Jump to content

What type of photography does William Eggleston do?


Recommended Posts

"there are times when being the artist will give some priority to what the artist says, more often about his process than about his own art. But there are times when I’ll give more weight to what a critic has to say if I think he’s bringing in art historical knowledge and significant aesthetic concepts that are relevant to the things he’s saying"

 

Really.

 

An Artist knows their work, because it is their work.. Or, to put it in a simple way, they created it. Yes, a critic, can put a floral display around the Art, but they are a outsider, not the creator, of that Art.

 

Their Art is creating the flower display, which in a sense is an Art. However, the Art is not theirs, only the Artist understand their Art and what they are communicating with it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Then they would need their Art to be explained to them, as obviously they do not understand their own Art.

Uh, no. What’s false is what you said: “only the artist understands their art”

 

What you’re, falsely, saying is that no one else does. Lots of people understand an artist’s art. Some understand it similarly to the way the artist does. Some differently. The artist doesn’t get to dictate how everyone understands the art. Most artists know to let their art live outside the confines of their own understanding, unless they’re really, really myopic and self-centered.

 

Many an open-minded artist has had things explained to them about their art they hadn’t thought of. Only an egocentric fop thinks they’re the only one who understands what they created.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"We don’t see things as they are, we see them as we are.” – Angela Anaïs Juana Antolina Rosa Edelmira Nin y Culmell

In reference to the Talmud

 

In saying that he was photographing democratically perhaps Eggleston was de‧cat‧e‧go‧ris‧ing his work from the labels of others... street, document, snapshot. In doing so he was reacting and photographing with his unique voice. Not making statements just responding to composition, color, shapes, light...

 

Nakahira and other provoke photographers were not as focused on the object as subject but photography itself the subject and motivation. So classification becomes irrelevant to the creator. They or others created their own names - post war, bure.boke, provoke...

“This is it! That is it! These photographs I make public here are from my conclusion about photography for the moment!” TN

Edited by inoneeye
  • Like 1

n e y e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In saying that he was photographing democratically perhaps Eggleston was de‧cat‧e‧go‧ris‧ing his work from the labels of others... street, document, snapshot. In doing so he was reacting and photographing with his unique voice. Not making statements just responding to composition, color, shapes, light...

I appreciate the references and this way of thinking about Eggleston and classification or categorization.

 

It leads me to consider that what an artist does or thinks needn't be copied by curators, theorists, critics, or academics, so the latter might be predisposed to use categorization as a mechanism of understanding, insight, and entrance into a world previously unknown. The irony of reading about art is often how disparate the idea of explanations and descriptions can be with the more gut level experiences of art itself, but once that disparity is recognized and put into its place, the explanations and descriptions can sometimes still form nice, if sometimes uneasy, relationships with the art.

 

I'm also thinking about Neo-categorizations, such as Neo-classicism. And even other less identified but still intentional hearkenings back to the past. It's possible that some early classifications, which identified themes, styles, and tropes of a given time or school of art have been helpful to later artists who wanted to build on or have a dialogue with their artist ancestors. Even if the classification itself wasn't the key, those themes which the classifiers recognized as significant to the period can and have had a great impact on many artists who seek to recreate, not in the sense of mimicry or necessarily even homage, but in the sense of building on and taking up an old set of operations with a new set of eyes and decades or centuries of intellectual and artistic progress to put into the endeavor.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"... to use categorization as a mechanism of understanding, insight, and entrance into a world previously unknown"

For sure.

Like Tom, maybe, i don't know how to answer people when they ask what kind of photography i do. I stumble through a series of easily known categories. B&W primarily not always, eclectic, sometimes street, nudes, abstracts, documents, gut, yada yada. I name a few well known photographers or artists as examples but it's clumsy. Descriptive And distracting imo. i often feel ill equipped to answer with the coherence desired.

I like letting photos speak for themselves and hearing the creator's intent and also the context and perspective of smart informed viewers, curators, reviews.

  • Like 1

n e y e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reminded of a Moriyama video i saw and enjoyed... Tom's remarks and use of video (which I found an interesting way to layer & involve the viewer)... It occurred to me that often the info about process and motivation or intent provided by the photographer carries significant weight for me. The info from viewers and informed reviewers regarding style and historical context moves it beyond the frame where once released art dwells... often with more or less depth than intended. Edited by inoneeye

n e y e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i don't know how to answer people when they ask what kind of photography i do

That’s why there are curators, friends, and smart alecs out there. They can do that for you while you go out and make new uncategorized pics.

I like letting photos speak for themselves

I think the next generation of iPhones will allow your pictures to talk.

  • Like 1

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uh, no, I never said that.

Not only did you already say it, you’ve just said it again. A viewer doesn’t presume to understand. He understands. Both viewer and artist understand the art, sometimes similarly, sometimes differently.

 

“Selfishness is hunkering down into our own little worlds because we fear that the vastness of the person standing next to us will call out the vastness of the person living within us. Accepting that I know so little about myself is the beginning of understanding everything about life.“

—Craig Lounsbrough

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Everyone wants to understand art. Why not try to understand the song of a bird? Why does one love the night, flowers, everything around one, without trying to understand them? But in the case of a painting people have to understand. If only they would realize above all that an artist works of necessity, that he himself is only a trifling bit of the world, and that no more importance should be attached to him than to plenty of other things which please us in the world, though we can't explain them.

—Pablo Picasso

Eggleston would likely appreciate this. His work suggests he would.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A viewer doesn’t presume to understand. He understands. Both viewer and artist understand the art, sometimes similarly, sometimes differently" Sam

 

Really, is there a special viewer with mind reading capabilities? The operative words in your thoughts "something differently" Similarly, implies, a loose connection from similar minds of the same culture upbringing....but the they are not clones having different experiences in life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I can understand many things that I am not. That’s pretty much how the world works. If we could only understand ourselves, it would be an uninteresting and lonely existence.

Really, is there a special viewer with mind reading capabilities?

No. We’re talking about understanding art, not reading minds.

 

Thankfully, I don’t need to read an artist’s mind to understand his art. I think the art has power and reach well beyond the mind or understanding of the artist who creates it. If you want to restrict art to what the artist says it is or think the artist has the best voice to understand his art, I think you’re missing a lot. I think you’re missing the art itself and making the artist the ultimate judge and jury. Go ahead. I won’t limit my relationship to art in that way.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe (big maybe) this will help you get what I’m saying.

 

There have been several street photographers who take what I understand to be exploitive pics of semi-clad young girls. Their portfolios are filled with these voyeuristic, sneaked images. They state that they understand their work as non-exploitive and important statements on how young women exist on the street. I understand their work as exploitation and pretty shameful stuff. Likewise, there are photographers who take very exploitive shots of homeless people who understand their own work as an important social statement and document. I understand it as exploitive and pathetic. Are the photographers right because it’s their photos? After all, it’s “their art.”

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"and reach well beyond the mind or understanding of the artist who creates it." Sam

 

Somewhat detrimental to the Artist.. Are we talking about inspiration's from the divine?

 

The reality is your imagination, your culture, reading into the Art from your personnel perspective of Art.

 

In a sense, that is what Art is about, feeding into imagination of the viewer. But, do not get that confused with being together in the Artists mind.

 

Bottom line it is their Art not yours. In a way you are trying to hijack it as your Art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may truly think their work is not exploitive and they may have had decent intentions when they took the photos. That doesn’t mean the photos aren’t exploitive and that their understanding of what the photos show isnt questionable if not downright ridiculous.

"You talkin' to me?"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...