Eggleston revisited

<A

HREF="http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1268540,00

.html">HERE</A> is a great essay on Mr. Eggleston.

It was an interview more then an essay.

 

But!

 

It also was an unintentional expose on the culture and what the culture values in an artist or personal values.

 

Interesting read, thanks for sharing the article.

Thx for the clarification. Strictly speaking I would call it an essay build around an interview.

 

I have been a fan since a long time. This article is one of the rare sources talking about Eggleston as a person.

And not a person that one would like to be like, I'd have to say.<p>

 

Either which way, it was an interesting read as it was insightful as to how confused people in the art world can be as to what genius is Vs what being out of touch with reality is. If someone wants to just trip the shutter as they spin around pointing the lense in no particular direction, shotgun style, that's not genius, that's just some bozo high on alcohol or ludes incapable of coherent thought:)<p>

 

<i>It's like the other side of the Memphis looking glass, a world fuelled by drugs, alcohol and poetic furore. Bill told me they were all using Quaaludes at the time, even the dentists.</i><p>

 

The essay/interview also goes a long way to explain why contemporary images seem to be out of touch with reality; cause they are:)<p>

 

Again, I found the read very insightful and I mean that in the most sincerest form but a bit of moderation in one's life isn't necessarily a bad thing either.<p>

 

<i>Today, perhaps because of his tendency to excess, Eggleston is accompanied everywhere by his son, Winston, a friendly but firm chaperone who looks after the archive and, one suspects, tries to keep his father's wilder side in check. Winston briefs the photographer and myself beforehand: the photo session must be brief, the interview should not broach the subject of specific photographs nor dwell on his private life. 'I've seen him get impatient with interviewers,' says Winston, 'and he's apt to up and leave if that occurs.'</i><p>

 

I hope most will see the interview/essay for what it is, a warning as to what happens to one's mind/brain when one does too much booze and drugs in their adult life:) The net result, one ends up needing a handler to handle them cause they can no longer handle reality:)<p>

 

Wishing all the best in their photographic efforts:)<p>

Personally I don't see this as a great substance-abuse tragedy. Eggleston lived how he

wanted to and is now living an odd sort of life as a consequence, but he obviously didn't

completely ruin his relationship with his son, or the son wouldn't be there to escort his

father to collect a lifetime achievement award. Nor does he sound irretrievably impaired,

to me.

 

It's an interesting aside in a fascinating article about a tremendous individual (in more

than one sense).

"I ask Eggleston how he feels when he sees himself described as a hellraiser. 'Don't

care much for it,' he replies, shaking his head, 'and it usually comes from people who

don't know me, so how the hell would they know? It is sometimes a little bothersome

from the standpoint that it is so completely inaccurate it can get real irritating. I try

not to think about it. If I did, I'd be mad all day.'"

That he is a heavy drinker is an interesting, but comparatively un-important aspect of this article. That he was a conduit, almost unaware of why he would, or wouldn't, take a photograph ('The "almost" is important, though.'

) is a great insight into the creative process that many successful artists employ. To not question "why?", but to respond without artific and not suffer the pointless self analysis, self doubt and neurotic introspection that can castrate a creative spirit. <p>The focus on the personality and morality of an artist (as this thread drifts toward) rather than the work they produce, is a by product of our celebrity oriented culture, and indicates an insecure self righteousness that is a destructive force working to enforce a "norm" on social expression... an exclusive, hard and fast definition of "reality" and the criminalization of activity that threatens no one except the "actor". If Eggelston wishes to drink himself into oblivion and doesn't harm anyone else in the process, but rather <i>inspires</i> others with his creative energies and output, where is the value in condemning him?... t

No. You're right. The key to creativity is to get blatzo'd on booze and drugs. We should encourage everybody to do the same:) I'm sure you'd be tickled if it was your children doing the same thing.

 

Do you guys even think these comments through?

Thomas, your grubby victorian morality seems to have served you well; you have a nice life and a faithful wife and a rewarding career.

 

Every day, however, I celebrate the fact that your morality has still left scattered enclaves of debauchery in this country. Thankfully, there are places where you can still find the sweet smell of marijuana on a stroll down the street, or the taste of ripe genitalia after a good meal; there are still places for the bewildering and thrilling artistic creations of truely individual minds.

 

If my daughter wants to get stoned and spin around in circles with her camera, the world will be a better place for it. I hope she inhales. I wish you would.

