Who Do YOU Like Better

[RayPA]

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?

 

[Tuolumne]

Yes you should, Jan! Here are some samples to jumpstart your trip to the library:

AA
HCB
GW
WE

I followed your link to WE's work. I know the name but never saw the photos. Um, I hate to say this, but I shoot stuff like that everyday. And throw it away. Perhaps I should start exhibiting more?

/T

 

[Tuolumne]

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.

This goes to show that a good critic is as much the artist in his critiques as the artist is in his own medium. There is no way in hell you can get this out of Eagleston's work unless you "make it up", just like an artist.

/T

 

[mtbbrian]

I like them all for very different reasons.
Brian

 

[jan normandale]

That's a good read. ......... The color photograph as art begins with WE, no?

Ray, that's the one thing about the "mythology" of Eggleston I have a problem with after reading his interview with Michelle Golden further back in this thread. I didn’t want to get into it. In my opinion his assertion of his contribution to photography based on the use of colour film was a “stretch”. Colour film was "around". It's like an artist claiming to have ownership of a "colour" or having discovered colour. Hard to believe. All artists use what ever they decide as a medium. To use colour film when it was available and then suggest that he was 'first' is disingenuous.

“.. when he was asked once and for all whether or not he thought it was accurate to call him the "father of color photography" as he has been described so many times before,
Without hesitation, he replied, "yes, I think that's fair."
Source : Michelle Golden .. http://www.michellegolden.net/pdn1.html

We have discussions here at RFF.. digital vs film, colour vs BW, SLR vs RF, inkjet vs wet print, and on. All these are indications of the breadth of options to make a photograph. Using colour film when it is introduced does not permit one to validly claim the “father of colour photography” as a first. What about the father of digital photography? An equally curious claim.

I think Eggleston is a fantastic photographer. I also think the claim damages his credibility by deflecting attention away from what he did and instead directing it toward the equipment he was using.

 

[d_ross]

Art goes way beyond the surface of the print, you cant ever talk about someone like Eggleston soley with a purist photographers eye.

 

[popstar]

A few people have been praising WE here, but I honestly just don't get his stuff at all. I wonder if anyone who likes him would be kind enough to tell us what they think is so good about the photo in the link above? (I'm asking out of genuine interest - I'm really fascinated by other people's views on art).

Alan - You ask legitimate questions which I think Rich does a good job of answering above. I would concur with Rich in that WE's photos may not look like much on the surface, but in some cases (as with the linked photo) the questions raised are interesting.

The setting of the photo is generic - a dirt lot in some sort of scrubland setting - but the subject is not generic. How often do you come across 14 plastic jugs of the same size and seemingly same contents strewn about in a dirt lot? Can't say it's ever happened to me. Did they come from the nearby cardboard boxes, or somewhere else? If somewhere else, why are the boxes there? Who left them there? Why? Laziness, haste, negligence, or something else? What about the wooden structure to the right? What is it? Were the jugs stored there? There are a lot of questions arising from a 'mundane' photo.

Perhaps I've spent too much time looking at this, but I find myself wanting answers sometimes when studying WE's work. I admit, there are photos of his I don't 'get', but there are many others that have interesting context or irony presented that may take a bit of studying to understand. Hope this helps a little bit.

 

[AshenLight]

I chose HCB, no disrespect intended to the other photographers in the poll. Adding A. Aubrey Bodine to the poll would have made it a very difficult choice for me. I view his work as the American equivalent of HCB. His work can be seen at http://www.aaubreybodine.com/

Ash

 

[jan normandale]

Ash, I don't think Ray was actually conducting a formal poll. He's been around RFF long enough to see these threads diverge and become forums too. It has been interesting to see others discuss these photograpers. I've picked up a lot of new names that are interesting in themselves in this thread. Bodine will get a deeper look from me now I have a link.

 

[AshenLight]

Ash, I don't think Ray was actually conducting a formal poll. He's been around RFF long enough to see these threads diverge and become forums too. It has been interesting to see others discuss these photograpers. I've picked up a lot of new names that are interesting in themselves in this thread. Bodine will get a deeper look from me now I have a link.

Hi Jan,

I didn't think it was a formal poll, I guess I just wanted to put Bodine's name out there since he doesn't seem to be too well known outside of his photojournalistic work for the Baltimore Sun. I hope you enjoy the website.

Ash

 

[RayPA]

Ray, that's the one thing about the "mythology" of Eggleston I have a problem with after reading his interview with Michelle Golden further back in this thread. I didn’t want to get into it. In my opinion his assertion of his contribution to photography based on the use of colour film was a “stretch”. Colour film was "around". It's like an artist claiming to have ownership of a "colour" or having discovered colour. Hard to believe. All artists use what ever they decide as a medium. To use colour film when it was available and then suggest that he was 'first' is disingenuous.

“.. when he was asked once and for all whether or not he thought it was accurate to call him the "father of color photography" as he has been described so many times before,
Without hesitation, he replied, "yes, I think that's fair."
Source : Michelle Golden .. http://www.michellegolden.net/pdn1.html

We have discussions here at RFF.. digital vs film, colour vs BW, SLR vs RF, inkjet vs wet print, and on. All these are indications of the breadth of options to make a photograph. Using colour film when it is introduced does not permit one to validly claim the “father of colour photography” as a first. What about the father of digital photography? An equally curious claim.

