Why William Eggleston is...

[Sparrow]

Yes, I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't trying to attack your opinion by critisizing your work. Firstly, I have honestly not really looked at the pictures, secondly I don't believe one has to do with the other. I'm probably only a mediocre photographer but I think I have pretty good taste. (That's why I know all my pictures suck.)

As for Eggleston's stuff being easy to replicate, maybe, but so is The Beatles' music. Influential work always inspires many imitators.

i dont necessarily think that his work is easy to replicate.. there are many who try and most of them fail imo because they only focus on one aspect of his images.

i find the same with Daido Moriyama.. people start taking blurry, high contrast, grainy images of everything to get that "Daido effect" but they miss the whole point of why he does that and what he tries to achieve with his work.

just my opinion of course.

If I ever made a photograph--particularly on 35mm film--as amazing (IMO) as his famous one of the woman stirring a cocktail on an airplane, I would be reposting it here every day in every thread. And that's just one example. I really think his work is terrific. Obviously not all of it. That would be impossible. But of course I see lot of terrific images here every day too. I think Bill Pierce has made many stunning photographs that routinely leave me amazed. So have lots of others here on RFF who merely consider themselves hobbyists. It's all a matter of taste. It's art.

I, for one, think Eggleston is deserving of his reputation. It's not just his use of color, but also his use of golden hour lighting, and his, at first glance, pedestrian subjects, like supermarkets and strip malls. His photos remind me of the visual equivalent of an early John Updike novel.

But then again, hey, what do I know? To each his or her own.

The Beatles are usually considered the best band ever--or certainly one of them--yet I know people who can't stand them.

... this is the problem I have with him, his supporters simply base his reputation on their good taste and fail to provide any analysis of his work or its place in the canon ...

... as others have pointed out many of us were using colour film at the time and taking mediocre photos free of narrative, that are easily as boring and unimportant in the long term

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

this is the problem I have with him, his supporters simply base his reputation on their good taste

Thanks, Stewart, this is the point I've been trying to make in a more general way.

 

[Jamie123]

... this is the problem I have with him, his supporters simply base his reputation on their good taste and fail to provide any analysis of his work or its place in the canon ...

Not sure that's the case. There's plenty of analysis of his work around and its place in the canon is also easy to justify given its influence on photography and popular culture in general.

And you're not really providing any analysis either that isn't based on your taste. "It's boring and not artistic" is not much of an analysis. I guess the people who like the work just don't find it boring and maybe the don't share your views on what is and isn't art.

Again, I'm not a huge fan of his but I can appreciate his work for the singular vision of the world it provides and his use of light and color.

 

[Sparrow]

Not sure that's the case. There's plenty of analysis of his work around and its place in the canon is also easy to justify given its influence on photography and popular culture in general.

And you're not really providing any analysis either that isn't based on your taste. "It's boring and not artistic" is not much of an analysis. I guess the people who like the work just don't find it boring and maybe the don't share your views on what is and isn't art.

Again, I'm not a huge fan of his but I can appreciate his work for the singular vision of the world it provides and his use of light and color.

I prefer not to be misquoted, as in para-two ...

... anyway, singular vision; well yes he did, however that was a readily available reality wasn't it? it was simply his surroundings much like most of the rest of the US were photographing at the time ... a singular vision shared by half his contemporaries?

 

[Austerby]

... as others have pointed out many of us were using colour film at the time and taking mediocre photos free of narrative, that are easily as boring and unimportant in the long term

Well,, I find his work fascinating and offering a view of a culture and locality that I don't get from looking at others work.

I think the whole colour question is a distraction from the photographs - in some ways the subject may be the colour, rather than the content, but usually its much more than that.

Without wishing to be pretentious I was listening to Tracey Emin on Radio 4 last night talking about Vermeer and the way in which he depicted life in a way that wasn't a statement about someone's class or activity or an event. Vermeer titled his paintings with simple descriptions - "Woman writing a letter" - rather than "The Duchess of Malfiasco" or "The Love Letter" or some such title, leaving interpretation to the viewer. She made me think that many of Egglestons photos are untitled, just with information such as "Georgia, 1980's" which again leaves the imagination of the viewer to read their interpretation of the content.

