Discuss a William Eggleston photograph

"I would consider this to be a flaw as I stated above: 3 rungs of the fence appear to "grow" out of the top and sides of the woman's head."

Of course, considering Eggleston's statement about the design of the Confederate flag, that is another subtle confirmation. Lines emanating from a central source mimics that design.

The thing about Eggleston, for me, is that you take the picture in one gulp, swallowing it whole.

The notion of 'intuition', vs analysis, depends on this. Intuition is the process of reading a scene in one chunk, rather than bit by bit, analytically.

Intuitively, one proceeds from the general to the specific,
Analytically, one goes from the details to the general.

Partly, this is a matter of personal temperament, how one is wired.
Partly, it is determined by the job at hand.

An all star short stop does not pull out a pencil to determine the calculus of a ground ball. He reacts, based upon the the humidity, density of the grass, the velocity of the pitch, and so on. This is INTUITION.

Eggs' picture doesn't read easily if one tries to add it up. But if it's grokked (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grok), you see it as a musician plays by ear, and it comes alive. (Gestalt is the same thing)

I was troubled by his work when I first encountered his pictures in the '70s. In time, I managed to shed the 'predjudice of analysis' and found that I responded to his pictures emotionally, rather than intellectually. It was a big deal. In the same way my B&W work changed when I began to seek out LIGHT rather than IDEAS or COMPOSITIONS, my color work changed when I sought out COLOR to photograph.

Haas, Kane, Porter were interesting to me at the start. This was the late '60s, early '70s, and there was a still a thrill to get color in an image. Pure white was still hard to do, and brilliant color was a remarkable thing. "If you can't make it good, make it red" was the editor's mantra.

Eggleston blew that all out of the water for me, and I realized that nearly every color image up till then that I liked would have been a good B&W picture. Eggs was the first photographer to make images that depended upon the color. There have been precious few color shooters to manage to actually SHOOT COLOR: commonly, it is simply a black and white picture made on color film. Eggleston is still disturbing, because there have been so few GOOD color photographs, and Eggleston still succeeds.

It's tempting to make an allegory - the woman blends into her landscape, kind of forlorn and tired. Her dress, neatly contained within the glider's cushion, stands out demurely - Eggs lets the colors contrast each other, but she is still framed within her setting. She is in her place, at ease with her cigarette.

Only her head and legs break out of her social frame. A vitality from a mature woman in an exhauseted society ? Who knows.

It'll be nice to let the subconscious work on this for a few days,
to listen to it.

Thanks, Jim

naturephoto1 said:

Michael,

I would consider this to be a flaw as I stated above: 3 rungs of the fence appear to "grow" out of the top and sides of the woman's head.

Rich

Click to expand...

No more of a flaw than the feathers being ruffled on a bird !

We have to GET PAST the camera-club-criticism that gives images demerits for breaking some 'rule'. Academic art was dead by 1830.
Photography HAS to catch up.

Instead, accept what the photographer did.
Assume that he knew what he was doing,
and let the picture work on you.

Judgementalism is a dead end,
for the viewer,
and the photographer.

A pristine composition is fine for something, chaos suitable for another.
But please let the Photographer make that decision.

.

Suzanne Revy said:

I would just add that all that texture, to me, is a foundation for the "fiction", a la Faulkner, one can create around the woman in the photograph. Also, her body language, the cigarette, her glasses and expression. What is the texture of her life? This is a provacative photograph despite it's snapshot banality.

Click to expand...

Point well made. This is why these threads are so addictive - they help me open my vision further. I did wonder about the woman, who is she, what lead to this point, etc., but it was not enough to 'grab me' like some other photos. Now that you have presented a somewhat different view than mine, I can see a bit more possibility that before. Thanks!

- Randy

naturephoto1 said:

Michael,

I would consider this to be a flaw as I stated above: 3 rungs of the fence appear to "grow" out of the top and sides of the woman's head.

Rich

Click to expand...

every photograph is about how things appear to be. Not how they really are.

df cardwell said:

Eggleston blew that all out of the water for me, and I realized that nearly every color image up till then that I liked would have been a good B&W picture. Eggs was the first photographer to make images that depended upon the color. There have been precious few color shooters to manage to actually SHOOT COLOR: commonly, it is simply a black and white picture made on color film. Eggleston is still disturbing, because there have been so few GOOD color photographs, and Eggleston still succeeds.

Click to expand...

Your whole post is spot on df (btw I think almost anyone from Cape Breton Island would "get" eggleston...!) - and the above is precisely what Weston seemed to think about colour photography (and also why he felt he couldn't do it).

imo, despite the initial excitement I too felt about Hass' work, he was actually a far better b&w photographer.

