Has anyone read the Eggleston review in the New Yorker

Memphis,

No, same goes for the stones. A song (or album) to be a success, must be complete as it is. No additional info required.

"...the New Yorker can't publish a 400 page article".
I thought that was their specialty.

Is Alex Chilton still around?

Cheers,
Gary
 
Time and The New Yorker are two completely different magazines- I would pick up Time to distract myself for a little while (as I did at the dentists office today) but I pick up The New Yorker to gain insight from people who are very good at what they do. Time has a lot more in common with People than The New Yorker. Snobbish? No, I think The New Yorker is simply a better written magazine, that continues to aspire to be better, where Time seems to aspire only to simplify what they write about to the lowest common denominator.

The New Yorker Eggleston article seems to aim to place the work in context of the time and understand how it has influenced the imagery of today. I look forward to his articles, and will admit to being disappointed when the latest issue doesn't have one. The Time article touches on this, but seems to be more about Eggleston himself than about the work (beyond simple description) or it's influence- something I have more interest in. Why does it matter if he was born rich or poor? How long he's been married? I suppose all of this does influence ones work in some way, but thirty or forty years on it is the work that has more resonance than the social status of the photographer.

Simply different strokes for different folks no?
 
climbing_vine said:
I agree.

But the New Yorker can't publish a 400 page article. So people learn to write like this to at least try to get that across.
Click to expand...

That's true, but there are other ways to achieve brevity. I have been reading the New Yorker since 1965, and this is the first time I have ever seen fit to comment on one of its articles or reviews for its sheer pretentiousness. And most of the reviews for the past 10 years have been very brief.

/T
 
Tuolumne said:
That's true, but there are other ways to achieve brevity. I have been reading the New Yorker since 1965, and this is the first time I have ever seen fit to comment on one of its articles or reviews for its sheer pretentiousness. And most of the reviews for the past 10 years have been very brief.

/T
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I didn't think it was a great review, but I thought some of the particular "translations" being suggested were.... revealing.
 
memphis said:
Paul Westerberg has been talking about a band reunion for a while -- /QUOTE]

Cool story. The boys got together for two new tracks on the hits album earlier this year so there's hope. Just a wee bit more sober this time, eh?

William
Click to expand...
 
I have to laugh, realizing that we have over a hundred posts discussing a magazine article while there has probably never been anything remotely close to that volume of discussion here on Eggleston's pictures (if any).

Cheers,
Gary
 
This guy is another one in a long line of fakers who gain momentary notoriety and then, after their 15 minutes are up, their stuff ends up in the garbage where it belongs.

Would YOU pay $15,000 for one of his prints?
 
"...momentary notoriety and then, after their 15 minutes are up, their stuff ends up in the garbage where it belongs".

Momentary notoriety???
15 minutes???
Stuff ends up in the trash???
Huhh???

I mean if you don't like his work, fine. And if you want to say why, even better. But these statements don't speak about the work at all. Plus, they couldn't be more blatantly false.

Cheers,
Gary
 
Last edited:
Warhol and Winogrand are fakers. The rest, not too bad.

Brady was in the right place at the right time with the right technology, and most "Brady's" are not by Brady. But they are good historical documents.
 
Yes it is. (Showing up that is, sometimes that's all it takes)

Brady was basically running a business. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, he was supplying images for mass sale and consumption, some of which happened to transcend their commercialism and become "art" or priceless documents.

Then you have the modern version of commercial "art". Warhol had an actual "factory" where others made his art. It's good commercial pap for the masses, and other co-opted the psychedelic era, like Peter Max, who produced derivative junk.

This is the logical extension:

http://www.thestalwart.com/the_stalwart/2007/11/chinese-art-fac.html

Winogrand? If you sent a monkey out to shoot 1,000,000 rolls of film, you'd get hundreds of "masterpieces". I think he was an obsessive nut.

The problem with the internet and mass marketing is once you iconize someone or his works, the legions of drones give him an internal Canonization (pun intended), and if anyone says the Emperor has no clothes, the spoon-fed public get their high-brow balls in an uproar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom