Article on William Eggleston - let's discuss

[mynewcolour]

I was going to remark that I don't think Eggleston and Parr have much in common.

But this is true of them both ...

And more importantly, the man is insanely prolific

Parr is far more conventional I think, he's largely an event photographer (who makes great books).

They are also both (by all accounts) top blokes!

 

[Saganich]

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.

I snipped a bunch of your post for the sake of brevity of my response, but want you to know I enjoyed every word of it. Thank you.

Agreed. I reminds me when scientists use philosophical arguments to prove philosophy is not useful to scientists.

 

[mynewcolour]

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

You make a valuable distinction between merit of work and art world 'success'. That's important.

The politics of the an artist's 'success' is so complex and guarded I'll never really know if they're there through privilege. I don't speculate, though I don't doubt it's a factor.

 

[faberryman]

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

Well, I intended it to be art.

 

[removed account4]

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

if it isn't art what is it ?
if the photographs in question were grand landscapes made with a ULF camera contact printed on silver chloride paper
would they be be "art" ?

where does one draw the line ?

 

[faberryman]

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.

I think it is great that each portrait tells you a story, without someone else having to tell you what that story is. They must be remarkable.

 

[faberryman]

if the photographs in question were grand landscapes made with a ULF camera contact printed on silver chloride paper
would they be be "art"?

No more so than if they were tricycles taken with a point and shoot and printed as dye transfers. I'm process agnostic.

 

[Luckless]

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

As much as you might want to scoff at the idea of it being art, it is still art with or without your approval of it being art.

That said, there is nothing in that to say that it is good art.


I am happy to acknowledge Eggleston's place within art history, and what his work did for colour photography, but all of the photos from them that I've seen so far put me in a "Smile and nod" mode when people try to convince me that they're remotely interesting. I have not sat down to study his entire body of work, but none of what I've seen so far has given me any desire to seek out any more of it.

To put it simply, his style just doesn't work for me. The overall look and feel does nothing that artistically interests me. The subject matter and composition are just. meh. I would much rather spend my time looking at other things, and discussing other artists.

 

[pbromaghin]

In any case most of his well-known work was shot decades ago, that world is largely gone now, isn't it?

Yes, it is gone. but still exists within those of us who lived in it.

 

[removed account4]

i

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?

i tend to think that a lot of people believe the photographs ( paintings, drawings, sculptures, collages, constructions &c ) they make
are "art" something that is created ...
whether you think your 40 + years of photography are "art" is up to you.
and if you have the right "connections" other people will see it and decide they want to exchange
money or other things of value for it.

with regard to eggelston's dye transfer images ..
color "machine prints" / c-41 prints "c-prints" are not "archival"
my guess is he decided to have them printed in a more stable medium,
just like irving penn did with his color /dye transfer prints.
i haven't seen eggelston's work, except through the internet, but i have seen irving penn's
and they are beautiful.

 

[faberryman]

As much as you might want to scoff at the idea of it being art, it is still art with or without your approval of it being art.

That said, there is nothing in that to say that it is good art.

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.

 

[Eric Rose]

All this begs the question, for an image to be considered art, from you the viewers perspective, does it need to evoke a visceral reaction? Anything from a gut punch to happiness and everything inbetween. Or can it just have good composition as an end in itself?

 

[faberryman]

All this begs the question, for an image to be considered art, from you the viewers perspective, does it need to evoke a visceral reaction? Anything from a gut punch to happiness and everything inbetween. Or can it just have good composition as an end in itself?

I suspect that good composition invokes an "in-between" emotional response, either consciously or unconsciously.

 

[faberryman]

with regard to eggelston's dye transfer images ..
color "machine prints" / c-41 prints "c-prints" are not "archival"
my guess is he decided to have them printed in a more stable medium,
just like irving penn did with his color /dye transfer prints.
i haven't seen eggelston's work, except through the internet, but i have seen irving penn's
and they are beautiful.

I haven't read extensively on Eggleston, but my guess would be that he chose dye transfer so he could control color.

 

[mynewcolour]

All this begs the question, for an image to be considered art, from you the viewers perspective, does it need to evoke a visceral reaction? Anything from a gut punch to happiness and everything inbetween. Or can it just have good composition as an end in itself?

The short answer is No and No.

 

[removed account4]

All this begs the question, for an image to be considered art, from you the viewers perspective, does it need to evoke a visceral reaction? Anything from a gut punch to happiness and everything inbetween. Or can it just have good composition as an end in itself?

i don't think there is any criteria of what makes something "art" ...
it just has to be made / expressed

 

[removed account4]

I haven't read extensively on Eggleston, but my guess would be that he chose dye transfer so he could control color.

maybe ... or maybe he just wanted to have his work made using the most expensive and time consuming way to create a color image ...

