Article on William Eggleston - let's discuss

[mynewcolour]

No I wasn't.

Those are your exact words. Read your post?

HCB's images are understandable without a treatise.

And I never stated otherwise. You generalised that 'a photograph' must not need an explanation to function. HCB's doesn't need an explanation to function. Most photography works without explanation, however NOT ALL photography functions (as designed) without explanation. Some obvious examples of this; evidence gathering, documentary photography, illustrative. All of these types of photography are now used in modern art.

Your soundbite is Gobbleygook (sic)

 

[MattKing]

The problem with pdeeh's generally excellent point of view, is that ignores one important factor - the quality of the careful criticism/analysis.
The article linked to in this thread is quite good. I've read some criticism/analysis that is just a turgid, esoteric for the purpose of esoteric mess.

All art criticism is about context. And by context, I mean context in relation to the world of art. All the analysis is either about technique or context. Sometimes, that context analysis also deals with the interaction between art and the "real" world - two very disparate examples might be the FSA photographs, and Jeff Wall. The technique part is usually pretty simple to analyze.

Unless you are interested in the question of where the art fits in the art world context, you are not likely to get a lot out of the analysis. That doesn't mean that you won't get a lot out of the art.

 

[Eric Rose]

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.

This hits the nail on the head. I have always said if the art/gallery "gods" don't anoint you as being a "thing" you will never (rarely) become a "somebody" in the art world. Eggleston was "anointed" by John Szarkowski, one of the few who had the power to elevate. As suggested possibly Szarkowski had his own motives for promoting Eggleston. Was Eggleston a pawn in all this? It's begs the question, if he wasn't brought to the front of the class would he have ever attained the acclaim he enjoys today?

Here is an interview of the current curator of photography at MOMA. It's interesting and sheds some light on the decisions Szarkowski made. http://aperture.org/blog/view-judgment-seat-quentin-bajac-conversation-philip-gefter/

 

[lauffray]

I can understand why people get upset over this type of work. The first time I opened an Eggleston book I felt cheated somehow, or waiting for someone to call the joke. What was this guy even trying to say? It looked lazy, boring and quotidian. Worse even, frivolous and superficial. "This guy's a hack ! I don't need to read someone's rationalization to understand this work" I thought, "literally anyone could snap these and call it a day".

One thing I appreciate about Eggleston is that he didn't care that during his day everyone thought colour was garbage and unsuitable for serious art. The second thing he didn't care about were the formal definitions of serious art.

I also like is that he makes the everyday into art, or perhaps he tries to see art in the everyday. And more importantly, the man is insanely prolific, which goes against the idea people generally make about art: the rare, carefully selected collection sitting in a museum. Signage, diners, table tops, fridge, ceilings, light bulbs, cars... the world is full of these things, why can't they be art?

The real merit of his photography is that he truly gets you asking some important questions. If I'm going around with a camera and taking pictures of anything and everything, is this art? Well, why isn't it? So then what is a photograph? Does it need to represent some thing? Does it need to be beautiful? Self-explanatory?
And if this seems like vacuous thinking or too academic, should we all be reproducing the same formal canons? What's really interesting is that people here today are still getting provoked by his work and ideas.

 

[faberryman]

I also like is that he makes the everyday into art...

So you have concluded it is art. Just provoking the question is this art? doesn't make it art. The answer may very well be no.

 

[lauffray]

So you have concluded it is art. Just provoking the question is this art? doesn't make it art. The answer may very well be no.

Everyone has a different definition, it's not art by yours. By getting you to think about it, he could get you to amend your definition of what photography or art is and I think that exercise is definitely important, even if you choose no to change your mind in the end.

 

[faberryman]

Everyone has a different definition, it's not art by yours.

If everyone has a different definition, then there is no defintion.

I did not say it wasn't art, I said I am struggling with the academic explanation for why it should be considered as such.

Are the photographs I take art? Who decides? Me? You? The critics? The academics?

 

[mynewcolour]

If everyone has a different definition, then there is no defintion.

I did not say it wasn't art, I said I am struggling with the academic explanation for why it should be considered as such.

Are the photographs I take art? Who decides? Me? You? The critics? The academics?

This is not a useful debate. To be honest I'd hope we're beyond this?

If you make something with the intent of expression then it's art. If in doubt ..... it's art.

 

[lauffray]

If everyone has a different definition, then there is no defintion.

