I find it fascinating to see video footage of photographers at work, and Eggleston is such an interesting character anyway, so it's worth a look. In some cases the camera is held up to his eye for a second or less, indicating to me that he's doing a good deal of analysis before he raises it.there is a movie about him on Netflix that looks pretty interesting. maybe I'll watch it tonight
I usually get a subject in one shot, however some subjects require multiple compositions. On rare occasion a mistake occurred or the right moment was missed. Therefore I take as many photographs as necessary and usually that is one.
I find it fascinating to see video footage of photographers at work, and Eggleston is such an interesting character anyway, so it's worth a look. In some cases the camera is held up to his eye for a second or less, indicating to me that he's doing a good deal of analysis before he raises it.
Sterile. The framing is boring too - generic-looking really, with the mat margins all identical in the first case, none at all in the second, just DIY-looking cheap flush mounting. Surprised the walls aren't Government Green, ala 50's. I suspect a lot of the art scene is running on fumes; needs some fresh air instead. And predictably, on that link, inkjet prints deceptively mis-advertised as "pigment prints".
I've never heard of McCracken before, but think I have a cat buried in one of his shoebox sculptures in the back yard, along with some catnip. At least those sculptures have utility, even though they aren't worth looking at. It's all been done before. Time to move on, to the next repeat prank.
If you consider minimalism to be a hoax, then yes it is a hoax, for you, along with Dan Flavin, Donald Judd, James Turrell, etc etc. McCracken's work is in the permanent collections of museums that matter, and has been since the 1960s, but it isn't for everyone.+1. The McCracken stuff has got to be a hoax.
when I first picked up a camera and took photography classes, I was only taking 1 photo of whatever it was I took a photograph of, and the teacher said if it was interesting enough for 1 photo maybe it would be interesting enough for more. I guess something only need 1 image to remind you of why you took the photograph but IDK I kind of agree with the teacher, sometimes more photographs could be helpful it won't ever be the same but it will rhyme .I have sympathy for the "take just one shot" habit. It shouldn't be a dogma: if I have one dogma in life, it's not to be dogmatic...
Eggleston is currently paired with John McCracken at the Zwirner gallery. The larger Eggleston prints make more sense when paired this way, so I guess we need to buy a sculpture to go with the print.
;-)
https://www.davidzwirner.com/exhibitions/2021/john-mccracken-and-william-eggleston-true-stories
+1. The McCracken stuff has got to be a hoax.
I doubt that William Eggleston's fame is related to his photographic technique; more best man at the right time.
Eggleston was heavily praised by John Szarkowski the Director of Photography at MoMA and granted a major exhibition in that institution in 1976. Szarkowski was looking to break away from the style of his predecessor Edward Steichen and decided exhibiting color photography would make a dramatic break from the dominance of black and white.
What Szarkowski was looking for was a big collection of really high grade color pictures from one individual. The multi-millionaire William Eggleston had been producing hundreds such of pictures for years for personal creative enjoyment; just what Szarkowski needed.
And it was a huge advantage that the pictures were by an American photographer, of American subject matter, that could be presented both to a high-brow and low-brow American audience.
A lot of folks feel that way about Eggleston too. The pairing makes sense to me. Art is fun.I have solid appreciation for the other "minimalists" mentioned, but McC doesn't make it. Let's just say he's too minimal.
For those interested here are how big his 35mm slides were being printed back in 2018. I can't remember the gallery but it was in NYC. There were also smaller dye transfers on display.
One photograph per scene pushes one to look at all the possibilities before choosing the best composition. One has to learn to not just take of photograph of what they first see, but to look around and walk around before committing to the one photograph. It is a good discipline to develop and perfect. Once learned one can use it whenever one chooses, similar to one lens, one camera, one film and one developer when one starts out learning about photography.
I usually get a subject in one shot, however some subjects require multiple compositions. On rare occasion a mistake occurred or the right moment was missed. Therefore I take as many photographs as necessary and usually that is one.
Many interesting insights/thoughts in this thread: THANKS.
I ordinarily work along Sirius Glass's lines (above) .
However, I'm increasingly shooting small personal photo projects and no longer aspire to just "one" image.
For example, I buy fresh corn-on-cob from a humble, entertaining man who sells it from his truck. First shots resulted in one print that made him happy, but he deserved better. So I went back and made a half dozen shots, several of which I'll print after coffee this morning. When I see him again I'll give him letter-size prints and perhaps shoot him again...which may depend on his reaction to HDR/comic-strip-like prints (in-camera HDR).
The first print made us friends...my corn is now free.
Not that anybody cares, but I think grab-shots waste opportunities.
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?