Tom wrote<p>

 

<i>If Eggelston wishes to drink himself into oblivion and doesn't harm anyone else in the process, but rather inspires others with his creative energies and output, where is the value in condemning him?... t</i><p>

 

Gee Tom, you're right. Let's look at some images created by this inspirational genius.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/E/eggleston/eggleston_cigarettes_full.html">Cigarettes</a><p>

 

Use the arrow at the right side of the image to flip through the images of Mr Eggleston that are posted and maybe you can explain to me what it is that an art student of today is suppose to find so inspirational.<p>

 

This will be most helpful:)<p>

Ward wrote<p>

 

<i>If my daughter wants to get stoned and spin around in circles with her camera, the world will be a better place for it. I hope she inhales. I wish you would.</i><p>

 

And when she's sixty-five, she too can use your grand-daughter to act as her chaperone.<p>

 

A clue, there's pretty much nothing on the Barbery Coast that I haven't done. Waking up is a hard thing to do.

 

But would you be so kind as to point out what's so inspirational about Eggleston's images that a budding art student should take note of.<p>

 

And is living in a boozed up, qualude loaded state of mind what you think all art students in the world should be doing as their detached form of inspiration? I submit that Mr Eggleston was doing a bit more then toking on a joint, as you suggested, of some good gold.

Thomas Gardener, no matter how much you moan, complain and desperately try to denigrate Eggleston the fact is that, without any doubt, he has been hugely influential not only in photography but other forms of art as well, such as film. This is a fact and your attempts to deny it just speak of your pathetic outlook on just about everything. I've never seen anybody so completely down on the world as you are. Personally I think the problem is that you have been an unqualified failure as an artist and this continues to bother you into your doddering old age. Your days of creativity are long gone and curmudgerry is your only distinctive trait.

 

"William Eggleston is perhaps the most innovative American photographer of the past 50 years whose unique style has transformed the way we look at the world."

 

Accept it Gardner, as sure as you are going to pass into complete oblivion when you kick the bucket, this man's influence will live forever.

Sam wrote<p>

 

<i>"William Eggleston is perhaps the most innovative American photographer of the past 50 years whose unique style has transformed the way we look at the world."</i><p>

 

And what exactly should a budding art student take away from his art as a form of inspiration? What exactly do you consider to be innovative about Eggleston's images?<p>

 

<a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/E/eggleston/eggleston_cigarettes_full.html">Cigarettes</a><p>

 

Flip though his images and kindly point out what an art student is suppose to find so innovative and inspirational about the posted images? It shouldn't be so hard to give me a clue now, should it?<p>

 

I'll look forward to your insightful answer:)<p>

Garndner you've shown over and over again that you are a twit. I'm not even going to bother answering you because I would much rather look through my Eggleston books than waste any more time with you.

 

PS I'm looking forward to the great art you've threatened to produce in the fall. We'll see how much influence you have. BTW you were wondering what to do with that 'prop' after you finished with it and I would suggest giving it to your wife. She must be dying to have some enjoyment after spending so many years with you.

<I>And what exactly should a budding art student take away from his art as a form of inspiration? What exactly do you consider to be innovative about Eggleston's images?</i><p>

 

Why not do what you always tell everyone else to do - go ask "the notables." You'll find out that they almost unanimously view Eggleston as one of the great photographers of the century. Since "the notables" are always so important to you, it's obvious that this is the right opinion.<p>

 

One thing to point out is that Sam, "the notables", and quite a few other people are far more interested in his photography than his personal life, unlike you.

Okay Jeff, so you don't know why either. That's good:)<p>

 

How silly of me. You're right Jeff. I should take some time to see what the notables have to say on the subject because all I'll get here is hero worship:) That and nobody here seems to be able to answer a most resonable question:)<p>

 

I just figured that someone here would be able to point out what it is that's so innovative and inspiring about his images as it seems to be such a common theme or comment. I didn't realize my question was such a tough one:)<p>

 

Maybe someone else will be able to weigh in on the question I posed as to Eggleston and the innovative and inspirational nature of his images and what art students should learn from his efforts.<p>

 

One of Eggleston's efforts.<p>

 

<a href="http://www.masters-of-photography.com/E/eggleston/eggleston_miami_full.html">Miami</a><p>

 

This, I'm suppose to believe, is both innovative and inspirational?<p>

If it doesn't do anything for you, it doesn't. But it does for "the notables" you're always so busy telling us to listen to. And you do seem to be consumed with his lifestyle. If you hadn't commented so much about it, it would be different, but you did. Your attempts to deny your own statements are absurd. Maybe Beckett was writing about you.

Thomas please keep posting his shots because you have some that I've never seen before and I'm loving it - the smoke dispenser is fantastic!! Eggleston is peerless. His work is wonderful and inspirational. His devotion to his personal vision is one of the many reasons why he has and continues to play a major role the photographic art world. He has soul, he has a personality, he's creative and insightful.

Jeff I got the impression that Thomas despises the notables. In fact he seems to despise just about everything and everybody as far as I can see. I have never seen anyone as negative as him. God help his poor wife and son.

