Why William Eggleston is...

[pipeclayed]

Let's not forget McCurry as well... even if he came later. He doesn't seem to ascribe to the same self-worshiping Magnum-style mentality though.

Eggleston is a far cry from Magnum. His images are willfully narrative-free (whereas Magnum is all about story-telling and documentary). McCurry, on the other hand, made his name taking documentary-type images... so you seem a bit confused.

 

[Exdsc]

William Eggelston name is a trade mark. Take any "willfully narrative-free" color image and credited with his name, all Eggelston fans will applaud the image. Similarly take one of his less famous pictures and credit it under someone else, the same fans will say that photograph is a soul deadening boring piece of crap.

 

[gns]

William Eggelston name is a trade mark. Take any "willfully narrative-free" color image and credited with his name, all Eggelston fans will applaud the image. Similarly take one of his less famous pictures and credit it under someone else, the same fans will say that photograph is a soul deadening boring piece of crap.

I'm not sure what the point of that is. It could be said of any photographer really. And (assuming it might be true) is it a reflection on the fans or on the work???

 

[jsrockit]

That is why I linked the documentary.

He sat in a room with Szarkowski and a projector with his slides, Szarkowski selected the photos.

I've always hear it told as that he brought a box of drug store prints for him to look at and even purchased some for MOMA.

Way before the MOMA exhibition... from Wikipedia.

"Eggleston's development as a photographer seems to have taken place in relative isolation from other artists. In an interview, John Szarkowski of New York's Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) describes his first, 1969 encounter with the young Eggleston as being "absolutely out of the blue". After reviewing Eggleston's work (which he recalled as a suitcase full of "drugstore" color prints) Szarkowski prevailed upon the Photography Committee of MoMA to buy one of Eggleston's photographs."

 

[Exdsc]

I'm not sure what the point of that is. It could be said of any photographer really. And (assuming it might be true) is it a reflection on the fans or on the work???

On the work.

If something is so ordinary that can be replicated by anyone with some basic skills, its therefore not "extraordinary" let alone art.

 

[jsrockit]

Manet received bad reviews and harsh criticism at the time. Did Manet pave the way for Eggleston to take risks?

I believe all artists make it easier for the artists that come out after them.

If anything, Eggleston paved the way for other photographers to work in the style of Eggleston.

Maybe truer to the point...

 

[Exdsc]

I've always hear it told as that he brought a box of drug store prints for him to look at and even purchased some for MOMA.

Way before the MOMA exhibition... from Wikipedia.

"Eggleston's development as a photographer seems to have taken place in relative isolation from other artists. In an interview, John Szarkowski of New York's Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) describes his first, 1969 encounter with the young Eggleston as being "absolutely out of the blue". After reviewing Eggleston's work (which he recalled as a suitcase full of "drugstore" color prints) Szarkowski prevailed upon the Photography Committee of MoMA to buy one of Eggleston's photographs."

Its hard not to wonder at a time when it was possible for a Museum curator to change the course of photography itself.

Today the Museum of Modern Arts is as relevant as the word modern itself - not relevant at all.

 

[jsrockit]

On the work.

If something is so ordinary that can be replicated by anyone with some basic skills, its therefore not "extraordinary" let alone art.

Wow, really? There have been photographers who have loved his use of light and thought the same thing... that you just show up to where he lives and it'll be a readymade situation. Then those same photographers go to his location and find out that it is very hard to replicate his photos.

I don't mean this in a bad way, but sometimes it takes time to understand someone's work. I've written off plenty of photography 20 years ago that I love today.

Also, why does photography have to be hard?

It reminds me of fans of music who think playing 1,000 notes per second is better than a few well placed notes simple because it is harder to do. It might be harder to play, but it also might not be as good to listen to. Sometimes simplicity works.

 

[jsrockit]

Today the Museum of Modern Arts is as relevant as the word modern itself - not relevant at all.

Relevant or not relevant in what way?

 

[gns]

So we are on the "Anyone could have done that" argument now?
I don't know what to say. Maybe look up and read the final page of Szarkowski's,Looking at Photographs.

 

[jsrockit]

So we are on the "Anyone could have done that" argument now?
I don't know what to say. Maybe look up and read the final page of Szarkowski's,Looking at Photographs.

The Wessel photo? Yes, good point. But detractors will still feel the same way after they read it I bet.

 

[gns]

The Wessel photo? Yes, good point. But detractors will still feel the same way after they read it I bet.

You might be right, but I think it's as good a response as can be stated to that argument.

 

[Exdsc]

Relevant or not relevant in what way?

Relevant in setting trends, creating new themes and standards, or breaking them.

Today no one can say this is art and you all must accept it, something that MOMA did on many occasions. Today If you tell people this is art, their automatic reaction is to prove you otherwise.

This means only one thing, the orthodox established schools of art photography are back in. Salgado's Genesis might be shot with digital but its as classic as it gets when it comes to photography.

 

[anjoca76]

William Eggelston name is a trade mark. Take any "willfully narrative-free" color image and credited with his name, all Eggelston fans will applaud the image. Similarly take one of his less famous pictures and credit it under someone else, the same fans will say that photograph is a soul deadening boring piece of crap.

I say, respectfully, that this is ridiculous.

 

[paulfish4570]

eggleston's red room set me photographically free. i hated it at first, just could not grasp why that photograph should be noteworthy. i looked at it dozens of times. one day, it made sense, and i still do not know why. that was about 39 years ago, and i continue to appreciate his work, if not his snarkiness. i reckon one must appreciate flannery o'connor to "get" eggleston. it's a southern thang ... 🙂

 

[Jamie123]

Also, why does photography have to be hard?

I completely agree. Besides, we appreciate the best singers not because it's hard for them to sing the way they do, but because it's easy.

 

[jsrockit]

You might be right, but I think it's as good a response as can be stated to that argument.

I agree. 😀

 

[benlees]

On the work.

If something is so ordinary that can be replicated by anyone with some basic skills, its therefore not "extraordinary" let alone art.

Duchamp is calling and he wants a game of chess!:angel:

 

[summar]

Thanks for posting. I love Eggleston's photographs -- the portrait of Eudora Welty is wonderful. I generally ignore interviews with artists. What they have to say is contained in their work. Eggleston's cryptic replies remind me of Bob Dylan's in similar situations, perfectly appropriate.

 

[shadowfox]

Failing to see the "why" here...

Those are not some of his best pictures, to me anyways.
Don't know why they chose those to showcase what he had accomplished.

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.

Have you watched a documentary about him?
In it there is an interview with similar questions, it's not that he wants to be mysterious it seems, but he just don't see any point of talking about his photos.

I think the interview is funny.
Instagrams? "I don't know what they are."
😀