jan normandale
Film is the other way
memphis said:
This is an interesting read. He sounds totally reasonable to me. Some things he said seem a little out of context in this interview and I'm surprised but not too surprised that he says he's influenced by music. Who would have thought!
BTW Ray... this is one of the most interesting threads I've seen here at RFF in months. Thanks to all here.
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
Ara Ghajanian said:
You're welcome, Ara. I think Eggleston has that effect on people (loading up color film). Sometimes it can be hard to transition between thinking and shooting in b&w to thinking and shooting in color, but after sitting with an Eggleston book, or perusing his images online, it all seems so clear and simple!
.
.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I was surprised not to see Eisenstaedt in the list, but then again, sometimes there are reasons for omissions or "focus" in the choices.Finder said:
I still like HCB above Eisenstaedt, but both are on my top 5.
jan normandale
Film is the other way
memphis said:
the house is interesting but his car is more interesting ;- )
pesphoto
Veteran
If we want to add names...how about Alfred Steiglitz for one. He was a primary reason why photography was accepted as art in America.
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I concur. But I also get that feeling of "timelessness" in many photos by HCB. The main theme in his photos is that of an elegant aesthetic, mainly on how the photo was taken, not the photo itself, if that makes any sense.keithwms said:
oscroft
Veteran
Hi folks,
Thanks for the thoughts on Eggleston. I guess it is difficult to explain what one likes about a specific photograph (I know I find it hard), but I think I have got some feel for what people like about that one (and about others). One thing that puts me off is that some of his shots seem to be a bit "careless" to me - I can see that in the one with the bottles there's an untold story that he's bringing to our attention, and I like that - but that wonky horizon puts me off (it might be deliberate, but it still looks like a beginner error), and the vertical composition looks poor to me. Maybe it's more about capturing the subject rather than creating a carefully composed artwork, but how do I distinguish that from what my mother does with her p&s and no concept of composition?
I think I need to look at some more of Mr Eggleston's work.
Thanks for the thoughts on Eggleston. I guess it is difficult to explain what one likes about a specific photograph (I know I find it hard), but I think I have got some feel for what people like about that one (and about others). One thing that puts me off is that some of his shots seem to be a bit "careless" to me - I can see that in the one with the bottles there's an untold story that he's bringing to our attention, and I like that - but that wonky horizon puts me off (it might be deliberate, but it still looks like a beginner error), and the vertical composition looks poor to me. Maybe it's more about capturing the subject rather than creating a carefully composed artwork, but how do I distinguish that from what my mother does with her p&s and no concept of composition?
I think I need to look at some more of Mr Eggleston's work.
Vics
Veteran
I picked HCB, but I like them all for what they each do best. Ansel Adams gets special honorable mention for codifying photo technique for all the rest of us! Thanks for that, Ansel. and for your Contax portraits of Georgia O'Keefe and of Alfred Steiglitz. I wish he'd done more RF work.
Vic
Vic
RichC
Well-known
You have to accept Eggleston's vision for what it is and ignore convention: would a straight horizon change the photo's message? If not, then perhaps it's irrelevant. The important thing is, does a photographer's photos connect with people in any way? If not, like my mum's photos (sorry mum!), perhaps they're just technically poor photos with wonky horizons that (unlike Eggleston's work) say very little.oscroft said:
I think that the work of some photographers needs to be considered outside of the rather limiting conventions of traditional photographic conventions, esp. composition, and perhaps has leanings towards certain goals of abstract art, to convey essence rather than fact. (That said, I hate conceptual art - to me work without craftmanship is as pointless as work without a concept: a successuful piece of art must IMHO have an powerful underlying concept or message and be created with skill.)
Last edited:
DougK
This space left blank
I like them all, but I went with Eggleston. I'm a big fan of color photography and something in the way he uses color really appeals to me, plus I like the character of his portraits.
d_ross
Registered User
oscroft, just like any other photographer I don't think you can judge Eggleston's work by this or any other single image, and I personally don't see this as one of his best pieces. All of these photographers have standout single images, including Eggleston, but perhaps he more than the others should be judged on his body of work.
here is a quote from John Szarkowski on eggleston
These pictures are fascinating partly because they contradict our expectations. We have been told so often of the bland, synthetic smoothness of exemplary American life, of its comfortable, vacant insentience, its extruded, stamped, and molded sameness, in a word its irredeemable dullness, that we have come half to believe it, and thus are startled and perhaps exhilarated to see these pictures of prototypically normal types on their familiar ground, grandchildren of Penrod, who seem to live surrounded by spirits, not all of them benign. The suggestible viewer might sense that these are subjects capable not only of the familiar modern vices (self-loathing, adaptability, dissembling, sanctimony, and license), but of the ancient ones (pride, parochial stubbornness, irrationality, selfishness, and lust). This could not be called progress, but it is interesting. Such speculations, however, even if not simple nonsense, presumably relate only to Eggleston's pictures - patterns of random facts in the service of one imagination - not to the real world. A picture is after all only a picture, a concrete kind of fiction, not to be admitted as hard evidence or as the quantifiable data of social scientists
As pictures, however, these seem to me perfect: irreducible surrogates for the experience they pretend to record, visual analogues for the quality of one life, collectively a paradigm of a private view, a view one would have thought ineffable, described here with clarity, fullness, and elegance.
