William Eggleston - his work is not banal at all

<p>What is banal? Looking over several definitions I come up with: "Drearily commonplace and often predictable; trite".</p>

<p>This is not what I think of when looking at an Eggleston print or book. It does say something about photography that the b-word is used so often on W.E.'s work. A lot of photography (and other media) tend to focus on 1) A spectacular subject (Think Peter Lik) 2) A difficult to access one. Look at PN portfolios or those anywhere else, and you're viewing a lot of exotic locations (think time, expense, experience, and physical labor to get there) or subcultures that demand personal sensitivity, more time, etc to gain access. 3) Pictures of people we share genes with or the usual compulsory targets on the street. Those pictures, which comprise the main of the photography world are for the most part illustrations, and often, if not consistenty drearily commonplace, predictable and agonizingly trite, which is not to say they shouldn't be made or that a lot of people derive enjoyment, learn about the world and themselves by viewing/making them.</p>

<p>Eggleston is an artist using photography, not a photographer. He draws, plays music, designed exclusive and pricey bespoke stereo speakers, and more. </p>

<p>He used to say that he was "...at war with the obvious", but I see the obvious as his domain. The reason the huge majority of photographers do not see it is because it is common to become desensitized and blind to it. Eggleston isn't. </p>

<p>As far as books, I am partial to <em>The Democratic Forest, Eggleston's Guide, Ancient and Modern, Los Alamos, and 2&1/4. </em>For some insight into his thinking, read his introduction to Italian luminist/colorist master (and a very conceptual one, at that) Luigi Ghirri's <em>It's Beautiful Here, Isn't it?</em> I believe W.E. was a photographic child prodigy. Some of his earliest family snaps are extraordinary. Some of my favorite works of his are the C-print portfolios. I have had the opportunity to personally look through two of them, owned by a collector I know. Very different color, exquisitely poetic and Quixotically over-reaching. Look on the W.E. site, some can be partially or entirely looked at there.</p>

<p>One thing to remember when looking at this work is that even though it still seems leading edge, if not revolutionary, it's been around the public realm for thirty-six years. A lot has happened in photography since.</p>

 

<p>Don't know much or keep up with famous photographers, but I get Eggleston's work from what I've seen linked here and through an online search.</p>

<p>He's just reacting to the strange, alien world we live no matter how banal and civilized looking it appears. I actually have seen and lived in the world his images represent. They look like my family's photo album if they were taken by my drunk uncle.</p>

<p>The image links Fred posted look like the places I grew up and the color of my grandmothers Brownie Hawkeye prints would capture sans the image with the sexual positions poster in the background. Funny he focused on the multi-plugged light fixture and not the poster, but that's what makes it even more interesting. There seems to be a weird story behind most of Eggleston's images. I don't think I've even seen any famous artist's paintings illustrate what he captures.</p>

<p>I imagine David Lynch was inpired by his work.</p>

<p>"You can always tell a William Eggleston photograph. It’s the one in color that hits you in the face and leaves you confused and happy, and perhaps convinces you that you don’t understand photography nearly as well as you thought you did.” Straight to the point in a few words. (<a href="http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/artworld/2008/11/17/081117craw_artworld_schjeldahl?currentPage=1">The New Yorker</a>)</p>

I imagine that David Lynch was inspired by lysergic acid diethylamide.

<blockquote>

<p>I imagine that David Lynch was inspired by lysergic acid diethylamide.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And you'ld know the difference from that how?...</p>

Ann,

 

I read the whole New Yorker article. Could you translate it into English for me, please?

 

I know what all the words mean, but I don't think it actually said anything.

 

I'll read it again, maybe I should run it through Babelfish though. This whole thing is like an inside joke, and no one is

willing to let me in on it, it's frustrating.

"And you'ld know the difference from that how?..."

 

While LSD is only on my bucket-list and have never experienced it, I do know what delirium, hallucinations and lucid

dreams are like. I imagine that the experiences are similar, LSD just seems to me more practical and convenient than a

104 fever for creative purposes.

