Jump to content

William Eggleston - his work is not banal at all


Recommended Posts

<p>I have recently looked more carefully into William Eggleston's work and have come to the conclusion that, despite the fact that his work is described as being "perfectly banal" it is not banal at all.</p>

<ul>

<li>Eggleston is a master of colour, and therefore a master of light. He knows the light, its changes during the day and the effect on colours. He seems to have put a lot of effort into printing, and I don't know how he does today, since the dye transfer process is no longer available;</li>

<li>he is a master of composition. Most of his pictures are a perfect balance of fills and voids. Every tiny space on his pictures "works and counts", as he says;</li>

<li>and there are not only colours and composition, he is also a master in highlighting the key element of his photos;</li>

<li>also his older black and white photos follow this pattern and you could add colour to them and they would be as effective.</li>

</ul>

<p>Of course one might "not like" what he does, but from a more "objective" point of view it is pretty clear that behind his photographs there is a lot of talent and also a lot of "work" in timing, lighting, composing, printing.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 107
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

<p>I really like the way is working with colors, can you give me names of some goods arts books about his work. I always look for them but can't find something really good... Unfortunately, I haven't see his work in real, hope to fin opportunity to see it in real one day. There's not so much things on him in Paris. I've seen the movie about him. I think he was the first to make this kind of work and after lot's of people start to make similar work, that's why people use to say it's banal, maybe ? <br>

Sorry for my bad english.<br>

Bye</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nico, I'd recommend almost any of his books -- the most recent <em>Chromes</em> is wonderful but very expensive. The re-published <em>Guide</em> is usually recommended as a starter.</p>

<p>However, I don't care for what's in <em>William Eggleston 5 x 7</em>, particularly his close portraits, but that's probably just me. Luca, have you seen that that one (the book, <em>5 x 7</em>)? If so, what do you think of it?</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I love the Chromes it's very beautiful quite expensive but it's a gem.<br>

I'm not so kind of the guide, I think it's a bit short I prefer a bit larger with more pictures to see :) I have not seen the 5x7.<br>

I love the <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/William-Eggleston-Before-Chris-Burnside/dp/3869301228/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&qid=1331910871&sr=8-7">William Eggleston: Before Color</a>.<br>

I'm curious about those one :<a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Democratic-Forest-William-Eggleston/dp/0385266510/ref=sr_1_5?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331913095&sr=1-5">The Democratic Forest</a> by William Eggleston (Oct 1989), <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/William-Eggleston-Dunkerue-Laurent-Lempereur/dp/1584232862/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1331910871&sr=8-12">William Eggleston: Spirit of Dunkerue</a>, <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/William-Eggleston-Gunilla-Knappe/dp/3908247985/ref=sr_1_22?ie=UTF8&qid=1331912371&sr=8-22">William Eggleston</a> by Gunilla Knappe, <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/William-Eggleston-Democratic-Photographs-1958-2008/dp/0300126212/ref=sr_1_17?ie=UTF8&qid=1331912371&sr=8-17">William Eggleston: Democratic Camera; Photographs and Video, 1958-2008 (Whitney Museum of American Art)</a> by Elisabeth Sussman, <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/Faulkners-Mississippi-Willie-Morris/dp/0848710525/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331913095&sr=1-7">Faulkner's Mississippi</a> by Willie Morris and William Eggleston (31 Jan 1991), <a href="http://www.amazon.co.uk/William-eggleston-photographie/dp/2742735607/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331913095&sr=1-10">William eggleston - photographie</a> (21 Nov 2001).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Luca, perhaps I need to view more of Eggleston than I have, He seems to me to be in color what Michael Kenna is in black and white, presenting extremely well crafted images from the tonal and compositional aspects and his able subject recognition. However, should art not also reveal things that trigger our imaginations, create emotional responses and not just reveal oft viewed subject matter exquisitely presented (ex,. wonderful color balances) but sollicit from us questions about the subjects. That may be old criteria in the realm of art. I am yet to feel that Eggleston is having that effect on me. I wonder if that is not also the reason that some of us might not "like" many of his images.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Nico, in my opinion -- and this is very much my own feeling -- <em>The Democratic Forest</em> is fantastic. It's my feeling that it's much edgier, more compositionally exciting than his other books (that I have). By "edgier" I mean ... more violent (?), more aggressive, more immediately dynamic than usual for Eggleston. Again, this is just my personal response to it.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Arthur, I find nothing exquisite about the presentation of Eggleston's subject matter. He often triggers in me just the imaginative and emotional responses you say his photos lack.</p>

<p><a href="http://masters-of-photography.com/images/full/eggleston/eggleston_woman_on_swing.jpg">THIS ONE</a> reveals its subject matter texturally as found and lost in context.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fandor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/william-eggleston18.jpeg">THIS ONE</a> reveals and significantly only partially reveals its subject matter through perspective, clarity, and directness.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.fandor.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/william-eggleston2.jpeg">HERE</a> the subject is revealed at least partially through gesture, dynamics, and timing.</p>

<p>There is an internal harmony between the subject matter and the style, the way it's viewed and approached. This, for me, creates a web of interest and gives his subjects a very authentic sense of mystique and wonder.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Luca, I actually think banal is a good way to describe Eggleston's work, but like most things photographic and artistic, that requires further explanation. Banal can mean trite and it can mean commonplace. Moving and compelling photos can be made of <em>otherwise</em> trite or commonplace subjects and situations. It doesn't make the photos banal. In the case of the photos I posted just above, these are not subjects that would typically be considered extraordinary. They are things about which people might, especially before Eggleston, ask "Why would you take a picture of that?" In that sense, they are commonplace and so perhaps not as typically photo-worthy as would be a "beautiful" sunset, a gorgeous Hollywood movie star, a grandly-built historic church, etc.</p>

