Michael Fried (b. 1939) is one the most established and reputable art critics and historians alive today. His approach to criticism is closely linked with that of his mentor, the late Clement Greenberg, who Fried first encountered while an undergraduate at Princeton. Much like Greenberg, Fried was suspicious of academics and critics who insisted on critiquing modern art within a historical and/or cultural context, instead of formally examining the work of art on its own terms. Another of Fried's notable contributions was his staunch opposition to what he observed as the lack of differentiation between the work of art itself and the experience of viewing it, a phenomenon he described as "theatricality."

Key Ideas / Information

• Fried was wary of the dangers of categorizing art as an event. When this happened, he thought, viewers don't appreciate the artwork itself, rather its broader cultural context (i.e. Abstract Expressionism, color field painting, as opposed to a specific painting by Pollock or Rothko.). If art becomes nothing more than a cultural event, then it adversely compromises the way in which art can be appreciated; reactions will be conditioned by surrounding socio-historic circumstance, which will avoid consideration of the artwork as an independent entity.

• Fried believed that great art is an untangling of historical forces, the result of a Hegelian dialectic or a synthesis of many different points in history all coming together to form something new and original.

• Fried was highly critical of art critics and historians who asserted themselves as objective observers of art, which is to say, most of them. He defined the duties of the formalist critic in the following manner: "It is.. imperative that the formalist critic bear in mind at all times that the objectivity he aspires toward can be no more than relative." This statement was fairly provocative, given the tone and writing style of the era's greatest critics, who aspired to write objectively. Fried essentially called their bluff, and argued that all critical judgments are nothing more than subjective.

(Source: http://www.theartstory.org/critic-fried-michael.htm)



It is important to be aware, when reading or looking or considering anything, of the creator that which you are considering. Here we have Michael Fried and his book "Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before" published by the Yale Press in 2008. In this book, Fried brings his knowledge and thoughts on renaissance painting and attempts to apply them to photography.

This is particularly disheartening as since the creation of photography, there have been those who try to make it replicate paintings, so it would more easily be accepted as art. This is due to the fact that photography was relatively new and seen as a science, and later as a hobby, rather than as art. Perhaps this is due to the thought that the artists hand was less present in photography and photography was not an artists rendering of the world but a document of it.





"Winter - Fifth Avenue" by Alfred Stieglitz (1892)

Eventually, with modernist photography, photographers began to use the camera for what it was made for, rather than attempting to create something that was familiarly appealing like painting.

Fried relates a list of artists to photography, through their use of the tableaux form, and other aesthetic means. These artists include Thomas Ruff, Bernd and Hilla Becher, Andreas Gursky, Rineke Dijkstra, Hiroshi Sugimoto, and Luc Delahaye, among others. Fried dilutes these artists reasons for their form, and also the thesis of their work in an attempt to relate their style of photography to that of pre-modernist paintings. As if to claim that there is a common unifying theme/ideas/formats among all great (as according to Fried) works of art. These being foremost, anti-theatricality, and the tableaux form.

Anti-theatricality can easily be summed up as that which is not theatrical, or that which does not perform for the camera. This is translated visual as images whose subjects do not directly acknowledge the viewer.

"Judith Beheading Holofernes" by Caravaggio (1598-99)

"Mimic" by Jeff Wall (1982)

Here are two constructed scenes (obviously in the first image, because it is a painting). Neither of these scenes would be considered theatrical by Fried's definition. Also both are of the tableaux form with Wall's "Mimic" being 198 x 226 cm large.

As stated previously, one must consider Fried's background, some of which he clearly states in the introduction to his book. Fried openly admits that he was not originally interested in photography, and that he studied and was involved with painting much before his interest in photography. This explains why Fried is so interested in comparing photography and painting so closely. It is perhaps more important to note that even in 2008 where the debate for photography to be considered an art form has long been nullified, and photography is widely accepted as an art form, Fried still feels the need to create a category of "art photography". This is a sign of Fried's dated thoughts on photography.



Fried fails to consider historical context multiple times throughout the introduction alone and frames the history of photography rather poorly. Not surprisingly considering his thoughts that art should be viewed outside of its historical context so as to give more weight to the object itself rather than to the time period during which it was created. Fried disregards many influential artists and choses to omit any explanation of the event leading up to the genesis of the tableaux form in photography in the 80s.

Thus, he frames god's gift to "art-photography" Jeff Wall as being leaps and bounds ahead of his time and greatly exaggerates his worth and contributions to photography. He does this as well with Struth and Bustamante. Fried ignores many of the obvious stepping stones to the tableaux form that allowed these three artist to start using it at nearly the same time, in favor of exalting them as geniuses. The tableaux form was a logical progression in the 80s.

Reasons Tableaux form is a logical solution for artists in the 80s

1. 1936 Walter Benjamin publishes "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" addressing the issues of easy reproduction of images (especially photographs) and also the loss of "the aura" or the experience of viewing an original work of art which is now lost as much art is viewed through reproductions.

- tableaux form makes sense here because it re-introduces "the aura"

2. Photography previous to the 80s was relatively small. It could be argued that some of the work was even created to be viewed in a book form. although early modernist photographers, such as those working for the Farm Security Administration and many early Modernist photographers (Edward Weston, Berenice Abbot, etc) did not possess the means to create large photographs, due suffering through the great depression.


-tableaux form makes sense here because it is different than that which came before, something all artists strive to do

3. Photographers during the 80s were also able to use advanced technologies to create their images, that which previous photographers did not have access to.


- tableaux form makes sense here because for the first time it is easy to create, it is finally possible to make large images.

It is easy to see how, considering all of these things, photography would naturally progress to taking a tableaux form.




Another example of Fried's ignorance of historical context is when he makes this statement about voyuerism "...voyeurism, which I shall go on to suggest may also be thought of as an essentially
photographic trope." There is no doubt that photography contributed to the idea of voyeurism, as well as the consideration of ones own appearance, but to claim that voyeurism is a complete result of photography is absurd. The creation of photography coincides with the advent of the modern day city, as well as electricity.



The city is the true creator of voyeurism. Living in a city brought you, literally, closer to people. The city gave us a place where we were close enough to watch eachother. Also, around the same time, electricity was invented. this may not seem that important, yet, consider this: during the daytime a window would reflect the sun. If a room was illuminated from within, however, there would be no reflection when viewing this room from the outside. Therefore creating an easy viewing situation for the voyeur.

It is necessary to bring these example of misconstrued information to light, because it is important to be aware while reading "Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before" that what many of the events have been exaggerated to reflect Fried's opinions and arguments. Also, many things have been diminished, as well, to apply to Fried's arguments. Here he reduces Susan Sontags writings about Jeff Wall's "Dead Troops Walk" to be about nothing more than there anti-theatricality, which in an entire paragraph, Sontag makes one comment about their theatricality.

Fried's "Why Photography Matters as Art as Never Before" should be taken with a large grain of salt, and perhaps a further investigation into art history, as well as the history of the world during the time previous to Jeff Wall.