Why is that? More often than not it's a question of taste and affinity that guides it, all very subjective notions. You've said it yourself, there is no one to decide what is and isn't art

 

[pdeeh]

This is not a useful debate. To be honest

+1

 

[faberryman]

You've said it yourself, there is no one to decide what is and isn't art

You must have me confused with someone else. I never said there is no one to decide what is and isn't art.

 

[faberryman]

If you make something with the intent of expression then it's art. If in doubt ..... it's art.

Well, I guess that settles that. Everyone gets a trophy. Hooray!

 

[pbromaghin]

I look at Eggleston's work and see stories. He started this work when I was a child, so those stories are of a world and a people that I know. However, while he is VERY effective at it, I don't like his stories, and don't like his work. I see him telling us that we suck, where we live sucks, how we live sucks, and telling us our lives are full of ugliness and we are idiots for continuing to live that way.

I don't know much about Art, but yes this is Art, maybe even Great Art. While I don't like, it I'll acknowledge that it's a lot better than it looks.

Edit: left out a couple words.

 

[Patrick Robert James]

Well, I guess that settles that. Everyone gets a trophy. Hooray!

This cracks me up. So true. Modern times.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... I see him telling us that we suck, where we live sucks, how we live sucks, and telling us our lives are full of ugliness and we are idiots for continuing to live that way.
...

Earlier this evening I had just this very dilemma. I was at a cafe and an older couple came in with their three grandkids. The kids were happy, slightly noisy, and restless. The grandmother was a quintessential hag - a crone with wild unkempt white hair; the grandfather a dour image of an old viking - only a helmet with horns was missing from the caricature. Well, for the next 45 minutes all I heard was beratement and orders being barked at the kids, who cheerily ignored it all. I saw no kindness or gentleness in that family. In the end, I wished they'd die in a fiery wreck. During that time I seriously thought about making a photo to document this sad scene, or, had I a video camera, make a mini-movie. In the end, however, I chose not to make a photo because I didn't want an image of that miserable family among my possessions.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

... I have always said if the art/gallery "gods" don't anoint you as being a "thing" you will never (rarely) become a "somebody" in the art world.
...

We've all seen abstract art where the lines, shapes, colors all seem to fit together and somehow please us into liking it although we really don't know what it "is". Even so, we get the impression the artist thought about it (and maybe that's an essential feeling missing from some of Eggleston's photos).

Other abstract art looks like no thought was given to it, as if the brushes were slashed across the canvas in contempt and globs of paint were hurled at it. That type of work makes me wonder if I or anyone else could've simply done just that and then sneakily substitute our abomination for the artist's oeuvre and receive acclaim from the High Priests unaware of its true origin.

 

[cowanw]

This hits the nail on the head. I have always said if the art/gallery "gods" don't anoint you as being a "thing" you will never (rarely) become a "somebody" in the art world. Eggleston was "anointed" by John Szarkowski, one of the few who had the power to elevate. As suggested possibly Szarkowski had his own motives for promoting Eggleston. Was Eggleston a pawn in all this? It's begs the question, if he wasn't brought to the front of the class would he have ever attained the acclaim he enjoys today?

This is something I think about often. In all of the fields of endeavor that I have been involved in in my life, I have seen many individuals who do the very best work and never receive nay recognition at all. On the other hand it is not uncommon for the individual that does receive recognition to be excellent in the field or not, but to be advantaged for other reasons, politics, who you aline yourself with, aggressive skills or whatever.
It is mentioned above about a body of work. frankly most of the well known monographs and books carry the same 20-50 images repeatedly. Karsh's books are extremely repetitive and his family and commercial work could be very average.
I have a book of Steichen which ends with a series of Shadblow tree images. they are photographs and they comment on mortality, growth, place in the world, otherwise unseen environment, what ever metaphor you like, AND they are by Steichen!
They do not stir me nor do I think they are really worthy of publication, particularly in the knowledge that there are thousands of great photographers never anointed who should be published.
As a side note I feel that your post "Some with the fancy sprinkles after their names like to poo poo anyone who doesn't use their language. It's a tribal thing."
And Pdeeh's response in post 35 have effectively set up a straw man with a colleague knocking him down. I questioned the motivational structure of the Art world but prior to there was no talk of "constantly denigrated as "ivory tower academics" or have their writing dismissed as "meaningless" or are called "so-called experts""
PS I have a lot of fancy sprinkles
Regarding physicists and chemists, the language is primarily directed at each other and is for the purpose of clarity. We have Bill Nye the science guy to explain it to us. There is no reason not to theorize about photography, but clarity is essential, if one really wishes to communicate. and no, you don't have to dumb it down, but neither to you make it incomprehensible to your audience.
Enough poster have written to convince me that Eggleston is an important photographer, but I remain unsure that the world of Art has developed a clarity in its discussions, top down or bottom up

 

[cliveh]

Is he not just an American version of Martin Parr?

