daveleo
what?
Saul Leiter
Saul Leiter
@PeterM . . . I also did not know of Saul Leiter's work, and must look at more of his stuff . . . very fascinating.
Regarding this very interesting discussion . . . it is probably not fair to look at an "edgy" piece of work outside the context it was meant for. But, when it stands alone, it's not easy to decide if it is brilliant, edgy, bold (etc) or just a lousy snapshot.
Saul Leiter
@PeterM . . . I also did not know of Saul Leiter's work, and must look at more of his stuff . . . very fascinating.
Regarding this very interesting discussion . . . it is probably not fair to look at an "edgy" piece of work outside the context it was meant for. But, when it stands alone, it's not easy to decide if it is brilliant, edgy, bold (etc) or just a lousy snapshot.
Ranchu
Veteran
peterm1
Veteran
This is an interesting debate!
At the end of the day it does all come down to each individual's views of what they are looking at. If enough people like / respect / value a piece of "art" then it becomes mainstream and accepted. (Which ironically then means some people begin to dislike it - of course because it is mainstream and accepted.........but thats life!)
The fly in the ointment, it seems to me is that someone once described people to me as "grumpy sheep". Not a bad description. Problem is that sometimes too many people just follow the flock and believe something (or like something) because "authorities" on the subject tell them that is how they should think. Sometimes that is just because they are afraid to speak out. Other times it goes deeper...............................
Psychologists now tell us that if you change peoples' behaviour then eventually their attitudes and beliefs change. This is the reverse of what we used to believe (and which common sense tells us.) So ironically I suppose it means that if people behave as if they like something then eventually they might actually begin to!
But for me I still think that Eggelston's color work pales (forgive the expression) by comparison with someone like Saul Leiter who as I said I think is a kind of genius. I think Leiter was ahead of his time by comparison with Eggleston who came a decade or so later....photography was still not a recognised at an art form when he worked so he was not widely picked up by galleries till more recently. This means he is still pretty well unknown except amongst a few people who are the photographic art cogniscenti (certainly not me) or those more like me, who simply stumbled on him a few years ago when idly Goggling my way around the 'net.
One final thought. Artists do not always make art for people to like, nor because they necessarily wish to sell it. Sometimes quite the opposite.
Andres Serrano, who made the installation "Piss Christ" comes to mind. (A statue of Christ on the cross in a bottle of human urine.) I am not religious (or, even Christian) but I find the concept deeply disturbing and revolting. Which I suspect is exactly what he intended - because he undoubtedly wanted to make a point about commercialising religion (see the Wiki on him) and for this he needed controversy, which of course he got in large dump truck loads. (Ironically mostly courtesy of the religious right who wanted this art suppressed.)
Oh ...there is one more point to end on a lighter note. I recall hearing a debate about Mapplethorpe's famous photographic work (which I have seen in a contemporary art gallery in Sydney) in which he depicts the "fisting" of a male by another male (Inserting a fist into a certain part of a male's anatomy.) One debater, supporting the case for not censoring it (which was of course being proposed by the religious lobby) amusingly said he thought that the work had artistic merit and was defensible, and that the piece was perhaps intended as a metaphor for struggle.
This made me smile, but inside all I could think was "ouch!" I suppose it comes under the heading of suffering for ones art. (Or more to the point, making someone else suffer!)
At the end of the day it does all come down to each individual's views of what they are looking at. If enough people like / respect / value a piece of "art" then it becomes mainstream and accepted. (Which ironically then means some people begin to dislike it - of course because it is mainstream and accepted.........but thats life!)
The fly in the ointment, it seems to me is that someone once described people to me as "grumpy sheep". Not a bad description. Problem is that sometimes too many people just follow the flock and believe something (or like something) because "authorities" on the subject tell them that is how they should think. Sometimes that is just because they are afraid to speak out. Other times it goes deeper...............................