here is a quote from John Szarkowski on eggleston
These pictures are fascinating partly because they contradict our expectations. We have been told so often of the bland, synthetic smoothness of exemplary American life, of its comfortable, vacant insentience, its extruded, stamped, and molded sameness, in a word its irredeemable dullness, that we have come half to believe it, and thus are startled and perhaps exhilarated to see these pictures of prototypically normal types on their familiar ground, grandchildren of Penrod, who seem to live surrounded by spirits, not all of them benign. The suggestible viewer might sense that these are subjects capable not only of the familiar modern vices (self-loathing, adaptability, dissembling, sanctimony, and license), but of the ancient ones (pride, parochial stubbornness, irrationality, selfishness, and lust). This could not be called progress, but it is interesting. Such speculations, however, even if not simple nonsense, presumably relate only to Eggleston's pictures - patterns of random facts in the service of one imagination - not to the real world. A picture is after all only a picture, a concrete kind of fiction, not to be admitted as hard evidence or as the quantifiable data of social scientists
As pictures, however, these seem to me perfect: irreducible surrogates for the experience they pretend to record, visual analogues for the quality of one life, collectively a paradigm of a private view, a view one would have thought ineffable, described here with clarity, fullness, and elegance.
d_ross
Registered User
andrew rhea
Newbie
William Eggleston is THE American photographer in my mind, His photos aren't just documents of common place American scenes, they capture the essence of them. I love so many of his photographs because they give me the feeling of hey Ive been here, Ive experienced this, but never quite like this.
The idea that your mother could have taken these pictures, well that’s somewhat the point, Eggleston challenges us to look at those "boring" things and think what do they all mean, this is a picture of milk bottles or a ceiling fan, or an oven, but yet it seems so much more wonderful than how I usually experience these things. In the end you walk away from an Eggleston photograph a richer person, because you are going to look at that banal piece of Americana around you with renewed appreciation.
The idea that your mother could have taken these pictures, well that’s somewhat the point, Eggleston challenges us to look at those "boring" things and think what do they all mean, this is a picture of milk bottles or a ceiling fan, or an oven, but yet it seems so much more wonderful than how I usually experience these things. In the end you walk away from an Eggleston photograph a richer person, because you are going to look at that banal piece of Americana around you with renewed appreciation.
d_ross
Registered User
Jeff Brouws is another american photogrpaher doing this Andrew.
http://www.jeffbrouws.com/series/main.html
well worth a look
http://www.jeffbrouws.com/series/main.html
well worth a look
RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
d_ross said:
I think Egglestone created a whole genre or branch in the photographic tree. Back before this fellow (?) there's Stephen Shore.
d_ross
Registered User
exactly, and the likes of Brouws continue the genre Eggleston created, and in doing so showing america now, through similar eyes. The visual referencing to WE in Brouws images is obvious. that is one of the things that makes Eggleston great.
J. Borger
Well-known
I have to admit Eggleston is an artist who has to grow on you.
A lot of his pictures look uninteresting if seen isolated but get a lot of meaning shown in the context of a whole series ........ the consistency in his work and the way each and every picture has the Eggleston signature all over it is truly unique.
Another point about Eggleston worth noting is that the technical quality of his pictures and especially the quality of his prints is truly outstanding .... all wall- hangers (if you like the content of courese )!
It realy shows that his pictures are meant for the wall where HCB pictures were meant for magazines and papers .... a lot of HCB pictures realy disapointed mee seeing them framed on a wall at an exhibition. (Felt the same about Elliot Erwit pictures btw).
A lot of his pictures look uninteresting if seen isolated but get a lot of meaning shown in the context of a whole series ........ the consistency in his work and the way each and every picture has the Eggleston signature all over it is truly unique.
Another point about Eggleston worth noting is that the technical quality of his pictures and especially the quality of his prints is truly outstanding .... all wall- hangers (if you like the content of courese
)! It realy shows that his pictures are meant for the wall where HCB pictures were meant for magazines and papers .... a lot of HCB pictures realy disapointed mee seeing them framed on a wall at an exhibition. (Felt the same about Elliot Erwit pictures btw).
keithwms
Established
Gabriel M.A. said:
Ah I didn't mean to imply that HCB's work isn't "timeless." Rather, I simply think that HCB's and AA's treatment of the role of time in their compositions is very different- even opposite. Of course, HCB's work usually reminds us of "the decisive moment." In the case of AA, on the contrary, there are very few compositions in which the timing is critical at the level of a split second- I can only name two or three offhand.
So my point was that the compositional role of time is different for these two. And I wouldn't want to pick one over the other because they both paved the way for so much subsequent work by others.
andrew rhea
Newbie
RayPA said:I think Egglestone created a whole genre or branch in the photographic tree. Back before this fellow (?) there's Stephen Shore.
I would say that Stephen shore though having a similar subject matter as eggleston,has a completely different approach. His Compositions are very formal, and give things an air of importance. Eggleston seems to be saying, to me at least, these things are small and boring so what they are interesting, Shore seems to say no these things are not small and not boring they are important.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1201/528659175_af91ebfebb_o.jpg
this image reminds me of allot of classic architecture, just applied to something we see everyday and take for granted. and that is shore's trick in my oppinion, making you look at something as grander than you ever have before.
HuubL
hunter-gatherer
I voted AA, but after I checked the links I now rather opt for HCB.