Article on William Eggleston - let's discuss

Theo Sulphate · Feb 15, 2017

pdeeh said:
... 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"
...

pdeeh said:
...
Even more incomprehensibly, there seems to be some assumption that artists go about their business in some sort of mystical way, that they do their work as a result of some sort of upwelling of transcendent wooziness; whereas the most cursory reading on the history of art reveals movement after movement of artists who write manifestos, books, pamphlets, create extraordinary theories about art...

Thank you for writing that; perhaps it is the one post in this thread that's made me think about how people not only react to art, but react to what others deem worthy in art.

Yes, there is a reverse-snobbery or anti-intellectualism that exists. Part of it is because it's easy for anyone to criticize something. I think it's also partly due to social politics and influential connections that enable some people to become highly regarded while others with equal or superior talent are invisible.

Eggleston's work provokes these attitudes I think. Although I like and see value in some of his photos, I see nothing in his other photos. That's fine - I'm not calling him a charlatan. Apparently even knowledgeable and respected people in the art world have opposing views on his work.

pdeeh said:
...
All the professional artists I know (and I know painters, performance artists, sonic artists, musicians, dancers) have a very clear set of ideas and understandings that they are expressing
...

We are in complete agreement here. I know many accomplished, performing, musicians including one who has performed on tour with groups anyone here would recognize. As a mere beginner and amateur, I understand little of the concepts they talk about - but what they do talk about is real and certainly not a vague wooziness, because I can experience and appreciate the results.

faberryman · Feb 15, 2017

Eric Rose said:
I have a problem "getting" Kim Weston's outdoor nudes. To me they just seem like it's just a good excuse to get a gal naked, but lets call it art because it's outdoors. Obviously I am missing something.

I don't think you should necessarily assume you are missing something.

Theo Sulphate · Feb 15, 2017

Eric Rose said:
... they just seem like it's just a good excuse to get a gal naked ...

That in itself is an art...

mynewcolour · Feb 15, 2017

jnanian said:
art is sometimes considered a luxory item, maybe large and lavishly created ( expensive ) -> luxury,
just like many super wealthy people have solid gold toilets ... after all its just money.

I'm less cynical. Adopting that lavish production changes how the picture is seen: taking nearly-ordinary scenes and making them hyper-real. That's a good reason. It's a barrier to imitators also.

I've noticed he did use a mix of lenses (perhaps more so than other known photographers?). He's using (ultra?) wides even in his very early stuff. Might this have seemed quite new, quite cinematic in the 60s?

Luckless · Feb 15, 2017

faberryman said:
That's fine if you believe the determining factor is intent, but that approach just shifts the discussion and controversy to the assignment of adjectives, so we are not much further along in our understanding.

From the Oxford Dictionary: "Art - The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Not really sure why that is an overly debatable point.
- Is it something that a human describes as their expression of their creativity and imagination? - Congrats, you've found some art.

You can debate whether or not it is good art, whether it has value or deserves any means of funding, and whether there are legal issues with its creation or display, but there isn't a lot of room to seriously counter the claim of an artist as to whether or not their creation is art.

Eric Rose · Feb 15, 2017

Theo Sulphate said:
Eggleston's work provokes these attitudes I think. Although I like and see value in some of his photos, I see nothing in his other photos. That's fine - I'm not calling him a charlatan. Apparently even knowledgeable and respected people in the art world have opposing views on his work.

I could be wrong, I'm sure if I am someone will point it out, but in AA's case it seems most of what he is famous for was created in a 6 to 8 year period. Appears all the other years produced nothing of lasting value as far as the art world is concerned. He struck a cord that resonated with a well heeled segment of the American population that was just able to explore these up until that era exotic locals. Through his printing and writing he was able to sustain that cord for quite some time and make a career out of it.

faberryman · Feb 16, 2017

Luckless said:
From the Oxford Dictionary: "Art - The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

Not really sure why that is an overly debatable point.
- Is it something that a human describes as their expression of their creativity and imagination? - Congrats, you've found some art.

You can debate whether or not it is good art, whether it has value or deserves any means of funding, and whether there are legal issues with its creation or display, but there isn't a lot of room to seriously counter the claim of an artist as to whether or not their creation is art.

Well, if art is anything intended to be art, why don't we, at least with respect to photography, drop the term altogether since it carries so much baggage, and simply refer to the photograph as an image. Then we can discuss whether the image (or portfolio, collection, oeuvre) is good, bad, indifferent, important, banal, or any of a thousand other qualifiers. If we had done so in this thread, we could have avoided a three page diversion which didn't get us any closer to an assessment of William Eggleston's photographs.