<p>I guess Eggleston really is one of us...</p>

<p>http://www.myspace.com/egglestonwilliam</p>

<p>Richard, one of your images in your gallery...</p>

<p>http://www.photo.net/photo/14703755</p>

<p>seems to indicate you've been a bit inspired by Eggleston as well or maybe just been bitten by some hallucinogenic venomous bug.</p>

<p>Since you've made the connection between hallucinations and lucid dreams to Eggleston's work, I take it you get what he's communicating. ...mmh, life is but a dream or nightmare depending on your POV? Maybe?</p>

<p>Richard, it is possible, though implausible, that thousands of people are perpetuating an impossibly elaborate and costly fraud, engaging in a vast conspiracy regarding Eggleston. Or maybe you just don't/can't get it. It's allowed. In 1976, practically the entire photo establishment save for two critics and a handful of others didn't get it either.</p>

<p>Regarding David Lynch, <em>he</em> credits Transcendental Meditation.</p>

<p>It's even possible for someone to get it and not like it. But to insist, snarkily, that those who do like itneed to somehow convince or prove to those who don't that Eggleston is really worthwhile is just plain ridiculous. No one owes another viewer anything. We each owe whatever photographs we desire a good look and a chance. That's it. If a viewer can't understand what a critic is saying, maybe he should take a course in criticism at the local college . . . or, just stop reading photography criticism.</p>

Tim,

 

I was referring to David Lynch.

 

The Philco TV is just a snapshot at an antique store, and not a very good one. I was thinking of buying it and using it as a

prop for what is actually in my mind for it. That money is going in the D800 piggy bank now.

"Richard, it is possible, though implausible, that thousands of people are perpetuating an impossibly elaborate and costly

fraud, engaging in a vast conspiracy regarding Eggleston."

 

Luis,

That's plausible to me. And not just with Eggleston, there are plenty of famous artists who are good only because people

say they are good. Especially when those first saying that it's good have $$$ to gain from the deal.

 

I really don't get it. Most of his pictures do look just like my Mom's snapshots from the 60's and 70's to me.

 

It's possible that there is a complete mistranslation to digital. I have never seen the pictures personally, and I do know that

can make all the difference.

 

I look at Red Ceiling and I really do see haphazard composition and an electrical fire waiting to happen. It really looks like

a building inspector's or fire marshall's Polaroid snapshot(aside from the dimension ratio).

 

I don't have a problem changing my opinion, and if there is a showing, on this side of the country, of his pictures I will

surely make a reasonable effort to attend and view them personally with my eyes.

<p>In the shots Fred linked to, it sure looks to me like the subject is revealed in the center of the photograph. By placing the subject in the center of the photograph: that is how the viewer is to know what the subject indeed is. I'll have to try that.</p>

<p>It's very telling to hear the perspectives of those who don't like or don't get or wish to mock Eggleston or the rest of us. Telling only about them.</p>

<p>You don't have to try so hard, Richard, and you don't have to get anything. If you are convinced that you "don’t understand photography nearly as well as you thought you did," your are in good company :-)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Telling only about them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yep.</p>

<p>Still:</p>

<p>Quoted by Freeman, who of course has his own taste and bias, Eggleston on wandering around Oxford, MS: "it was one of those occasions where there was no picture there. It seemed like nothing, but of course, there was something for someone out there." Freeman: "He aimed the camera at the ground and began 'taking some pretty good pictures.' Later, over dinner, a friend asked him what he had been doing all day and he replied, 'Well, I've been photographing democratically'."</p>

<p>I just don't know what to say except that there is controversy and Eggleston seems to have a sense of humor about it all.</p>

<p>Luca, if by "banal" one means the ordinary and commonplace, yes, Eggleston took pictures of ordinary, day-to-day things. If by "banal" one means that his work is therefore "trite," then his work is hardly that.</p>

<p>The problem is that "banal" has more than one possible connotation. "Trite" implies a derogatory connotation, but "everyday" or "ordinary" do not necessarily have the same negative connotation.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I look at Red Ceiling and I really do see haphazard composition and an electrical fire waiting to happen. It really looks like a building inspector's or fire marshall's Polaroid snapshot(aside from the dimension ratio).</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The first thing that ran across my mind when I first saw that image (and it is the first I've ever seen of any of Eggleston's work) was...</p>

<p>"What kind of person/people paints and/or lives surrounded by blood red painted walls and ceiling and displays a sexual position diagram poster on their wall? What sort of shady activity are these people involved in?"</p>

<p>To me it suggests a seedy, dark and disturbing nature of the occupants. It's downright creepy in a "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" sort of way. That's the story. The photo got me to wonder about this. But Eggleston toys with the viewer in communicating this through concealment and redirection in his framing and choice in composition.</p>

