- Joined
- Jun 21, 2003
- Messages
- 29,832
- Format
- Hybrid
Gosh, we're only on page 6. I kind of feel like I've let everyone down, having conceded so early.the whole " what is art " has been asked many times here ...
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?
Here's a mini tour of some of the National Portrait Gallery's exhibited work.
http://www.npg.org.uk/whatson/eggleston/explore/curators-tour
His images can have a craze and a darkness. A few of them have attached-myths, not unlike D.Lynch productions.
I think you got the right definition as it is an objective one.
For Eggleston's work, I am neutral. This is not my kind of picture but I understand the intent. People are
pissed off because these pictures go against their belief of what is "good" photography: Subject ordinariness,
(lack of apparent) composition, a certain kind of ugliness, etc... So what?
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?
The sandpit on the third hole is a Socratic device.
Eggleston is a surrealist, like Atget. He takes the mundane and pushes it in your face in all its lurid, beautiful banality.
Eggleston is a surrealist, like Atget. He takes the mundane and pushes it in your face in all its lurid, beautiful banality.
Actually I can see the parallel between Eggleston and Atget. Each took photos of what was on the surface just everyday mundane things.
A fine description.
I find his photos beautiful (not ugly).
I find them terribly ugly. They are fascinating but I don't want to look at their ugliness. It offends my eyes. He probably laughs at people like me, takes another drag off his Marlboro, a sip of vodka, and sneaks a look at his bank statement.
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?