Banal Photography - New Genre of Photography? A Debate.

I reckon because it is inherently failure proof.

Not to me. I’m able to discern what’s a worthwhile, compelling, interesting, or moving photo and what’s not, in my opinion of course. Look at all the photos posted in this thread, both by members and by well-known photographers. I’ll bet many of us think some more compelling than others.

Sometimes a scene interest me because it is a banality.

There is an important

Looking carefully, his compositions are never banal. They always base on a highly sophisticated composition, which clearly highlights the subject and the story behind it.

The pictures that come to mind are

• the orange trash bin
  
• the shoes under the bed
  
• the lady on the driveway
  
• the drink next to the window plane
  
• the oven
  
• the red ceiling
  
• the car in the backyard
  
• the set dinner
  
• the clouded sky
  
• eating the sandwich against the red stripes
  
• etc, etc.
  

All outstanding.

Stephen Shore has a different kind of aesthetics, even if "banal" may be associated with it as well.

No shortage of great examples for #banalography on twitter, facebook, tumblr...etc.

I like this name. I feel it's more catchy and it feels fresh.

What do you think guys? Does Banalography sound better than Banal Photography?

Banal photography should be a popular genre particularly when an art context is asserted. Why? I reckon because it is inherently failure proof. What possible negative criticisms could be leveled at it? Boring, dull, uninteresting, commonplace, ordinary, trite, superficial, shallow, unimaginative; no, they're not flaws in the genre but rather its virtues.

As with any other genre of photography, I feel the composition, colors, shapes, light, etc. are still important. I would also argue that if the photograph is able to trigger some emotions of sadness/nostalgia/excitement/happiness/... than I believe it is more successful. And perhaps of those personal beliefs, I might disagree slightly with William Eggleston's approach in 'The Democratic Forest'. There are a lot of photographs there that, for me personally, are just not interesting. The other thing is, that it is impossible to say what is more compelling than other, as everyone being different and having different life experiences look at photographs from a distinct perspective.

There are a lot of photographs there that, for me personally, are just not interesting.

Sure. I suspect Eggleston would appreciate that. I doubt most good photographers would expect or want all their photos to appeal to everyone. Since, in many cases, the best photographers are defying given tastes and moving forward, they would expect and even embrace a certain amount of lack of appeal. It’s the photographers whose work immediately appeals to everyone that are likely to be trading in cliches and doing just the kind of work people already expect to like … the unintentionally banal.

Eggleston's photos become more interesting as the years go by and we move away from that world. They are becoming nostalgic.

I agree. Some of the things that might be considered mundane in his day, are now part of a different era. Not totally, but maybe just the feeling of a time and place, thus maybe more unusual.

Eggleston's photos become more interesting as the years go by and we move away from that world. They are becoming nostalgic.

That's just the passing of time giving them historical interest/significance. Take the most mundane of Victorian snapshots, and its contents are usually quite fascinating.

One aspect of almost any photograph is that it matures like a good wine or cheese. Which other artforms rarely do.

The music of The Beach Boys and The Mamas and the Papas are in many ways like snapshots of my youth. The work of Warhol and Rauschenberg snapshots less of my own youth but maybe more of an era. The power of recall in art can be strong. It dances with the original power it had in context and often a timelessness that goes beyond both.

Speaking of dance …

Is there an irony here? If the thrust of the work was “democracy” and the everyday, what does it say to now consider them more interesting because of their nostalgia or unusualness over time? It’s almost as if they are being remade or reinterpreted into what Eggleston was moving beyond.

It's not central to the photography. They're not all that old. I like the 60's and 70's cars. Other features are still the same. What's important is the way he sees and composes his pogotgraphs and the beautiful rich color processes he uses.

Is he still taking photos? I tried to ask on Google and doesn't give an answer.

Is he still taking photos? I tried to ask on Google and doesn't give an answer.

This is the best I could do in my own search. The last line brought a smile to my face.

