tattooed man. While these photographs show the influence of both Richard Avedon and Diane Arbus, the differences are obvious. Avedon for the most part shot unsmiling celebrities looking straight into his camera against a white background. Friedler obviously goes one step further or several feet downward for the full monty here. Arbus apparently did some of her work without the cooperation or knowledge of her subjects, something she should have been ashamed of. Friedler, on the other hand, had the full cooperation of everybody concerned. This book generates a lot of questions. How did Friedler select his subjects or weed out the bad apples, to mix a metaphor? (How could there be any bad apples in this 20th Century Eden shoot?) Age, sex, occupation and race must have entered into his decision but he doesn't tell us that. Could this project have been so successful in a much smaller, city or town, say Columbus, Georgia or Dayton, Ohio? Did the subjects tell their friends and family about their afternoon of exposure or wait to be discovered at the bookstore? Why did the models do this? Two or three models say why on the back cover of the book, and the photographer has some ideas on the subject as well. I suspect there may be as many different answers as there are people here. What impressed me most about this book is that the Norton Company, that staid keeper of truth when it comes to college literature, is the publisher. That says volumes-- speaking of which, Mr. Friedler has done a similar work for LA and London. Lady Thatcher naked? Wouldn't it be great if Friedler could do a series like this for U. S. Senators or big city mayors or CEO's of big corporations? Imagine the books he would sell.
Rating:
Summary: Real people off the street clothed and naked - very real
Review: Greg seems a photographer and a story teller in one. His stark and thought-prevoking images make you feel better, yet a bit bothered, all at once. The truth in life is that we're all naked, all the time. Clothes are just a cover up. Gene J.
Rating:
Summary: Oh, go on, take off your clothes for my camera....
Review: How we have all walked down the street and wondered what people look like without there clothes on. Well here is a book that does just that! Can't wait for Naked Miami, I will be first in line...
Rating:
Summary: Oh, go on, take off your clothes for my camera....
Review: How we have all walked down the street and wondered what people look like without there clothes on. Well here is a book that does just that! Can't wait for Naked Miami, I will be first in line...
|
