Why William Eggleston is...

[jsrockit]

his work however is problematic isn't it?

Only if you aren't a fan... I wouldn;t claim he's the greatest either.

it is presented as avant-garde because of the colour usage despite being forty years too late for that

Who made a body of work of his part of the US, meant to be viewed as art, using color film, who was known at the time (and not discovered later)?

for celebrating the the ordinary which Kodak and half of the US were doing at the time ...

In an art context vs. the vernacular sense. Intent is important.

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.

Universally panned due to it being considered a radical departure from what was shown in galleries and museums at that time. Some of those same critics have changes their tune after the fact I would imagine.

 

[gns]

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.

No, I'm not saying he is the greatest. That is the title of the article that I linked and I simply used it as the title of the thread (for effect maybe).

I do love his pictures, though. The subjects may often be mundane, but the pictures are anything but. They have little or nothing to do with family snapshot photos as you suggest. If you need critical support for them, maybe start with the intro to the guide. Whatever you think of Szarkowski, he was pretty damn good at writing about photographs. But seriously, are you asking for that on RFF? Where have you seen any photographer's work evaluated here? We wring our hands over what cameras so-and-so used, or what they look like when out photographing, but there is no discussion of any photographer's work to speak of.

 

[Drtenma]

Dear Mr Glover:

I'm afraid you are wrong. William Eggleston is not the world's greatest photographer. I am.

Sincerely,

Myself

 

[benlees]

It's interesting that the statement "World's greatest photographer..." has been interpreted as a literal statement. It's a grandiose statement of an op-ed meant to recreate the vitriol that Mr. Eggleston seems to bring out in people- to this day. And yes, marketing and art are as connected as gelatin and light sensitive materials. Suspicions that this maybe true can be used to dismiss anything at all. Or not.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's interesting that the statement "World's greatest photographer..." has been interpreted as a literal statement. It's a grandiose statement of an op-ed meant to recreate the vitriol that Mr. Eggleston seems to bring out in people- to this day. And yes, marketing and art are as connected as gelatin and light sensitive materials. Suspicions that this maybe true can be used to dismiss anything at all. Or not.

Or a feeble attempt to whip up interest in an even feebler article.

Cheers,

R.

 

[jsrockit]

Or a feeble attempt to whip up interest in an even feebler article.

Probably closer to the truth...

 

[Exdsc]

... why does photography have to be hard?

Stanley Kubrick took five years to make some of his movies. He could have done the whole thing in six months like Michael Bay but he took his time.

Slagado took eight years with Gensis and traveled extensively, with his reputation he could have walked out of his Paris apartment and photograph shop windows and garbage bins and so on, people still would have called it "art" but he instead went around the world and a spend almost a decade on a photography project.


People are not stupid, they see a work and know immediately or find out how much effort had gone into it, how much skill and thought, they might be impressed with some novelty due to PR hype and elitist artsy bs but in the end of the day, labor, skill and patience will always win over gimmicky lazy work that got lucky.


If everyone could play sax like Charlie Bird, then Jazz would have been just another fad like disco.

 

[paulfish4570]

no, eggleston is hardly the world's greatest photographer. mercy, miss percy. i do enjoy some of his work, and appreciate it a great deal. it is clear he also is a divisive figure, as we can see from this thread. perhaps that is exactly what he wants ... 🙂

 

[nikonosguy]

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.

i am in memphis, have lived here my whole life, and have conversed with bill -- maybe there's something in the water - maybe it's the drugs, poverty, and the funk... who knows....

i get it, i embrace it, and at the same time, i give the proverbial middle finger to him...

this whole theory can be debated ad nauseum

 

[jawarden]

For those with an interest (and perhaps a subscription if it's required) the New York Times lets you search back issues - it's easy to find the May 28, 1976 article by Hilton Kramer called "William Eggleston, I hate, hate, hate him in so many ways". Hold on, that wasn't it, the actual title was "Art: Focus on Photo Shows". 🙂

It's a dismissive little one-pager that I think shows the controversial position Eggleston enjoyed from the start. Well worth the read.

 

[nikonosguy]

i have been working on a blurb book called "screw you, Bill Eggelston" - lots of memphis shots... lots of rips of his style

 

[benlees]

Or a feeble attempt to whip up interest in an even feebler article.

Cheers,

R.

