RayPA
Ignore It (It'll go away)
andrew rhea said: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.
That's a good read. Obviously, the two are different that can't help but be so. They are as much different as HCB and Wnogrand, however as much as HCB and Winogrand are different, they have their similarities, and the broadest and most obvious is that they are both street photographers. They are as undeniably from the same branch, as AA is undeniably from an entirely different branch.
And that's my point.
The work of WE and Shore to me are similar, and important, both content-wise and with regard to photographic history. I see something like American Surfaces and I see an artist working very similar territory to WE, and I see work that in the end achieved the purpose of allowing us to see the art of the color photograph, but can you place Shore's place in photographic history without mentioning Eggleston? The color photograph as art begins with WE, no?
🙂