Article on William Eggleston - let's discuss

12 A Jutland

D
12 A Jutland

  • 0
  • 0
  • 0
about to extinct

D
about to extinct

  • 3
  • 0
  • 135
Fantasyland!

D
Fantasyland!

  • 9
  • 2
  • 163

Recent Classifieds

Forum statistics

Threads
198,754
Messages
2,780,453
Members
99,698
Latest member
Fedia
Recent bookmarks
2

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
the whole " what is art " has been asked many times here ...

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
(there was a url link here which no longer exists)
 
OP
OP
Eric Rose

Eric Rose

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,842
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
I remember one contentious thread were after much back forth and some heated discourse one of the participants told all those in the thread and APUG in general we could "all eat sh&t and die" upon which he quit the board. Seems emotions can run high :wink:
 

Dali

Member
Joined
Jun 17, 2009
Messages
1,851
Location
Philadelphia
Format
Multi Format
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?

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? Why can't we accept what is around us? Why are we so selective in our photography praxis?
 
Last edited:

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
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.

thank you for this link !
admittedly, when it comes to photographers and their work, i am at the mercy of what others show me. i do not go on my own as often as i should
and seek things out, unless it happens to be a random chance, in other words, even in the threads where
people list the "top 10 contemporary photographers " about 8 out of 10 i have no clue
who they are ... i am familiar with the work of crewdson, and i was weened on films by david lynch, music
by artists on 4AD records ( and their cover art ) so i am a bit myopic not being
that much of a hunter and gatherer type. the images / walkthrough in the gallery really show how he was as
addicted to making photographic images as winograd and others ( maybe you and me too ) are/ have been
and gives more of a global look at his work. to be honest i only knew of his streetscapes and other so called
boring-work ... it made me smile when the lecturer mentioned him trimming down surveillance film and cutting
sprocket holes so he could use it, he ( the presenter ) obviously hasn't been on apug or other websites
( sub club &c ) where people do this sort of thing as often as they butter toast :smile: ...


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 think you hit on part of it dali -
it was posted earlier in this thread, the non-sanitized view of the world, showing the uglyness of what might
be around is .. and sometimes people complain in photography forums about the trend of
photographers to show ugly, not beauty. sure there is a lot of beauty in the world, but
there is a lot of not so beautiful as well ...
for a long time ( painting and ) photography was about archetypes i think. epic battles, portraits of royalty
and rich people portrayed the way they wanted to be remembered
formal in every aspect of it. then in the late 1800s when global hell broke lose and anyone could pretty much
do anything there were no rules anymore. its funny, people often complain about dadaism, but
as someone famous these days might say : it happened way before that, and a lot of people were not happy... believe me ...
painting kind of went off the deep end, and photography became something anyone could do,
whlle still concentrated on universal archetypes, beauty, and maybe epic moments in their own lives,
some showed showed the uglyness of humanity
and the world was no longer encapsulated in a myth. even the civil war photographs of brady were
"arranged", like the crime scenes of weegee. atget showed gypsies and the poor in his documentary images
of
paris as jacob riis showed slums and kids missing fingers working in factories. the difference with some of
eggelston's images is they are color and they, except for the vivid color, are brought out of
the abstract into the everyday. IDK maybe i m just rambling but i see some of his imagery in twin peaks,
and crewdson and american beauty and other " the dark underbelly of every day americana " almost like
the hyper-realness of watching jerry springer and maybe seeing that your neighbor goes to a "vomitorium"
or the recent opra tapes submitted to the us congress. it all has a surrealness to it. I'm not sure how staged eggelston's work was. from the little i have seen
it seems that he was always a fly on the wall, which makes it even more surreal and an every day reality
that people don't really want to deal with. these days reality seems to be a reality show, privacy is gone, everybody
is babbling about their most intimate thoughts and desires on youtube, and Facebook and their blogs, not to
mention when we walk outside we are trapped by stuff that people don't want to see ... forclosed houses,
streetscapes in disrepair, and homeless guy holding a sign that says " homeless vet, sober, will work for food god bless"
on the street corner that really wants to make eye contact with when they are at a stop light ..
 

removed account4

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 21, 2003
Messages
29,832
Format
Hybrid
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?

just heard back from her ...
she said he used dye transfer because it allowed him to use the most vivid colors for his color work.

whew ! i'm glad i was wrong ! :smile:
 

mynewcolour

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
306
Location
Gloucestershire, England
Format
35mm
lol.

I think it was mentioned in By The Way that he did discover dye transfer himself. When buying equipment for a teaching job, and being a bit of a tinkerer it seems he first applyed the dye transfer method as an experiment. The significance of this (if true) is he did this without promting from galleries or curators.

By The Way is not a great documentary, but any exposure to Eggleston's calm demeanor is a pleasure and this is no exception.

Whilst watching, I played a game of Name-Bill's-Camera :

Pentax K mount SLR
Contax T3
Leica M2 (with a Voigtlander lens I think)
A Texas Leica
(from other doc's...)
Mamiya Press
Some screw mount Canon RFs
Contax G

He likes cameras. He's really just like your average apugger ;-)
 
Last edited:

blockend

Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2010
Messages
5,049
Location
northern eng
Format
35mm
Eggleston is a surrealist, like Atget. He takes the mundane and pushes it in your face in all its lurid, beautiful banality.
 

cliveh

Subscriber
Joined
Oct 9, 2010
Messages
7,523
Format
35mm RF
Eggleston is a surrealist, like Atget. He takes the mundane and pushes it in your face in all its lurid, beautiful banality.

I think his work is a million miles away from Atget.
 

Theo Sulphate

Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2014
Messages
6,489
Location
Gig Harbor
Format
Multi Format
Actually I can see the parallel between Eggleston and Atget. Each took photos of what was on the surface just everyday mundane things.


Well, I suppose the same could be said of Stephen Shore and "Uncommon Places", which I absolutely love - especially the American Suburb photo with the ABC Kiddie Shop. There are so many amazing things in that photo and I keep seeing more every time I look at it. If I didn't know better, I would say the whole photo was contrived based on a Richard Estes painting.

His work is brilliant - yet I can see that some would say "what? It's nothing" and I wouldn't be able to explain why I think it's brilliant.
 

pbromaghin

Subscriber
Joined
Sep 30, 2010
Messages
3,806
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Format
Multi Format
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.
 
Last edited:

mynewcolour

Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2016
Messages
306
Location
Gloucestershire, England
Format
35mm
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.

Being a Brit and the subjects being so ..... American ..... I'm sure I see the subjects differently to you. I find much of Parr's work too-close-to-home to be comfortable, some of it I find too quaint.

There is something in W.E's photographs (regardless of subject) that pulls me in.
 
OP
OP
Eric Rose

Eric Rose

Member
Joined
Nov 21, 2002
Messages
6,842
Location
T3A5V4
Format
Multi Format
Last edited:
Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links.
To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here.

PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Ilford ADOX Freestyle Photographic Stearman Press Weldon Color Lab Blue Moon Camera & Machine
Top Bottom