 

[pdeeh]

All this begs the question, for an image to be considered art, from you the viewers perspective, does it need to evoke a visceral reaction? Anything from a gut punch to happiness and everything inbetween. Or can it just have good composition as an end in itself?

It's interesting to think about that.

Perhaps there's an unspoken assumption when we talk about a photograph as an art-thing that we're considering a single or perhaps portfolio of image(s)?

But plenty of art (often, but not always, conceptual art) uses photographs as part of a bigger piece, perhaps an installation or even a collage.

In those cases I wonder about the extent to which we can consider the photograph itself in isolation as an item that can be called "art".

Hmm.

Well now I've written that the answer seems obvious. Sorry.

 

[dpurdy]

i don't think there is any criteria of what makes something "art" ...
it just has to be made / expressed

+1 for that definition. Also art isn't defined by success, it can be a complete flop and failure, but it is still art.

 

[pdeeh]

maybe ... or maybe he just wanted to have his work made using the most expensive and time consuming way to create a color image ...

See now that's an interesting observation!

For almost all the pictures we see, we have no real idea why the photographer made the choices s/he did about how it was to be presented. Or in fact what they were thinking feeling or meant when they decided to open the shutter when they did.

Of course in some cases, we have the advantage of a title or an accompanying text by the author of the image to guide us.

But mostly we have to take on trust that there was an intent and that what we are seeing (including how it is mounted, the material it's printed on, colour, contrast, tonality and so on) is all chosen to form part of the effect the author wants to show, but we also have to account for the fact that they want their image to look a particular way for themselves.

 

[mynewcolour]

But plenty of art (often, but not always, conceptual art) uses photographs as part of a bigger piece, perhaps an installation or even a collage.

In those cases I wonder about the extent to which we can consider the photograph itself in isolation as an item that can be called "art".

This is absolutely the point I have been (trying) to make since the reference to Tillmans up thread.

It could be seen as a minor point, but it tests all sorts of assumptions. Which is what we want (for rigor).

It's also quite relevant to Eggleston and the critism of his work.

 

[mynewcolour]

maybe ... or maybe he just wanted to have his work made using the most expensive and time consuming way to create a color image ...

Ahah! He or maybe others. Highly likely. It was a unique use of the process at the time, exclusive for sure.

LIKE a snapshot, but not EQUAL.

We are getting somewhere.

 

[FujiLove]

Thanks for posting the article. I really enjoyed it, and this thread even more.

I love Eggleston's work because it's the only photography I've ever discovered that improves with each viewing. At first sight, most of his photos do little for me, aside from causing confusion. The second, third and forth viewings usually result in more confusion. Then they start opening up and it starts to build. After a few months of going back to a photo, they can feel mesmerising, as though there's something just out of sight that you can't quite grasp. It's an odd feeling. A few of them also give me the uneasy feeling there's something sinister behind me in the room, that the people in the photos can see.

I recently viewed a couple of his original prints at the Tate in Liverpool. They were quite spectacular in the flesh.

 

[Eric Rose]

Thanks for posting the article. I really enjoyed it, and this thread even more.

I love Eggleston's work because it's the only photography I've ever discovered that improves with each viewing. At first sight, most of his photos do little for me, aside from causing confusion. The second, third and forth viewings usually result in more confusion. Then they start opening up and it starts to build. After a few months of going back to a photo, they can feel mesmerising, as though there's something just out of sight that you can't quite grasp. It's an odd feeling. A few of them also give me the uneasy feeling there's something sinister behind me in the room, that the people in the photos can see.

I recently viewed a couple of his original prints at the Tate in Liverpool. They were quite spectacular in the flesh.

When I have an image I want to print I first do a quick 8x10 and then sit it on the fireplace mantle. It takes me several weeks of living with the print before it tells me how I should eventually print it. Sometimes it ends up being the way I pre visualized it, but not always.

At first I had little use for Eggleston's work. Couldn't see what all the fuss was about. However the more time I spent with it the more enjoyment I got from it. Not all the images but some really tell a story.

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. Edward's outdoor nudes are a different story they resonated with me immediately (and not in a pervy way ) Maybe I need to spend more time with Kim's photography to really understand it. I may still not like it, but will be able to understand what he is trying accomplish with it.

 

[removed account4]

Ahah! He or maybe others. Highly likely. It was a unique use of the process at the time, exclusive for sure.

LIKE a snapshot, but not EQUAL.

We are getting somewhere.

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.