<p>I'm thinking he felt the same as I did. He could've taken a shot of the entire red room, but that would've been too obvious, so he ends up playing a sort of peek-a-boo with the viewer by focusing attention on the silliest, mundane thing in the room and that being the over taxed light fixture outlet turned into a power strip as if that's the worst thing the viewer should be concerned about which it isn't. The red walls and the sexual position poster which is partly hidden and barely makes in the picture IS WHAT'S TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT. He hides it as a tease.</p>

<p>It's the "Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain" type of concealment through composition. Where are those wires leading to and what and how many other devices in the room are using up the available wall outlets that require turning a regular single bulb fixture into a Christmas tree assembly? </p>

<p>Now look how many words I used to describe what I felt and went through my mind for the first time viewing one Eggleston image. I'ld have to assume that's why he's considered such a really good photographer. Or maybe I'm reading too much into it? Everything I've pointed out is made pretty obvious in the image where all I had to do is look.</p>

<p>The fact you didn't pick up on this in the image and just focused on the light fixture as a fire hazard suggests you either looked at the image with a "my kid could do that" judgmental eye or you just didn't look, REALLY LOOK at the entire image and then questioned it.</p>

<p>I've come across images where I had the same attitude and just didn't get it, but Eggleston is different. He is directing the viewer in a very clever and subtle way using color, subject matter and composition that is quite unsettling and somewhat humorous using the banal and mundane as a sort of slight of hand.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now look how many words I used to describe what I felt and went through my mind for the first time viewing one Eggleston image.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, I am moved by your ability to articulate things about this photo. It proves how utterly wrong is the crowd who claims a photo must just be there to be appreciated, that speechlessness is the only proper response. It's nice to see your feeling and your intelligence and your ability to describe in concrete terms what you see and feel put to such genuine use. Honestly, thanks!</p>

<p><strong>Fred - "</strong>Telling only about them."</p>

<p>True.</p>

<p>Tim, that was a good, open and honest exploration of the image.</p>

<p>Eggleston's worked with film all the way through. He was sent samples of the top models of digital DSLRs by the manufacturers who were hoping he would like and use their products, but he stuck with film. </p>

<p> </p>

<p>Thanks for appreciating my appreciation of that image Fred and Luis. Thought it might've went too long but it's rare I come across an image I can dissect like that.</p>

<p>I'm not even sure if Eggleston intended all that I derived or if he planned the setup. Who knows what he was thinking when he took the shot so long ago. It might've been just a casual random lucky snap that wound up looking like that. Don't know if he's that lucky in the rest of his shots which I've been culling through online.</p>

<p>I'm trying to find other shots of his where he conceals and redirects to tease the viewer. Those I've found so far just offer his seemingly trademark unsettling, creepy ambience within a parallel world kind of vibe which still isn't easy to pull off in a photo.</p>

Thank you, Tim.

 

Cool.

<blockquote>

<p>I'm not even sure if Eggleston intended all that I derived or if he planned the setup.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think most really good artists' intentions are not clear and distinct or even very locatable. The stuff you talk about may very well be there and Eggleston himself might or might not recognize these things. But it's doubtful that he formed direct intentions to do all that. Instead, I think his vision, his experience, his influences, his own creativity allowed that stuff all to get put into the mix. Some of it the viewer, you or I, makes up, hopefully based on what Eggleston has provided us. That stuff is often as valid as whatever the artist or photographer might say about it as well.</p>

<p>Sometimes stuff is there and it's there because of the photographer and his vision, but it wasn't specifically <em>intended</em>. I think it often happens much more loosely than that.</p>

<p>_______________________________________</p>

<p>I think the way to assess the matter of luck is to look through a photographer's body of work, as you are doing. If you start to see a consistency of vision or approach, something that seems to hold the body of work together, you can be pretty sure it wasn't just random luck even if there weren't specific intentions formed about each shot.</p>

<p>[Disclaimer] I don't mean to imply that artists don't, in many cases, have very specific intentions regarding a particular photograph, painting, etc. I think sometimes those intentions are quite directly and consciously formed. But I think other stuff gets into the work as well, based on who the artist is and how he sees the world. I think there can be great control and also great loss of control of these things. And I think there are some core ideas or emotions in a work which can be expressed and taken in many different directions by viewers, even if it is those core things from the artist that initiate the viewer's response and guide it.</p>