Perhaps it is that Eggleston provides so minimal supporting information around the photographs that some viewers seem to struggle in seeing that which others enjoy.

 

[Jamie123]

... anyway, singular vision; well yes he did, however that was a readily available reality wasn't it? it was simply his surroundings much like most of the rest of the US were photographing at the time ... a singular vision shared by half his contemporaries?

I don't agree at all. I don't think for example that Shores 35mm photographs of the time look anything like Eggleston's. Besides, if you've ever seen a documentary on or interview with Eggleston it's hard to believe that he shares a reality with anyone.

 

[alistair.o]

A reply of a very personal nature:-

A reply of a very personal nature:-

There is no such thing as 'art' per se. That which is classed as such comes and goes as the fashions ebb and flow. It has always been thus and will continue, on and on.

Does it matter that people imitate or to put it the correct way "that people flatter" ? Who would have foreseen that Dots would be worth millions and campbell's soup would end up hung with the 'rich and famous'

The personal note is this: since being diagnosed and treated for cancer and then the ongoing treatments, I have learnt not to struggle with life and it's bafflements; I have learnt to accept my place, my slot, my view and leave miles of room for others...

 

[bobbyrab]

... this is the problem I have with him, his supporters simply base his reputation on their good taste and fail to provide any analysis of his work or its place in the canon ...

No analysis anyone could provide you with would change your mind about the work, so why would anyone bother.
He's one of these photographers that creates two camps, you either get it or you don't.
To have any worthwhile conversation you don't necessarily have to be a fan of his work, but you would have to acknowledge the role his work has played and the influence it's had to make any discussion worthwhile.
If you think it's all just puffed up hype with no content at the core, then there's no where for any discussion to go. I might as well try and convince my 78 year old father of the importance of the Velvet Underground.

 

[paulfish4570]

well said, alistair, and i am so glad to see you posting ... ^

 

[jsrockit]

... as others have pointed out many of us were using colour film at the time and taking mediocre photos free of narrative, that are easily as boring and unimportant in the long term

I don't know what others think, but I can tell you why he interests me. I happened upon the guide in the early 90s when I was in art school and it was an eye opener for me. It taught me that anything can be a wonderful photograph (and no, I don't like all of the photos in the guide) and it didn't have to be an important event. Additionally, he was photographing a part of the country that I hadn't seen photographed in quite the same way as he did. I never really cared about narrative. I felt (feel) objects around people tell a story just as much as photos of people do. I felt he was still a documentary photographer.

Addtionally, it was early color photography by someone who was trying to build a body of work (as opposed to someone just photographing their family). I saw the influence of pop art and all the photography that came before his (high and low brow forms). It taught me that you have content wherever you happen to be living. I sort of saw it as the punk rock to cartier bresson's jazz for lack of a better analogy.

 

[paulfish4570]

nice analogy ... ^

 

[jawarden]

Eggleston can be a tough nut to crack, but I've warmed up to him and his work.

The article was pretty brief and seemed to be aimed at those unfamiliar with Eggleston so I didn't expect much depth, and of course the title of the article is silly (as if there could be such a thing as a 'world's greatest photographer'). I did find the interview at the end humorous; of course the interviewers knew full well what they would get out of Eggleston (not much) before starting so that whole exercise was ridiculous in a good way for fans and in a frustrating way for detractors.

Eggleston has a lot of hits - single images that probably all of us know. He has a unique vision, compositional style and knack for color that just works for a lot of art and photography fans, and is repellent to others. We're seeing that here.

Anyone that's been to Memphis or the American south in general knows it doesn't really look like Eggleston's work; there aren't Eggleston images around every corner just waiting to be recorded by any old drunk with a Leica. He applies his unique talents to make images of the 'Egglestonian South', as opposed to the Christenberry south, for instance. It's unique, is all. I dig it.

 

[gns]

... this is the problem I have with him, his supporters simply base his reputation on their good taste and fail to provide any analysis of his work or its place in the canon ...

Funny thing about this statement is that you are not addressing the work, but rather the "supporters" and your criticism is that the supporters are not addressing the work.

 

[Sparrow]

Funny thing about this statement is that you are not addressing the work, but rather the "supporters" and your criticism is that the supporters are not addressing the work.

em, well ... that's because I'm not making the claim that he is "the world's greatest photographer" you are doing that are you not?

Personally I think that statement requires a little support in the real world, don't you? ... his work however is problematic isn't it? it is presented as avant-garde because of the colour usage despite being forty years too late for that, for celebrating the the ordinary which Kodak and half of the US were doing at the time ... and it was almost universally panned, quite properly imo, by the critics in the mid 70s ... the only thing which has changed since then is it's marketing hype.

 

[Sparrow]

I don't know what others think, but I can tell you why he interests me. I happened upon the guide in the early 90s when I was in art school and it was an eye opener for me. It taught me that anything can be a wonderful photograph (and no, I don't like all of the photos in the guide) and it didn't have to be an important event. Additionally, he was photographing a part of the country that I hadn't seen photographed in quite the same way as he did. I never really cared about narrative. I felt (feel) objects around people tell a story just as much as photos of people do. I felt he was still a documentary photographer.

Addtionally, it was early color photography by someone who was trying to build a body of work (as opposed to someone just photographing their family). I saw the influence of pop art and all the photography that came before his (high and low brow forms). It taught me that you have content wherever you happen to be living. I sort of saw it as the punk rock to cartier bresson's jazz for lack of a better analogy.

... as I said, I'm glad you enjoy it, but that's not what I'm talking about

 

[Sparrow]

Well,, I find his work fascinating and offering a view of a culture and locality that I don't get from looking at others work.

I think the whole colour question is a distraction from the photographs - in some ways the subject may be the colour, rather than the content, but usually its much more than that.

Without wishing to be pretentious I was listening to Tracey Emin on Radio 4 last night talking about Vermeer and the way in which he depicted life in a way that wasn't a statement about someone's class or activity or an event. Vermeer titled his paintings with simple descriptions - "Woman writing a letter" - rather than "The Duchess of Malfiasco" or "The Love Letter" or some such title, leaving interpretation to the viewer. She made me think that many of Egglestons photos are untitled, just with information such as "Georgia, 1980's" which again leaves the imagination of the viewer to read their interpretation of the content.

Perhaps it is that Eggleston provides so minimal supporting information around the photographs that some viewers seem to struggle in seeing that which others enjoy.

Yes I heard that, but if I had to put Vermeer, Emin and Eggleston in order of importance I'd ... oh! I just did.

BTW ... I'm not sure listening to the wireless counts as an education in art history 🙂

 

[Roger Hicks]

em, well ... that's because I'm not making the claim that he is "the world's greatest photographer" you are doing that are you not?

Personally I think that statement requires a little support in the real world, don't you? ... his work however is problematic isn't it? it is presented as avant-garde because of the colour usage despite being forty years too late for that, for celebrating the the ordinary which Kodak and half of the US were doing at the time ... and it was almost universally panned, quite properly imo, by the critics in the mid 70s ... the only thing which has changed since then is it's marketing hype.

This, to me, is the core of the argument. Anyone who can make such a claim (as in the original Indie piece) must inevitably damage whatever feeble arguments they put under the rubric.

Eggleston's more extreme apologists always remind me of that wonderful review, "'Those who quite like this sort of thing will find that this is the sort of thing they quite like".

Cheers,

R.

 

[anjoca76]

... as I said, I'm glad you enjoy it, but that's not what I'm talking about

Your point seems to be that anyone who enjoys his work is drinking the proverbial Kool-Aid, can't think for himself, and can't come up with one reason why we enjoy his photography except that is in color.

 

[jsrockit]

Your point seems to be that anyone who enjoys his work is drinking the proverbial Kool-Aid, can't think for himself, and can't come up with one reason why we enjoy his photography except that is in color.

Yes, it appears to be the case.

 

[Sparrow]

Your point seems to be that anyone who enjoys his work is drinking the proverbial Kool-Aid, can't think for himself, and can't come up with one reason why we enjoy his photography except that is in color.

... not at all ... I like Caravaggio, but I don't insist he was the greatest renaissance artist ... I prefer Stanley Spencer to Picasso but I don't expect you to agree with me ... you enjoy what you like I'm happy with that, just don't expect me to agree without a convincing argument