Why is it????????????

[venchka]

When somebody famous does this, it is wonderful.

William Eggelston.

If an unknown like me or countless others do it, "It's crooked. Straighten up. Crop the left side. The light and S&H sign are distracting."

Why is that?

 

[sjw617]

Wonderful is relative. If it was mine you would never have seen it.

Steve

 

[PatrickONeill]

two words; John Szarkowski

I kid =p

dunno, find something with a new approach, make photography a habit and be prolific as humanly possible.

 

[venchka]

Why didn't I think of that?

 

[FrankS]

What is considered wonderful art is highly dependent on money/profit generating potential. (Yes, that is a bit cynical.) Egg. has developed a name and reputation in the art world based on a body of work, and is saleable. The rest of us, not so much.

 

[Rayt]

I have heard people say the same thing about St Ansel, Aaron Siskind, Ed Weston, Robert Frank, etc. Eggleston was a pioneer in color photography as fine art in both vision and craft. You don't have to like it. I have a friend who said photography itself can't be art because everyone can do it. I guess he was right given all of us could have taken the above picture if we wanted to if we had seen it.

 

[Ranchu]

Eggleston's one of my favorites, but I can't say I'm all that impressed by that particular picture. Not one of his best, imo.

 

[venchka]

Eggleston's one of my favorites, but I can't say I'm all that impressed by that particular picture. Not one of his best, imo.

I'm coming to the Eggelston party rather late. I see a bit of him in my work sometimes. The Arco station may not be one of his best. That might be why I picked it for this thread. Or I remember when those stations said Atlantic Richfield, before ARCO.

 

[Ranchu]

Makes sense. The little plastic animals picture would be a good example too. I really like that picture, but I have no Idea why.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...ge=1&ndsp=15&ved=1t:429,r:6,s:0&tx=150&ty=122

 

[35mmdelux]

no better than Eliot Erwitts dog fotos. ...the problem with the foto above is curvature of field. The gas pump is straight...that is about it.

 

[venchka]

The site is crooked. Look at the pump and lights on the right. Plumb. The station itself is higher and leans. Wide angle effect perhaps?

 

[Trooper]

I think that technically it is a bad photograph, but the magenta and faceted building make me stare at it.

Really, it makes me think, "This dude had a good eye. Too bad he didn't have any skill. It looks like a 10-year old shot this."

 

[venchka]

The 3 lights in the house in the center background make a difference. Without them, that area is dead.

 

[Ducky]

Maybe he used Hipstamatic?

 

[retnull]

This photo on its own, especially in this context, doesn't look too strong. But, Eggleston had/has something special -- a real commitment to making the banal into something extraordinary. If you'd seen his show at the Whitney Museum in NYC two years ago, it would make sense. There is a very specific and intentional atitude at work, and it takes more than one picture to "get" it.

 

[Neare]

You know, good is subjective. Also, famous things only get more famous.

 

[RayPA]

Why is that?

because it's Eggleston. He was a pioneer and is responsible for an entire branch on the photographic tree. You, me, and the thousands of others on Flickr can post the same shot, but THIS is an Eggleston.

Even his hipstamatic photos would get more attention.


/

 

[Chris101]

...

If an unknown like me or countless others do it, "It's crooked. Straighten up. Crop the left side. The light and S&H sign are distracting."

Why is that?

Because all of those complaints come from people who have a belief in how a photograph should look that has been formed by countless photo rules that really don't apply. If people tell you things like that, perhaps you shouldn't listen to them.

The lights and sign are not distracting, they are part of the picture. And it doesn't need to be straightened up, the angularity of the picture makes it more interesting.

 

[sanmich]

That's the thing:
ANY of the cult shots we all know COULD have been shot by any of us.
But it wasn't.
It was shot by an individual that because he shot it aside with lots of others that we could have shot too, created something that transcends the addition of casual shots, and is his own alone.
if you take any of the greatest art pieces you know and pull it totally out of its context (which is sometimes impossible, because you know the artist) I guess most of them would appear casual or strange.
I am not very fond of Mr. Eggleston, but I'm pretty sure looking at this shot alone and trying to understand what all the hype is, is not the best way to do it.

 

[mfogiel]

I find that recording the banality of life can be done in more photogenic ways - I've recently seen an exhibition of August Sander ( at the Musee de la photo in Nice), and I much prefer his style. In this sense, I find Eggleston and the whole bunch of his followers, as rather unimaginative people.