Psychologists now tell us that if you change peoples' behaviour then eventually their attitudes and beliefs change. This is the reverse of what we used to believe (and which common sense tells us.) So ironically I suppose it means that if people behave as if they like something then eventually they might actually begin to!
But for me I still think that Eggelston's color work pales (forgive the expression) by comparison with someone like Saul Leiter who as I said I think is a kind of genius. I think Leiter was ahead of his time by comparison with Eggleston who came a decade or so later....photography was still not a recognised at an art form when he worked so he was not widely picked up by galleries till more recently. This means he is still pretty well unknown except amongst a few people who are the photographic art cogniscenti (certainly not me) or those more like me, who simply stumbled on him a few years ago when idly Goggling my way around the 'net.
One final thought. Artists do not always make art for people to like, nor because they necessarily wish to sell it. Sometimes quite the opposite.
Andres Serrano, who made the installation "Piss Christ" comes to mind. (A statue of Christ on the cross in a bottle of human urine.) I am not religious (or, even Christian) but I find the concept deeply disturbing and revolting. Which I suspect is exactly what he intended - because he undoubtedly wanted to make a point about commercialising religion (see the Wiki on him) and for this he needed controversy, which of course he got in large dump truck loads. (Ironically mostly courtesy of the religious right who wanted this art suppressed.)
Oh ...there is one more point to end on a lighter note. I recall hearing a debate about Mapplethorpe's famous photographic work (which I have seen in a contemporary art gallery in Sydney) in which he depicts the "fisting" of a male by another male (Inserting a fist into a certain part of a male's anatomy.) One debater, supporting the case for not censoring it (which was of course being proposed by the religious lobby) amusingly said he thought that the work had artistic merit and was defensible, and that the piece was perhaps intended as a metaphor for struggle.
This made me smile, but inside all I could think was "ouch!" I suppose it comes under the heading of suffering for ones art. (Or more to the point, making someone else suffer!)
Last edited:
bobkonos
Well-known
Why do you listen to others? All you need to hear is your own drummer.
Oh, don't you worry, Leiter is starting to get the recognition. I've been to a few discussions at the International Center of Photography and he's getting mentioned a lot over the last few years. Also, seems few books have popped up too in recent years.
You are right though... Eggleston was before his time... but Leiter was before Eggleston. By about 10 years. Very cool. I'm a fan of both.
peterm1
Veteran
There is one other thing that I thought I might mention because it amused me.
When Martin Parr applied to join Magnum, he very nearly did not get in, partly due to his politics (and how he wasa using his skills) as well as his photographic style.
So strongly did Henri Cartier Bresson not "get" his work that he is reputed to have said to him
"I do not understand who you ARE! As far as I am concerned you are from another planet!"
Its amusing that the same debates we have about the validity of certain types of photography are replicated in the halls of the photographic high and mighty.
Parr reportedly got in by a single vote - only after much lobbying. Apparently it did not help that Parr was reported to be Margarert Thatcher's favorite photographer. In an organisation like Magnum which is liberal in its leanings that is a death knell to one's career and aspirations .
When Martin Parr applied to join Magnum, he very nearly did not get in, partly due to his politics (and how he wasa using his skills) as well as his photographic style.
So strongly did Henri Cartier Bresson not "get" his work that he is reputed to have said to him
"I do not understand who you ARE! As far as I am concerned you are from another planet!"
Its amusing that the same debates we have about the validity of certain types of photography are replicated in the halls of the photographic high and mighty.
Parr reportedly got in by a single vote - only after much lobbying. Apparently it did not help that Parr was reported to be Margarert Thatcher's favorite photographer. In an organisation like Magnum which is liberal in its leanings that is a death knell to one's career and aspirations .
dyao
Well-known
which is funny, because Parr's work is pretty scathing of the thatcherite era
hteasley
Pupil
I'm not saying the conversation should be ended per se, I'm saying that it's a silly premise to begin with. "A famous photographer took what I think is a lousy photo! Prove to me it's Art!" It's a silly conversation.
