What type of photography does William Eggleston do?

Discussion in 'Casual Photo Conversations' started by tom_kondrat, Sep 2, 2021.

  1. how bout iphone or ai critiques. Siri already gets a bit smart alecky sometimes.
     
  2. I like it. Then you'd really know what your work was all about!!!
     
  3. Finally! I still am using your style descriptives from long ago.
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2021
  4. "Uh, no. What’s false is what you said: “only the artist understands their art” Sam

    Uh, no, I never said that.

    I sure others understand the Artists work from their own imaginative assumptions

    But, they are not the Artist, they can only presume to understand.
     
  5. 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
     
  6. Eggleston would likely appreciate this. His work suggests he would.
     
  7. "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.
     
  8. "everyone wants to understand art. Why not try to understand the song of a bird? "
    Picasso

    Indeed.

    Yet you consistently claim you can understand the song of the bird....yet, you are not the bird.
     
  9. 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.
    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.
     
  10. "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.
     
  11. 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.”
     
  12. 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.
     
  13. "everyone wants to understand art. Why not try to understand the song of a bird? "
    Picasso

    Indeed.

    Yet you consistently claim you can understand the song of the bird....yet, you are not the bird.


    Picasso and I agree.
     
  14. Glad that’s over with …
     
  15. "Glad that’s over with …" Sam.

    Indeed, for some unfadable reason you feel, by writing a thousands words, you can improve the Artists, Art, and indeed improve on their understanding of their Art.

    Impressive understanding, or, just misplaced ego?

    Hmm.
     
  16. Yes, I’m nothing if not unfadable.
     
  17. It’s your personal disposition toward me that leads you to mischaracterize this as being about my ego and it’s simply your prejudice that leads to your mistakenly characterizing explanations of art as a matter of ego.

    I was mostly talking about critics, theorists, and historians often having a different enough and significant understanding of art to sometimes be able to articulate things better than the artist. You turn that sometimes into an always and in a most shallow way attribute it to nothing more than ego. No doubt, Szarkowski had ego, just as did most of the photographers and artists he talked about. Nothing wrong with an ego. But, just as Eggleston loved making photographs (and is also well known for simply lying or making stuff up about them, which is great, too), Szarkowski loved dissecting them, putting them into context, and sharing that with audiences. If you want to place Eggleston on a higher rung of humanity than Szarkowski because of the difference in their chosen expressive outlets and your inability to relate to each, be my guest. It’s only you who lose.
     
  18. "It’s your personal disposition toward me that leads you to mischaracterize this as being about my ego and it’s simply your prejudice that leads to your mistakenly characterizing explanations of art as a matter of ego."

    Well, my personal disposition towards you, is a good mate. Do not confuse challenges to your posts other than just challenges.

    Not that you cannot use your imagination to offer your thoughts on a photograph.
    But, remember, you are not the photographer, just a third party person, offering their thoughts.

    That's it.

    Photographic thoughts.

    the Art of prose, is the Art of prose.
    The Art of photography is the Art of the photograph.

    Neither, need each other, as the both stand alone in their Art.

     
  19. Every one has a ego, Sam.

    Part of what we are.
     
  20. You accused those who write about art of having a misplaced ego. That’s both boorish and wrong. You lack the capacity to understand somewhat complex discussions of art and that awareness of your own shortcoming leads you to project crap onto others. I’m not your mate, never have been, never will be. You haven’t challenged me. You’ve challenged a figment of your imagination that says art needs words. That figment has nothing to do with what I believe or think.
     

Share This Page