I posted part of this quote recently in one of the other threads but it is, I think, another part of the key to understanding Eggleston, and fits perfectly with this wonderful photograph (along with the truth that he is still one of the few who photographs colour as colour):

"Eggleston's photographs look like they were taken by a Martian who lost the ticket for his flight home and ended up working at a gun shop in a small town near Memphis. On the weekends, he searches for that lost ticket …with a haphazard thoroughness that confounds established methods of investigation. It could be under a bed among a bunch of down-at-heel shoes; or in the Thanksgiving turkey… under the seat of a kid's looming tricycle, in the spiky ears of a mini-mouse cactuses, in a microscopic tangle of grass and weeds - in fact it could be anywhere. In the course of his search he interviews odd people - odd in the Arbus senses - who, though polite, look at him askance. He suspects some of them might once have been in a predicament similar to his own but have since put down roots...."

A few points:

I grew up in the Rockies so any picture I've probably ever seen of mountains with snow on them is ho hum. Maybe the same for people who see pictures of what they consider "every day" stuff.

To me the picture represents a campy, sort of tacky existance but still with a dignity.

The crappy old mattress that looks like it came out of a holiday trailer stuck on an old couch/glider. The horrible dress but still the dignity.

As someone who photographs people, there is always something "growing out of people's heads". It's called the background. It's just that you choose to ignore it in real life, but somehow in a photograph it's "growing out of their head".

Do I like the picture. Yes probably. It doesn't have a snapshot quality to me because a snap shooter would not have been able to compose the perfect "cross" in the picture.

So to me, in 2006 it's kind of campy and interesting.


Michael

I re-read some of the comments of people here again, and one thing that kind of struck me was the need to discuss the "composition elements" of the picture.

I don't know if that is because we are a bunch of "art snob/critics" or what it is but I find it interesting that we do it. I'm wondering why we don't just inhale, experience or envelop ourselves with the picture and "feel" it.

It's sort of like after meeting someone, and after a while someone asks us what you think of them. Your answer is, "well, I kind of like her but her one eye is bigger than the other, her nose is a bit crooked and one or her teeth has yellow on it. Other than that she seems nice"

I guess the other version is: she's a real bitch, but compositionally, she's hot.



Michael

blansky said:

It's sort of like after meeting someone, and after a while someone asks us what you think of them. Your answer is, "well, I kind of like her but her one eye is bigger than the other, her nose is a bit crooked and one or her teeth has yellow on it. Other than that she seems nice"
Michael

Click to expand...

I think we probably all know at least one person who reacts like that don't we...?!

df cardwell said:

No more of a flaw than the feathers being ruffled on a bird !

We have to GET PAST the camera-club-criticism that gives images demerits for breaking some 'rule'. Academic art was dead by 1830.
Photography HAS to catch up.

Instead, accept what the photographer did.
Assume that he knew what he was doing,
and let the picture work on you.

Judgementalism is a dead end,
for the viewer,
and the photographer.

A pristine composition is fine for something, chaos suitable for another.
But please let the Photographer make that decision.

.

Click to expand...

Not to be perjorative, nor to cast aspersions on anyone in particular or in general, but I've always thought there should be signs at gallery entrances that say "Please leave your baggage at the door."

As Don notes in this and an earlier post, it's best to receive art (or an attempt at art) as it is, not as what you want or expect it to be, or as something you would have tried to do. Try to meet it on its own terms. The other artist is not very likely to be trying to do what you do, or in your way. I always felt that if I only accepted like-minded work, I wasn't going to learn a lot. In other words, my preconceptions may not be germane to the work under consideration, and failing to consider it on its own terms might be my loss.

Eggleston is about color, but not about conventional "pretty".

Lee

Jim Chinn said:

...Personally I like Eggleston a lot. To me he is kind of the Harry Callahan of color photography...

Click to expand...

I thought that Harry Callahan was the Harry Callahan of colour photography!

For me, this whole 'quiet magic of the apparently mundane' thing is what photography does so well.

Best,
Helen

Let me confess two things:

First, I tried Blansky's breakfast. I never got to the cornflakes, just slurped up the wine with a spoon. Lots to learn.

Second. Pictures, I usually hate them first time I see 'em. Same with music. All on my own, I'm conservative to a fault, hidebound, and hate anything new.

But given time, I usually begin to assimilate the new picture. Usually, I come to like the ones most i resisted the most.

What has this done to my style ? STYLE ? HA. There is no style. Today, i pretty much just point the camera in the general direction of what's interesting and pull the trigger.

Should everybody be this way. I don't know. Doubt it. I just know that I'm better off when I don't argue with the surprises.

Lunchtime: where's the cornflakes ?

.

Helen B said:

!

For me, this whole 'quiet magic of the apparently mundane' thing is what photography does so well.

Best,
Helen

Click to expand...

After all, we ARE all pretty mundane, aren't we? Isn't that what life is, most of the time?
Which isn't to say 'mundane' is bad....it just - is -
Then, you look again beneath what you think is mundane, and you find the beauty of life...
Hmmm in fact you said it better than me, Helen.
Cate

Stargazer said:

After all, we ARE all pretty mundane, aren't we? Isn't that what life is, most of the time?
Which isn't to say 'mundane' is bad....it just - is -
Then, you look again beneath what you think is mundane, and you find the beauty of life...
Hmmm in fact you said it better than me, Helen.
Cate

Click to expand...