I haven't read the interview, but it seems to me you're more put off by his arrogance at accepting the moniker. I think my statement is fairly accurate and accepted. No he didn't invent color photography, and yes it was already "around." It seems unthinkable/impossible now, but it really wasn't until Eggleston that the color photograph was considered "Art," or looked upon as art (and this was early 1970s!). I'm trying to remember a color photographer who predates Eggleston, or someone who has had the impact and influence of Eggleston, but I can't.

WE had an impact on me, because I go back that far, and I remember the first time I saw The Red Ceiling (for me THE signature WE photo) and the first time I saw it hanging on a wall. We yawn at it now, but his work was revolutionary, and as controversial as it is today.

Part of Eggleston's success had to do with his process. He used dye transfer which really emphasized color. For me, WE's photographs are about color first and foremost. I look at an Eggleston photo and I'm immediately struck by the color. They're not just color photographs, they're photographs about color, whether the subtle colors of Memphis at dusk or the garish vividness of a red ceiling. To put it in perspective, I thnk Eggleston is to color what AA is to b&w. The difference is where WE pointed his camera. He didn't point toward the heavens and the majesty of nature. He pointed it toward an icebox, a livingroom sofa, a tricycle, a southerner. For that reason alone WE is a hero to me. It's telling, if you download WE's PDF bio from his trust site. he makes one entry for the year 1959: the first time he saw both HCB's Decisive Moments and Walker Evans' American Pictures. (now if I had added Walker Evans to the poll that's where my vote would have gone).

 

[dcsang]

Personally..

I Like FrankS

Just Sayin'
Dave

 

[IGMeanwell]

Out of those 4 I guess I would say Winograd

mostly because I like his style and I like his philosophy behind photography

but

honestly I my favorite photographer is W. Eugene Smith

 

[irq506]

Hory Clap!
Unttil just now I never heard of William Eggelstein and forgot entirely about Garrrrry literally for fifteen years. I should do some research here on Eggelstien and see what hes all about, bto from the google image search looks astounding.
I actually shoot much like Winogrand, in that I shoot alot maybe not as much as he did, but approaching. Its that methodology that works for me. Can you imagein Garrry Winogrand with a small digital and a 16gb card?
...ohh god Im getting dizzy...

 

[IGMeanwell]

Hory Clap!
Unttil just now I never heard of William Eggelstein and forgot entirely about Garrrrry literally for fifteen years. I should do some research here on Eggelstien and see what hes all about, bto from the google image search looks astounding.
I actually shoot much like Winogrand, in that I shoot alot maybe not as much as he did, but approaching. Its that methodology that works for me. Can you imagein Garrry Winogrand with a small digital and a 16gb card?
...ohh god Im getting dizzy...

I can ....

I can imagine his harddrive banks of 2,000,000 unprocessed RAW files not to mentioned the already accumulated negatives

other than the M8; I could imagine him being a GRD user with the voightlander 28mm mini viewfinder

 

[wlewisiii]

I'm 2 out of three person. I chose Adams for all the reasons above and give more credit as a person after reading[URL="http://www.amazon.com/Ansel-Adams-American-Landscape-Biography/dp/0520089928/ref=pd_bbs_3/104-7602855-7923962?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192212758&sr=8-3Ansel Adams and the American Landscape: A Biography (Hardcover) by Jonathan Spaulding[/URL] which makes it clear to me that much of the marketing personna was driven by his fear of being broke.

William

 

[d_ross]

Tuolumne, "but I shoot stuff like that everyday. And throw it away"

if this is the case, then why do you shoot these shots in the first place ? is it perhaps that subconsciously your attracted to the scene the way WE may have been, but then when you see the prints you throw them away ?

 

[Thea]

Out of the limited choice given, I chose Eggleston. However it was difficult to choose between him and HCB, for completely different reasons.

I really began to appreciate Eggleston because of Martin Parr, and saw a small series of his work last year at the Brighton Bi-Annual (UK) from his "Graceland" series, they were so powerful and yet incredibly subtle. For that all too short time, (viewing his work) I glimpsed how it must be to have such a creative genius.


I have to add, I am really into Stephen Shore's work at the current time.

The list of choice was criminally short with no female photographers, and 3 American nominees to only one European...!!

 

[jan normandale]

@ Ray .. just to be clear I am impressed by Eggleston and I do know about the other WE. I like them both.

Re.. Eggleston's arrogance... no I'm not put off by it and I agree that I'm personifying. I wouldn't want a descriptive like that attached to my name. I'd be quite comfortable hearing him described as "a photographer who changed (photographic) perception". In my opinion the “father of colour photography” is a derisive accolade, but it’s not as bad as Columbus “discovered” the New World.

I'm loving your thread, thanks for starting it.

 

[Cale Arthur]

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.

I'm not sure i understand this. While i'm always very happy to find another Brouws fan, i'm a little uncomfy with the notion that Eggleston is somehow made greater by Brouws referencing his work, which i don't necessarily agree that he does. I guess, in some way, i can see a line connecting these two photographers insofar as they both have portrayed certain kinds of American vernacular, but to me, Brouws (who, by the way, doesn't always shoot color) owes a greater debt to the typological work of Ed Ruscha than to WE. Either way, both of your assertions seem to paint Brouws as 'unoriginal by proxy'.

--c--