Last edited by a moderator:
Out to Lunch
Ventor
Saul Leiter. Interesting!
I respect all of these guys though... and really think they get the recognition they deserve... whether it be Parr, HCB, or the lesser known Magnum guys / gals. As I get older, what I like tends to get wider in scope. Usually it seems the opposite happens to most.
shadowfox
Darkroom printing lives
They are different. But both have something going on in their head that enabled them to see something photographically that most of us would just pass by.
Sparrow
Veteran
I agree a, silly premise. However I'm pretty sure I stuck to an analysis of the image itself, and it's perception by others, I don't recognise that statement, it certainly is not a true representation of my view.
peterm1
Veteran
I think the conversation is more like "A famous photographer took what I think it is a lousy photo. Its my right to think its a lousy photo and lousy art even though he is famous!" That seems perfectly valid to me.
Last edited:
MickH
Well-known
If it's petrol stations you want, try Paul Graham's A1 - The Great North Road here and here.
http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/index.html
The book costs a bloody fortune.
http://www.paulgrahamarchive.com/index.html
The book costs a bloody fortune.
Oh no, someone brough Ruscha into the mix... 
This thread is doomed now!
This thread is doomed now!waltere
waltere
"The highway is for gamblers, better use your sense,
take what you have gathered from coincidence."
take what you have gathered from coincidence."
hteasley
Pupil
If that summary is not a boring truism to your ears, then I'm shocked. You don't love everything by a favored artist? My God, that means you... think about things.
paulfish4570
Veteran
what? thinking is allowed here? even appreciated?
shocking, just shocking ...
shocking, just shocking ...
williams473
Well-known
So I'm coming to this thread late, but in sifting through a lot of this interesting discussion, I am seeing a predominantly literal interpretation of both the Eggleston and Crewdson photographs. For instance, the Crewdson image of the snowy street scene is not documentary, or news, or landscape, and so critiques of "it's just a street" or "I could have done that" are irrelevant. (Especially because "I-could-have-done-that's by definition in fact didn't do it - quicker to dismiss the one who did and shut down.)
A quick Crewdson google search took 2 mins to reveal to me that he is creating these images by a highly controlled process, which leads me to the conclusion that everything in the image is precisly the way he wants it - thus offering me the chance to spend some time enjoying looking. Sort of the point of Art I think.
A good critique doesn't include "I'd have done this or that" statements... critique what's on the wall - what's there? Rather than just seeing a street, some snow, a car - yes, all very boring in and of themselves - how are these objects presented? What do they mean as a whole? The details? The narrative? Who's the person under the marquee and where is he going? I have a litany of questions that the image invokes. Art is supposed to be enjoyable! To enjoy savoring color, quality of light, detail, balance, spatial relationships - that's the show folks. If you're not into it, maybe you're not into art photography. One of the greatest obstables art photography has to overcome when presented to a general audience, is the burden of the assumption that the photograph is a picture "of something."
A quick Crewdson google search took 2 mins to reveal to me that he is creating these images by a highly controlled process, which leads me to the conclusion that everything in the image is precisly the way he wants it - thus offering me the chance to spend some time enjoying looking. Sort of the point of Art I think.
A good critique doesn't include "I'd have done this or that" statements... critique what's on the wall - what's there? Rather than just seeing a street, some snow, a car - yes, all very boring in and of themselves - how are these objects presented? What do they mean as a whole? The details? The narrative? Who's the person under the marquee and where is he going? I have a litany of questions that the image invokes. Art is supposed to be enjoyable! To enjoy savoring color, quality of light, detail, balance, spatial relationships - that's the show folks. If you're not into it, maybe you're not into art photography. One of the greatest obstables art photography has to overcome when presented to a general audience, is the burden of the assumption that the photograph is a picture "of something."
So very true.