When I look, I see clear as a sunflower.
I'm always walking the roads
Looking right and left,
And sometimes looking behind . . .
And what I see every second
Is something I've never seen before,
And I know how to do this very well . . .
I know how to have the essential astonishment
That a child would have if it could really see
It was being born when it was being born . . .
I feel myself being born in each moment,
In the eternal newness of the world . . .
I believe in the world like I believe in a marigold,
Because I see it. But I don't think about it
Because to think is to not understand . . .
The world wasn't made for us to think about
(To think is to be sick in the eyes)
But for us to see and agree with . . .
I don't have a philosophy: I have senses . . .

The startling reality of things
Is my discovery every single day.
Every thing is what it is,
And it's hard to explain to anyone
how much this delights me
And suffices me....

pessoa

I think what really makes me love this photograph is the tension. Tension between the patterns and colors, tension in the leaning of the trellis, tension in the sofa springs that aren't depressed from this woman's weight... And there is the tension between the nonchalant expression on the woman's face and these wild elements surrounding her.

The photograph excites me, and I could return to it over and over again.

=michelle=

df cardwell said:

We have to GET PAST the camera-club-criticism that gives images demerits for breaking some 'rule'. Academic art was dead by 1830. Photography HAS to catch up.

Instead, accept what the photographer did.
Assume that he knew what he was doing,
and let the picture work on you.

Click to expand...

I was going to quote Lee until I read this by DF which says it quite plainly. Trying to mash everything into a set of "rules" defined by who knows who just doesn't get it.

I see Eggleston depicting something very familiar in his life, in his environment. Something that can't be fit into analytical buckets, but fits into the life and ways he is fond of.

I don't see this as a seminal "great" photograph. But its great in conveying the mood of the life it is depicting. That makes it stand on its own.

blansky said:

A few points:

I grew up in the Rockies so any picture I've probably ever seen of mountains with snow on them is ho hum. Maybe the same for people who see pictures of what they consider "every day" stuff.

To me the picture represents a campy, sort of tacky existance but still with a dignity.

The crappy old mattress that looks like it came out of a holiday trailer stuck on an old couch/glider. The horrible dress but still the dignity.

As someone who photographs people, there is always something "growing out of people's heads". It's called the background. It's just that you choose to ignore it in real life, but somehow in a photograph it's "growing out of their head".

Do I like the picture. Yes probably. It doesn't have a snapshot quality to me because a snap shooter would not have been able to compose the perfect "cross" in the picture.

So to me, in 2006 it's kind of campy and interesting.


Michael

Click to expand...

I like it a lot more after the evening's liquid refreshments. Kind of takes the "campy" edge off it...or am I not permitted to say that? Is that considered a camera club critique?

She must have been a real darling in her day. Notice the cigarette in her hand. All loose women smoked back then. Oh I long for those days...

I agree sometimes you need to just let an image work on you.

One of my favorite stories about art (if anyone can point out this specific example let us know) is about a banker who spent a ton of money on a modern painting in the 50s. I don't remember if it was a Pollock or Rothko or Kline or any of the other AB Exers or action painters. But what he said was to the effect, I have to spend my whole day working with people and numbers and making decisions and when I come home I have this painting on the wall. I can just sit and look at it and the best part of it is it doesn't mean a damn thing!

Donald Miller said:

I like it a lot more after the evening's liquid refreshments. Kind of takes the "campy" edge off it...or am I not permitted to say that? Is that considered a camera club critique?

..... ...

Click to expand...

Works for me !

.

Donald Miller said:

I like it a lot more after the evening's liquid refreshments. Kind of takes the "campy" edge off it...or am I not permitted to say that? Is that considered a camera club critique?

She must have been a real darling in her day. Notice the cigarette in her hand. All loose women smoked back then. Oh I long for those days...

Click to expand...

From my little experience with camera clubs, they would be much more educational and entertaining if the members were stoned on something before the meeting begins.

Why do you think they serve wine at gallery openings.



Michael

"A picture must be painted in such a way that the viewer can understand its meaning. If the people who see a picture cannot grasp its meaning, no matter what a talented artist may have painted it, they cannot say it is a good picture."

shouldn't the same apply to photographs?

tim atherton said:

"A picture must be painted in such a way that the viewer can understand its meaning. If the people who see a picture cannot grasp its meaning, no matter what a talented artist may have painted it, they cannot say it is a good picture."

shouldn't the same apply to photographs?

Click to expand...

I disagree with the quote anyway. Sometimes you can see that something is "good" (whatever that means - do you mean "worthwhile?" - or possibly that the paint's been applied in a competent fashion?) even though you feel you dont quite undertstand it yet. Some paintings, and photographs, reveal more the more you look at them.
Cate

I think Marko got it 100% for me. There's a similar shot in every family's archive which the outsider, if he had to look at it out of politeness, would simply glance at and move on.

pentaxuser