Sam, you're probably right, but in the postmodern threads, he's always saying to read "the notables." Of course, it was that great "notable" Szarkowski who originally brought Eggleston to the public's attention. What I really like, however, is Eudora Welty's introduction to <i>The Democratic Forest</i>, which she ends with "A clear spring rises somewhere on the home place, for the human strain begins there for Mr Eggleston, and we see it in what follows: it turns into a river that runs through, or underneath, every place succeeding it. Whatever is done to block it or stop its flow, it surfaces again. Pure human nature proves itself in likely or unlikely places." Welty, a great writer and photographer, also proves herself a great commentator on photography when the moment calls for it.

"For someone held in such high esteem, it shouldn't be so hard to point out the why of his innovativeness nor the source that one would find inspiration in."

 

Because he had enough confidence in himself and vision to take a formerly despised format and style and breath life into it. Not new life, but life itself. He was a complete innovator as every single essay or story on him as stated repeatedly. He is able to find worthiness in the banal and even go as far as making 'dreamy', as in a dreamworld. He took color photography from the clutches of the clumsy popular photographer (not unlike yourself) and made it into an art form.

 

You can see the man creating the work in his work. This is something you have been striving for yourself. He grabbed the attention of Swarzkowski who felt strongly enough about his previously unpublished work that he gave him a show at MoMA - I suppose now you'll have to try and degrade Swarzkowski. Even though he was met with considerable derision he continued to follow his heart and brain and in time others began to see the light. Can you imagine how much guts and committement it takes to be treated like that and not cower? That, in itself, should be enough to inspire budding young artists - but there's much more.

 

In addition to his innovative work with color he is generally regarded as a natural with subtle composition. His sense of composition is very refined. Most will be taken with his images of the everyday and not realize why - unlike most photographers where you can say that you like 'the tonal quality' or the technical aspects. His work goes much deeper into those who are in tune or capable of receiving his message.

 

Thomas, you are not one of those who can feel anything more than the superficial. I shouldn't have been surprised that you hate the man (yes you do hate him) because it's just one more person who is more successful than you.

Jeff I agree with you 100% about Welty's intro. It's not the first (or last) time that he will be presented with such intelligence.

It's a frail trick you employ, to use sarcasm in writing, where the lack of inflection makes it even easier for you to deny when you need to reverse your position.<p><b>TG:</b>"<i>I'm asking about what makes his efforts so inspirational and innovative.</i>"<p> You're asking for a defense, or an explanation of the aesthetic value in his images? Since that's been eloquently done already in this thread, let me repeat myself... <p>I said in another thread about aesthetics: "<i>A particular aesthetic sensibility can be unappealing to some, yet still be recognized as having a pronounced and particular awareness and sensitivity.</i>" <p>You, TG, can't seem to accept the possibility that some art can be good art, and yet not appeal to your personal aesthetic sensibility.<p>

 

<b>twm:</b>"<i>Consider the aesthetic of -Heronimous Bosch or Joel Peter Witkin-, as compared to the aesthetic of -William Eggleston or Robert Adams- and to that of -Paul Strand and Lee Freidlander-. They may not share a common aesthetic, yet they possess a distinct and undeniable awareness that is expressed consistently in their work, and can thereby be recognized as genuine. A shared aesthetic may be a pleasant experience, but a new, strange aesthetic is a challenging and refreshing one that can awaken in you a sensibility other than that which you already knew.</i>"<p>Unfortunately, you seem unable to enjoy any sensibility other than your own. It wouldn't harm you in any way to admit that another language can sound beautiful, even if you don't understand what the words mean.<p>Eggleston's work is important and relevant to the history of photography, whether you and I like it, or not. In the bigger picture, you and I are not relevant to history of photography. Eggleston's work is, whether you like it, or not. <p>It's too late for your protestations to have any effect other than clarifying your own aesthetics. However, the manner of your protestations grant us all some insight into who you are. Your very entre into this discussion was by way of correcting Martin's grammer. No wonder your contributions inspire skeptical speculation regarding your motives... t

Ahem. Why is Eggleston good? Because he does one of the things photography is supposed to do seemingly effortlessly. He defamiliarizes everything, makes banal things look mysterious, disturbing, surreal, odd, but in an apparently offhand manner.

 

Eggleston out on the town with Josef Koudelka (whose photography seems relentlessly intense rather than apparently offhand). Now that's one conversation where I would like to have been a fly on the wall.

Johnathan wrote<p>

 

<i>He defamiliarizes everything, makes banal things look mysterious, disturbing, surreal, odd, but in an apparently offhand manner.</i><p>

 

That's very helpful as I couldn't agree less with you on your above. I'm not arguing with you but I sure won't agree with your analysis either:)<p>