Now almost in his eighties, he still lives and works in Memphis, creating pictures out of life's ordinary and mundane. He survives his wife Rosa, who died in 2015. His has two daughters, Andra and Electra, and two sons: William Eggleston III, who was involved in editing his work for the multi-volume book "The Democratic Forest," and Winston who runs the Eggleston Artistic Trust. Details about his personal life surface in the information about who he photographed and the comments journalists make in their reviews - he has a group of rotating girlfriends (usually educated southern women in their 40s) who attend to his current needs.

Not a bad way to end his career. :)

This is the best I could do in my own search. The last line brought a smile to my face.

 

Not a bad way to end his career. :)

Indeed :) I saw him at his exhibit in L.A. a few years ago, and there was some 40ish women hovering over him as he signed autographs. They also had a grand piano with a guy playing jazz. I thought I read that he loves to play the piano. Here's a quick photo I took it on a Ricoh at way higher ISO than what it's good for.

In my uneducated opinion, Tom, your mention of a combination of the poetic and the bizarre very well might be considered another subclass of abstract photography. Your thoughts . . .

According to Wiki: 'Abstract photography, sometimes called non-objective, experimental or conceptual photography, is a means of depicting a visual image that does not have an immediate association with the object world.'

Unlike in abstract photography, the object still matters and is recognizable in banalography.

Can one (me?) claim that Weston's Pepper #30 is "perfectly banal"? Weston got banal before Eggleston, and so did many others. Check out Andre Kertesz, Fork, Paris 1928, can a composition be more 'banal' and yet more profound that this? Or are these two examples too absolutely gorgeous and artistic to be in the new banal category?

I would argue that both Weston's peppers and Kertesz' forks belong to still life photography. Why? Because there are some many versions of them, so it seems to me that they arranged those objects carefully before taking pictures. I would also put them in the fine art genre as well.

Speaking of dance …

Well... the comedy value certainly increases with age. And like a mature cheese, so does the cheesiness.

Eggleston's photos become more interesting as the years go by and we move away from that world. They are becoming nostalgic.

That's just the passing of time giving them historical interest/significance.

 

If you've driven the deep U.S. south- or the deeply rural U.S, any where on back roads, much of the sort of thing Mr Eggelston photographed still exists- although perhaps in disuse or run down condition.

But perhaps not.

I love this sort of stuff (for whatever reason?) and have always been drawn to shooting it, and love biggish sort of graphic-y signage and whatnot. I can't make any claim to my stuff always being so colorful, however as I also like the gritty look of black & white and the feel that goes with it..

Columbus, Georgia

Frackville, PA

Eastern Shore of Virginia

Bolivar Peninsula, TX

somewhere in Virginia

somewhere in New Jersey

Raleigh, NC

Silbey, MS

Columbus GA

Nice set of photos,

Thanks, Sanford

Love these photos.

Thanks so much.

It's not central to the photography. They're not all that old. I like the 60's and 70's cars. Other features are still the same. What's important is the way he sees and composes his pogotgraphs and the beautiful rich color processes he uses.

 

Is he still taking photos? I tried to ask on Google and doesn't give an answer.

Banal photos I shot of 60s and 70s cars. The trick is to jazz them up with music and tell a story.

Many of my banal photos were not intended.

ha ha nor do I intentionally look for banality in my subject matter… I pretty much shoot whatever catches my eye (for better or worse :cool: )

Were I asked to categorize or slot the above photos, I’d probably call it Americana.

But I am a-ok with folks calling it whatever they want.

ha ha nor do I intentionally look for banality in my subject matter… I pretty much shoot whatever catches my eye (for better or worse :cool: )

 

Were I asked to categorize or slot the above photos, I’d probably call it Americana.

But I am a-ok with folks calling it whatever they want.

Question Number 1: How do you tell the difference between a photo of a banal subject and a banal photo?

Hypothesis Number 1: Most Americana is charmingly banal.

Categorization Number 1: Your photos seem documentary.

Opinion Number 1: The photos are humble and convey the humility of their subjects.