Well, the article was in the Independent. Millions may simply stumble upon it, so I don't think a cynical interpretation is necessary. A chance to opine while mentioning Sony and Tate seems to be it's only function!:angel:

 

[jsrockit]

Stanley Kubrick took five years to make some of his movies. He could have done the whole thing in six months like Michael Bay but he took his time.

Slagado took eight years with Gensis and traveled extensively, with his reputation he could have walked out of his Paris apartment and photograph shop windows and garbage bins and so on, people still would have called it "art" but he instead went around the world and a spend almost a decade on a photography project.


People are not stupid, they see a work and know immediately or find out how much effort had gone into it, how much skill and thought, they might be impressed with some novelty due to PR hype and elitist artsy bs but in the end of the day, labor, skill and patience will always win over gimmicky lazy work "that got lucky.
"
If everyone could play sax like Charlie Bird, then Jazz would have been just another fad like disco.

So I guess you are insinuating that Eggleston's body of work took no time or effort or vision to make? and it isn't of the same worth because he didn't travel to exotic locations? and it's gimmicky and lazy because he focused on where he lived and photographed in a different style than others?

I guess I'm of the opinion that all works of art can co-exist and bring different elements to the table.

"Lucky" work generally doesn't last for decades... it usually fades within a decade. Again, like you said, people are not stupid. Eggleston's work would have faded already if he pulled the wool over people's eyes in the 70s.

Again, why does photography have to be hard to be considered good? Some of the best photographs of our time where not hard to make... the photographer just was there and got the shot.

Then again, I've never been a snob about hard work. If someone can make something that moves me and they spent 10 seconds on it, then I'm not going to dismiss it as garbage simply because it wasn't hard to make. Art doesn't need to be of epic proportions in order to move someone.

If Michael Bay had to make Transformers in 1968, than it probably would have took him 5 years too.

 

[gdmcclintock]

...
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".

For what it is, it's fantastic! For what it isn't, it's a big, fat nothing!

 

[Chris101]

Stanley Kubrick took five years to make some of his movies. He could have done the whole thing in six months like Michael Bay but he took his time.

...

Yeah, but compare Barry Lyndon to Transformers III ...

By the way, I finally read the linked article. Eggleston is funny! I like him even more now.

 

[nikonosguy]

women, booze, photos... he's a character

 

[furcafe]

So?

Orson Welles shot "Citizen Kane" in 4 months & the movie was released less than a year after production started.

Much of Cartier-Bresson's best work was done in Paris, not in exotic locales.

And your Charlie Parker (I think) analogy is bad, too, because there were, & are, plenty of people who try to play like him, most unsuccessfully, & that doesn't detract from his contribution to jazz.

Even if you're right re: effort = artistic worthiness (an artisitc labor theory of value?), it presumes that Eggleston was "lazy" when he was producing his greatest work, &, per jsrockit's post above, I don't think there's any evidence to support that (he may well be lazy nowadays, but if so, he can afford to be).

Stanley Kubrick took five years to make some of his movies. He could have done the whole thing in six months like Michael Bay but he took his time.

Slagado took eight years with Gensis and traveled extensively, with his reputation he could have walked out of his Paris apartment and photograph shop windows and garbage bins and so on, people still would have called it "art" but he instead went around the world and a spend almost a decade on a photography project.


People are not stupid, they see a work and know immediately or find out how much effort had gone into it, how much skill and thought, they might be impressed with some novelty due to PR hype and elitist artsy bs but in the end of the day, labor, skill and patience will always win over gimmicky lazy work that got lucky.


If everyone could play sax like Charlie Bird, then Jazz would have been just another fad like disco.

 

[nikonosguy]

bill has a string of girlfriends... his wife tolerates... we've discussed this ad nauseum on the forum before

 

[paulfish4570]

the article surely was gushing, the interviews wryly funny, and i much liked the eggleston photos accompanying the article ...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Stanley Kubrick took five years to make some of his movies. He could have done the whole thing in six months like Michael Bay but he took his time.

Slagado took eight years with Gensis and traveled extensively, with his reputation he could have walked out of his Paris apartment and photograph shop windows and garbage bins and so on, people still would have called it "art" but he instead went around the world and a spend almost a decade on a photography project.


People are not stupid, they see a work and know immediately or find out how much effort had gone into it, how much skill and thought, they might be impressed with some novelty due to PR hype and elitist artsy bs but in the end of the day, labor, skill and patience will always win over gimmicky lazy work that got lucky.


If everyone could play sax like Charlie Bird, then Jazz would have been just another fad like disco.

Well, half of them are of below average intelligence...

Cheers,

R.