Luckless · Feb 16, 2017

Why would we not drop the term art in photography? Maybe because not all photography is art?

I've helped a friend create several million images of crystal structures over the years to aid in their chemistry research. I wouldn't consider the vast majority of them as art. However there were a handful, a few dozen images over the years, that we've pulled out of the database because for one reason or another someone stopped and said "That's neat", or "That's pretty", or "That one's interesting", and in one case it was "I wonder if we can find a series with these specific properties...", and we've pulled them out, cleaned them up a bit, and made prints of them.

The system contains millions of photographs, but only a handful that any of us involved would consider as art. Someone could probably step up and turn the entire scientific collection into some manner of art, but I think you would have to be pretty bored in life to manually wade through the entire thing. (We let computers do that and spit data back at us. Computers usually don't complain about spending lots of time doing very boring things like that after all.)

faberryman · Feb 16, 2017

Luckless said:
Why would we not drop the term art in photography? Maybe because not all photography is art?

I only meant for purposes of our discussions here, not the world at large.

Luckless said:
I've helped a friend create several million images of crystal structures over the years to aid in their chemistry research. I wouldn't consider the vast majority of them as art. However there were a handful, a few dozen images over the years, that we've pulled out of the database because for one reason or another someone stopped and said "That's neat", or "That's pretty", or "That one's interesting", and in one case it was "I wonder if we can find a series with these specific properties...", and we've pulled them out, cleaned them up a bit, and made prints of them.

Now I am confused. If art is determined by intent, how could those few out of millions which were neat, pretty, interesting be considered art, if it was not your intention that they be art in the first place. Did they become art after the fact because they were deemed neat, pretty, interesting by you (or the computer).

Say it has been a decade since you last painted your house and it is starting to peel. Maintenance time, never fun but necessary. So you scrape it and repaint it. Afterwards you say, I really like the way that turned out. It looks pretty. I think I'll call it art. So it's art. Contrast that with the homeowner who at the outset of the project said to himself that the existing color is boring. This time I will make an artistic statement.

removed account4 · Feb 16, 2017

faberryman said:
Well, if art is anything intended to be art, why don't we, at least with respect to photography, drop the term altogether since it carries so much baggage, and simply refer to the photograph as an image. Then we can discuss whether the image (or portfolio, collection, oeuvre) is good, bad, indifferent, important, banal, or any of a thousand other qualifiers. If we had done so in this thread, we could have avoided a three page diversion which didn't get us any closer to an assessment of William Eggleston's photographs.

do you mean calling eggerston's work art, not photography ?

sorry for my confusion

faberryman · Feb 16, 2017

jnanian said:
do you mean calling eggerston's work art, not photography ?

sorry for my confusion

No, I mean, for the purposes of our discussion, call Eggleston's work "images". It's a nice neutral term. Leave the term art out of the discussion. It carries too much baggage, Not saying it's not art, but calling it such doesn't move the conversation along very much.

MattKing · Feb 16, 2017

faberryman said:
Now I am confused. If art is determined by intent, how could those few out of millions which were neat, pretty, interesting be considered art, if it was not your intention that they be art in the first place. Did they become art after the fact because they were deemed neat, pretty, interesting by you (or the computer).

They don't become art until they are re-purposed as art. The relevant intention is the intention at the time they are re-purposed.
Just as a collection of records can become art through curatorship. The art is in the choices at the time of editing.

faberryman · Feb 16, 2017

MattKing said:
They don't become art until they are re-purposed as art. The relevant intention is the intention at the time they are re-purposed.
Just as a collection of records can become art through curatorship. The art is in the choices at the time of editing.

So the homeowner who painted his house, thought it looked pretty after he got through, and called it art, created art. So now, anything you call art is art. Seems like a pretty good reason to ignore the label and just call photographs images for purposes of evaluation.

MattKing · Feb 16, 2017

faberryman said:
So the homeowner who painted his house, thought it looked pretty after he got through, and called it art, created art. So now, anything you call art is art. Seems like a pretty good reason to ignore the label and just call photographs images for purposes of evaluation.

