Why William Eggleston is...

He certainly is not the greatest photographer, and I dare say, even as a pioneer of colour, he fails to reach mastery - there are many other early colour photographers, who produced more compelling images with equal stress on seeing colour.
I am not really a fan of colour as such, but just take a look at Saul Leiter, Joel Meyerowitz or Gueorgui Pinkhassov - any of these can pee over Eggleston's work in my opinion.
 
Such a silly article. Especially this line "Martin Parr, Nan Goldin and Jeff Wall would not have been granted the permission to be themselves without Eggleston's example". Newsflash: There were, and probably still are, many detractors to the work of some of those people.

And while Eggleston surely is a pioneer of color photography, he is not the sole pioneer. Plenty of other photographers started to use color seriously around the same time, some even before Eggleston.
 
Rick Waldroup said:
I loved the interview at the end of the article. Great stuff.
Click to expand...

Seriously? Did you actually learn something from that interview? It was simple a manner of "yes, no, maybe". We shouldn't make excuses for people who are going to just sit back and provide the minimum of information available rather than actually share something substantial. F that.
 
clayne said:
Seriously? Did you actually learn something from that interview? It was simple a manner of "yes, no, maybe". We shouldn't make excuses for people who are going to just sit back and provide the minimum of information available rather than actually share something substantial. F that.
Click to expand...

Better than saying noting with lots of words. Too many artists do this.
 
tom.w.bn said:
Better than saying noting with lots of words. Too many artists do this.
Click to expand...

Right, the old mysterious artist cliche...

There's no point in an interview if the subject is going to provide minimalism without some kind of substance.

Do people think their work actually has more meaning when they have less to say about it? Yawn.
 
clayne said:
Seriously? Did you actually learn something from that interview? It was simple a manner of "yes, no, maybe". We shouldn't make excuses for people who are going to just sit back and provide the minimum of information available rather than actually share something substantial. F that.
Click to expand...

What I learned was that Eggleston appears to have a supreme sense of humor and little tolerance for foolish questions. This does not imply that all of the questions were foolish, but many were.

I am not a huge fan of his work- I can take it or leave it, but I do admire the artist.
 
Wonderful sense of humor - also shows in his photos. His photos remind me of Federico Fellini, epsecially the City of Women, which is also very funny in a subtle way. Start analyzing it, and it becomes boring!
 
how can you compare meyerowitz or leiter to eggleston in terms of works produced? eggleston isn't a street photographer. he is without a doubt one of the pioneers of color, however, and his work centers on the boring and everyday.. its not everyone's cup of tea.. it certainly wasn't mine for the longest time, but i grew to appreciate his photos for what they are. he may not be the very first color photographer but i believe he had the biggest impact at the time.

i loved this interview.. he says a lot more than what is written imo. very humorous.

**edit: world's greatest photographer though? that is highly debatable 🙂
 
I don't think the interview is the problem here. Everybody knows Eggleston is an eccentric guy who doesn't like to talk about his work. But the article is just so ridiculously simplistic in the way that it portrays the history of photography and Eggleston's contribution. It's just bad journalism. The epitome of a puff piece.
 
The questions are entertaining because they show the level of adulation he attracts; his talent for self publicity; and a certain wit. As for 'greatest photographer', well, he's not even in my top 10. I suspect that if the author of the piece had known more about photography (or journalism) he might have come to the same conclusion. Another vote for its being "The epitome of a puff piece" as Jamie 123 put it.

Cheers,

R.
 
One point I thought was well-made:

"you must resist seeing through the photograph to the bald image of a recognisable object too quickly, too readily. Instead, begin by looking at the form and the tight framing of the piece, the angle of view, the playing off of colour against shadow – that sort of thing. Otherwise, you will exhaust the imaginative possibilities of Eggleston's work before you even begin."

As for me, I'm one of his fans - he's a great photographer, in my humble opinion.
 
Austerby said:
One point I thought was well-made:

"you must resist seeing through the photograph to the bald image of a recognisable object too quickly, too readily. Instead, begin by looking at the form and the tight framing of the piece, the angle of view, the playing off of colour against shadow – that sort of thing. Otherwise, you will exhaust the imaginative possibilities of Eggleston's work before you even begin."

As for me, I'm one of his fans - he's a great photographer, in my humble opinion.
Click to expand...

I'm actually quite fond of his work, too, and up until now I would have said that one hardly can overstate his significance. I guess this article proved me wrong 🙂

I'm not sure the article's point on viewing the work a certain way is really that necessary. I have found that few people find Eggleston's work hard to appreciate. The nostalgia alone is enough to draw the viewer in and the fact that the ordinary can be rendered beautifully in a photograph has become such a commonplace that it's even corny to say out loud. And then it's also hard to deny that he's just an excellent photographer.
 
Amusing interview, typically curt replies. By now all Eggleston has to do is play the Eggleston part: reticent and a little bit hangover to care. At the same time there's something refreshing in the way he disdains all these questions. Don't expect replies, just go out and do photography and you 'll get your answers. Anyway, Goldin saw they weren't going to get anything out of that sphinx and played along. Soth's question (the quote by Frank) was the meatiest of the lot. Even the sphinx nodded in non-disagreement.



.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Coldkennels
Peter Mitchell at the Photographer's Gallery, London
Replies
1
Views
426
WoodallP
WoodallP
raydm6
William Notman - Visionary Photographer
Replies
10
Views
791
jawarden
J
peterm1
Who is your favorite photographer in history - who has influenced you the most?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
2K
mconnealy
mconnealy
C
Off the Rail Politics
3 4 5
Replies
97
Views
7K
AndyCapp
A
B
Do you think a Nikon 800E is worth $400? As a purchase, I mean.
2
Replies
36
Views
3K
Pioneer
Pioneer
Back
Top Bottom