...
I am always disturbed by the feeling that I am being had. That the movers and shakers of Photography are really all about creating a vocabulary and priesthood to interpret for us the progress and validity of photography, in exchange for which we give power and money back.
...
An eloquent statement. It captures feelings I've had about some forms of painting and "artists".
I like some of Eggleston's work. I do see subtle and not so subtle touches that are appealing. Other images, not so much.
Perhaps a sort of double blind test could be done: randomly take 100 of his photos and mix them in with 100 photos made by children. If the High Priests can select his with a significantly higher than 50% success rate, then they have some credibility.
At first pass I had similar impressions however I have spent some time with them now. I see where they are an insightful style that puts a frame around this environment at the time. I think they speak on several levels, it just takes a bit to get beyond the mechanical photography approach and see into them. At least that's how I see it.
Further, it’s dangerous when everyone starts thinking in the same way—there is no controversy, no friction between peers. Without friction, we all become static and boring. I feel that the collective group of photographers out there aren’t putting their own brush strokes into their work. We aren’t capturing an idea, rather just a moment, thusly it's sometimes hard to stop and search for the idea in someone elses work.
The majority of us are camera operators, obsessed with settings and techniques instead of focusing on concepts and our own unique vision. So what’s the meaning behind your work? Where does your camera end, and your idea begin? Were does Eggleston's camera end and his idea begin?
Indeed, in the true spirit and tradition of academics everywhere lol. I meant to give attribution but my smartphone foo is lacking. And yes it did add to the discussion. I sure hope you feel satisfied with your sleuthing. Try and elevate a discussion and there is always someone to take it back down in the gutter. Do us all a favor and put this thread on ignore will you. Frankly I expected more from you Patrick as I quite enjoy your photography. Taking shots at people I guess is your thing.(Deleted the rest out of respect for the participants in this thread)
But the curious thing is, I never see this anywhere.Some with the fancy sprinkles after their names like to poo poo anyone who doesn't use their language
I am not totally sure if it was composition or just the subject matter?
As much as I like his color palette, I just wish I didn't have to have a graduate degree in art theory to properly appreciate Eggleston's photographs.
But the curious thing is, I never see this anywhere.
Quite the contrary in fact, people who have spent a lifetime sometimes studying and trying to understand art, provide new insights or a different way of thinking about it are constantly denigrated as "ivory tower academics" or have their writing dismissed as "meaningless" or are called "so-called experts".
...
If artists can be bothered to think properly about their artistic practice, then it seems to me fantastically arrogant to assume that superficiality and ignorance is somehow advantageous for the people who are looking at the products of that practice (or reading it or whatevering it).
I think not. There is a difference between liking something and appreciating it.you don't have to have any degree to like or dislike, or to appreciate something.
what you have stated is like suggesting in order to appreciate answell aadsms one really has to have a large format camera,
or to appreciate karsh's portraits, one need to have a background in rembrandt+theatre lighting
i like sushi, and i never spent 6 years mastering the art of making rice ...
It's like someone said, a photograph is like a joke; if you have to explain it, it's probably not very good.
Well, if the image cannot speak for itself, and needs a treatise to explain it, the artist is not a very effective communicator.What an extremely limiting remit for photography!
Well, if the image cannot speak for itself, and needs a treatise to explain it, the artist is not a very effective communicator.
I think not. There is a difference between liking something and appreciating it.
Aside from the color palette, I am not drawn to Eggleston's work and don't see what all the fuss is about. I have read several academic works explaining it, and they sound like rationalizations to me. Perhaps I just don't get the critical theory, and if I were more erudite, all would be clear.
Perhaps this would be a good time to discuss artist's statements. I haven't seen one from Eggleston, and think in the vacuum the academics have supplied them. He's probably pretty happy with them. Most artists' statements I have read, and not only in photography, strike me as pure fantasy. It's like someone said, a photograph is like a joke; if you have to explain it, it's probably not very good. And I'm not completely uninformed; I took half a dozen art history courses in college covering medieval to contemporary, and visit museums and galleries regularly, in addition to having done photography for over 40 years.
Advertising? I thought we were talking about fine art photography. Photojournalism? Do you need a treatise to appreciate HCB's work for example?Advertising — uses typically text + photo Photojournalism the same. Is this 'poor communication'?
I think you are conflating enjoying with appreciating. I agree that one does not need an explanation to enjoy something. Explanation may allow you to appreciate something you don't enjoy. With Eggleston, I'm struggling with the explanation toward appreciation.we are all entitled to our own opinions ..
i don't think one needs to have anything explained to them
in order to enjoy / apprecaite or understand it at a personal level.
Advertising? I thought we were talking about fine art photography. Photojournalism? Do you need a treatise to appreciate HCB's work for example?
You were telling us what 'a photograph' was like.
Even fine art photography exists in galleries and books but never in a vacuum. The words, and graphic design, the world it exists in ... all matters.
Regarding HCB's photojournalism: HCB isn't even a good example to support your notion - nearly all the images are more powerful if you know something of where / who is pictured.
You don't see only with your eyes!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?