 

[removed account4]

I see him telling us that we suck, where we live sucks, how we live sucks, and telling us our lives are full of ugliness and we are idiots for continuing to live that way.

that's a similar feeling i get when i look at walker evans or robert frank's work
the only difference is eggleston's work is in color, less reportage, and off-beat.
and it looks like it was photographed by some random person wearing horn rimmed glasses
with a 126 instamatic.

 

[cowanw]

I look at Eggleston's work and see stories. He started this work when I was a child, so those stories are of a world and a people that I know. However, while he is VERY effective at it, I don't like his stories, and don't like his work. I see him telling us that we suck, where we live sucks, how we live sucks, and telling us our lives are full of ugliness and we are idiots for continuing to live that way.

I don't know much about Art, but yes this is Art, maybe even Great Art. While I don't like, it I'll acknowledge that it's a lot better than it looks.

Edit: left out a couple words.

That is interesting as well. I shall look for stories there. I like that idea because I am working on a book of historical portraits of 1840 on and each portrait tells me a story, so I can relate to your comments.

 

[lauffray]

I see him telling us that we suck, where we live sucks, how we live sucks, and telling us our lives are full of ugliness and we are idiots for continuing to live that way.

I don't get that at all from his work. If anything I get that feeling from Parr's work, since someone mentioned him, this almost mocking critique. But in Eggleston's work? I find no contempt. In any case most of his well-known work was shot decades ago, that world is largely gone now, isn't it?

 

[cowanw]

We've all seen abstract art where the lines, shapes, colors all seem to fit together and somehow please us into liking it although we really don't know what it "is". Even so, we get the impression the artist thought about it (and maybe that's an essential feeling missing from some of Eggleston's photos).

This thought strikes me as well. Again with the book of historical portraits, I can only look at these from my knowledge of the past and in relation to my experience training and imagination. Whatever those photographers and sitters thought of, I can only relate to if the cultural structure of their consciousness is similar to my own.
I can only "get the impression the artist thought about it" if we are in the same ballpark of comprehension.

 

[mynewcolour]

Well, I guess that settles that. Everyone gets a trophy. Hooray!

Ok, you're resorting to sarcasm. I think you're probably done?

 

[Saganich]

The reality is that extraordinarily few of us have seen more that a few hundred of these finest-of-the-fine prints, and that the very largest number of us have been exposed to the photography of "the greats" by reproductions - often pretty indifferent ones - in books and magazines.

Amen. When I moved to NYC from Buffalo my work was next door to Sothebys Art Auction House and I would have lunch there on viewing days before auctions where they would allow people to inspect the materials. The masters would be hanging in the gallery but often with I would ask to see the pieces by the lesser-masters that weren't hanging in the gallery. So with white gloved hands I would leisurely handle original prints. The take home from that experience was that, yes these are the works of art they are supposed to be. None of this has changed BTW only the process used to get to that level.

 

[pdeeh]

And Pdeeh's response in post 35 have effectively set up a straw man with a colleague knocking him down. I questioned the motivational structure of the Art world but prior to there was no talk of "constantly denigrated as "ivory tower academics" or have their writing dismissed as "meaningless" or are called "so-called experts

It is a constant feature of these types of thread that exactly the sort of things I refer to appear.
My comments were not directed towards you nor specific to this thread, save that exactly the sort of anti-intellectualism has appeared in it that was predicted.
All specialist discourse can be
Complicated and incomprehensible to those who don't know the " language".

To demand that discourse about art must be specially simple requires either an assumption (probably of the "it just should" kind) or a proper argument to support it.

Arts discourse is not homogeneous. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in discussing art in plain language that refers only to content, style and the viewers' responses.

But it can be enriching and illuminating to have to learn the ins and outs of structuralism (or semiotics or Marxism or psychoanalytic theory or whatever) in order to read and understand a different theory of art or mode of criticism.

In every other strand of life I hear people complaining about "dumbing down", but it's only at apug I seem to read a demand for nothing else