You can evaluate a photograph in a lot of different ways. But if your interest in the photograph is as a piece of art, you need to address your mind to artistic criteria.
And as for house painting, are the choices made in this relatively famous San Francisco scene art? Could be:

removed account4 · Feb 16, 2017

there was a local guy whose house was in a historic district and he wanted to paint his house some sort of color
but the local commission told him it had to be a color scheme / victorian colors so he painted his house like a "painted lady"
bright purple and pink and yellow, like it would have been painted 120 years earlier. it was a real work of art ...

yes, you can call anything art, even found objects.
i'm not really sure what the problem is calling eggelston's photographs art.
they are bought by art collectors, sold by art galleries, and found in art museums .. isn't it pretty much decided
by the people that buy, sell, collect and display that they are art? why not call them what they are?

warden · Feb 16, 2017

This thread seems to have derailed but for those still interested, there is a short illustrated article in Aperture (January 2008) by Gregory Crewdson called "In a Lonely Place" where he discusses the most important artists that have shaped his aesthetic sensibility. I think it's worth a look. He discusses Eggleston, Edward Hopper, Cindy Sherman, Alfred Hitchcock, David Lynch, etc. It's available online through the Aperture archive if you subscribe to that.

"My own work comes back again and again to the American Dream and it's darker inverse. Without the work of such artists, our understanding of the complexities of American life, and its angels and demons, would be far less interesting. And my own vision would, without question, have taken another shape entirely."

mynewcolour · Feb 16, 2017

^ Very interesting. Thank you.

faberryman · Feb 16, 2017

MattKing said:
You can evaluate a photograph in a lot of different ways. But if your interest in the photograph is as a piece of art, you need to address your mind to artistic criteria.

I am. It seems that there is some disagreement as to what the "artistic criteria" are?

It is unfortunate, but the "Painted Ladies" are no longer painted in bright colors. I saw them a couple of weeks ago and they were quite ordinary looking, bland in fact.

I concede that Eggleston's photographs are art for a variety of reasons. But as we have seen from the definitions and criteria suggested, that ain't saying much.

mynewcolour · Feb 16, 2017

faberryman said:
If art is determined by intent

It's not.

Nobody here actually declared that the definition. If you read carefully it's mentioned because it is a likely way in one (and usually the first) person appreciates it primarily for it's beauty / emotional power. It is not the only way.

This is a sideline to the discussion of Eggleston so perhaps it should end?

faberryman · Feb 16, 2017

mynewcolor said:
This is a sideline to the discussion of Eggleston so perhaps it should end?

You certainly are not required to participate in the discussion.

mynewcolour · Feb 16, 2017

faberryman said:
You certainly are not required to participate in the discussion.

No fella, I'm not. I'm just trying to help you out of the intellectual sandpit by the 3rd hole in which you're sitting.

... for the sake of an interesting thread.

removed account4 · Feb 16, 2017

mynewcolour said:
I'm less cynical. Adopting that lavish production changes how the picture is seen: taking nearly-ordinary scenes and making them hyper-real. That's a good reason. It's a barrier to imitators also.

I've noticed he did use a mix of lenses (perhaps more so than other known photographers?). He's using (ultra?) wides even in his very early stuff. Might this have seemed quite new, quite cinematic in the 60s?

i think your suggestions makea lot of sense too.
i've written a note to someone who might be able to give some more insights
when i hear back i'll post a snippit here ...

john

mynewcolour · Feb 16, 2017

jnanian said:
i think your suggestions makea lot of sense too.
i've written a note to someone who might be able to give some more insights
when i hear back i'll post a snippit here ...

john

That'd be great.

Regarding the dye-transfer technique:
It is so lavish, the prints so large, vivid and fantastic, that the act of taking a near 'snapshot' and elevating in that way is quite provocative. It has echoes of Dada almost.

faberryman · Feb 16, 2017

The sandpit on the third hole is a Socratic device. I'm just asking questions to drill down on everyone's understanding (which appears to vary widely) so we were using a common vocabulary. As I posted above, I concede that Eggleston's photographs are art for a variety of reasons. But as we have seen from the definitions and criteria suggested, that ain't saying much.

Eric Rose · Feb 16, 2017

I feel that trying to scribe a definitive definition of art or what makes art is near impossible. What you can have possibly is a collection of very broad criteria. The problem is you are dealing with people's perspectives which from generation to generation will on a whole change in the broad sense.

I suppose what was considered art in the past could actually lose that designation, or should, but of course won't.

Eggleston's images struck a chord when they were shown. Not like the napalm girl image which struck a very different chord. Both genres follow certain general rules but can they both be considered art?

Article on William Eggleston - let's discuss

Theo Sulphate

faberryman

Theo Sulphate

mynewcolour

Luckless

Eric Rose

faberryman

Luckless

faberryman

removed account4

faberryman

MattKing

Moderator

faberryman

MattKing

Moderator

removed account4

warden

mynewcolour

faberryman

mynewcolour

faberryman

mynewcolour

removed account4

mynewcolour

faberryman

Eric Rose

Article on William Eggleston - let's discuss

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency