
Art is often accused of being contrived, especially in comparison to nature. But some of New York's most well-loved natural landscapes are themselves largely artificial, so it's interesting to see an artist like a photographer double-back on a landscaper's craft. Photographer Lee Friedlander did exactly that with with a lens pointed at the work of Frederick Law Olmsted, the co-designer of Manhattan's Central Park and Brooklyn's Prospect Park.
Olmsted also was instrumental in designing the 1893 Chicago World Exposition, known as the White City. It was a grandiose neo-classical emporium architecturally notable for its thrown-together ambitions of some of the greatest architects of its age, but also for its flimsy artifice. The grandness was an illusion. Olmsted was separately distracted from his contributions to the White City (some of which are reflected in the electric boats found in Propsect Park) by his involvement in the landscape design of the Biltmore Estate in North Carolina. Biltmore is the largest private home in existance in the U.S. and probably the closest America will come to the grandiosity of Versailles.
George Vanderbilt hired Olmsted to design the grounds of Biltmore as a working estate, where timber harvesting, livestock raising, and natural production could virtually create a modern fiefdom. The opulence of the estate home seems to only dwarf the productive uses of the property in a manor that makes the property appear like a Potemkin Village.
Lee Friedlander has captured on film more than three dozen images of Olmsted's premiere public and private works. His photographs dispute any idea that artifice negates beauty. Olmsted's craft and gift was conceiving public places completely apart from their natural environments, and in turn creating something more natural as a refuge for city inhabitants. Heir to the Hudson River school of the pre-industrial age, Friedlander used modern photography to capture manufactured landscape.





Let's try and get some rare almost known great photographers out there who were also around in the 1960's 70's and even the 1950's,we all love Lee's work but there are others deserving the museum and gallery boatride.
In fairness to the Met and its curators, the subject of the work (FLO) and the museum's proximity and identification with his masterpiece (Central Park), this seem like a pretty good fit. In addition, I've always thought that photography was an underrepresented part of the museum's collections. So just dipping its toe into modern 20th C. photography as a legit artistic medium seems like an adventurous leap for the most classically oriented of NYC's museums. I'm excited to see the photos and am definitely predisposed to give the Met the benefit of the doubt in their curatorial judgement.
"Let's try and get some rare almost known great photographers"
Such as... I'm not disputing your claim, but if you have a photographer(s) in mind why not mention them? In other words, make your case for who you think the Met should exhibit and why.
You can see all the photos of Central park by unknown photographers you can stomach by going on to Flickr. I think this will be brilliant. I love Olmstead, but Prospect Park edges out Central by a nose for me, but both are brilliant. Branch Brook Park in Newark is another FLO park that is truly amazing, they have more Cherry Blossoms than DC. It's actually in a gorgeous part of Newark as well.