<p>When I use "banal" relative to Eggleston, I don't mean it negatively. And I think the banality is significant to his vision.</p>

We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Two years ago I was visiting a friend in Memphis and we were driving around town. I said that there was a really famous photographer from Memphis and she said "Big Bill? I grew up with his son, I've known him all my life. Wanna go visit him?" "Uhh, OK". So we drove over to his place while my friend called his son. Apparently Bill was feeling poorly that day so I only made it as far as his parking lot.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>For me, as a fellow southerner, his pictures seem personal, familiar ... what it feels like but without a narrative. A narrative-less being-there. He always seems to me to deliberately turn his back on narrative; he's not "going," he's there. I don't see what banal (or not) has to do with his pictures.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Julie</strong>,</p>

<p>To your question: honestly I only do own Szarkowski's "Guide", but there are really a lot of photos around. And then there are two documentary films, one by Reiner Holzemer and the other by Michael Almereyda.</p>

<p>I find these very illuminating as to Eggleston's approach to imaging. There are some recurrent patterns: sunrise or sunset, with "horizontal", warm light, wide, very wide spaces, parking lots, the corridors of shopping centres. I found it fascinating to combine the "setting" of Eggleston's imaging with the results.</p>

<p>I have seen some photos I like a lot, some photos which do not speak to me, such as, for example the "red ceiling". This is certainly an outstanding photo, but I'm not really "punctured" by it.</p>

<p>There are some pictures just of leaves, trees, bushes, which appeal less to me. But I am aware that this might be just my personal preference. The <a href="http://bit.ly/yFh6pi">woman</a> with the chain around the pole, the <a href="http://bit.ly/FOe0BF">Gulf sign</a>, are photos I like very much. Many, many out of the "Guide", too. But not all.</p>

<p>But what I appreciate most is the process, the ability to aim at a result and to put creativity, skill, craft, knowledge at the service of this art.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Arthur</strong>,</p>

<p>I must say that I see your point perfectly.</p>

<p>It is perfectly clear to me that if the beholder's desire is to trigger imagination, as you say, Eggleston might not be the most effective author. But the nature of emotional response differs from individual to individual.</p>

<p>And I wonder whether "the mere pleasure of the eye" isn't just an emotional response, to art. Probably this is quite in the vein of what <strong>Fred</strong> says. Another adjective associated to Eggleston is "boring", that was pretty often used after his exhibition at MoMA.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>There may be two possibilities in understanding Eggleston's work (I think it is important to consider it without the "perceptual contamination" of, or dependence upon, prior critiques):</p>

<p>The first is that he is making the banal look more banal than it really is (This may be important as an approach as many banal things in contemporary society we are already familiar with; therefore he has to go even further to illicit a response from the viewer). In such case, he is acting as a quiet critic of modern lifestyles.</p>

<p>The second may be that he is seeing something in the banal that is indeed important, that reflects on the human condition or that opens some new approach to the interpretation of images that many of us do not see, supposedly because we may be fixed into some ancient sort of aesthetic/emotional paradigm (and I am not referring here to banal if beautiful sunsets, or not even to admiration/understanding of Atget's evocation of the intrigue of city architecture, Frank's emotional responses, or Strand's delicious urban/rural manmade compositions).</p>

<p>Too bad I don't know how the man really thinks. I will take a guess though, and suppose that he may be more anchored in the first manner of perception than in the second. The latter may exist, but it is rather opaque.</p>

<p>Having the temerity to say that, I will also say that exploration and maintaining doubt for me is very important, and I intend to do more looking at his works, with the hope that "looking" will mutate to "seeing" (something significant).</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<h1 > </h1>

<blockquote>

<p ><a name="00a9Fz"></a><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=2124547">Luca A. R.</a></p>

</blockquote>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I have recently looked more carefully into William Eggleston's work and have come to the conclusion that, despite the fact that his work is described as being "perfectly banal" it is not banal at all.</p>

<ul>

<li>Eggleston is a master of colour, and therefore a master of light. He knows the light, its changes during the day and the effect on colours. He seems to have put a lot of effort into printing, and I don't know how he does today, since the dye transfer process is no longer available;</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>William Eggleston does not make (never has) the key pictures credited to him. Many hardworking, talented, creative, and anonymous people do that. There are no money limitations. He can hire the best. And he knows how to raise hell if the results don't support his legend.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<ul>

<li>he is a master of composition. Most of his pictures are a perfect balance of fills and voids. Every tiny space on his pictures "works and counts", as he says;</li>

<li>he and there are not only colours and composition, he is also a master in highlighting the key element of his photos;</li>

<li>also his older black and white photos follow this pattern and you could add colour to them and they would be as effective.</li>

</ul>

</blockquote>

<p>Eggleston does a lot of camera work without limitations of time, place, and budget. Immense personal wealth has its advantages. We do not see the thousands and thousands of images that his picture-making workers are simply unable to turn into something supporting the Eggleston "style".</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Of course one might "not like" what he does, but from a more "objective" point of view it is pretty clear that behind his photographs there is a lot of talent and also a lot of "work" in timing, lighting, composing, printing.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>There may be some minor talent but his status is reinforced by bullet-proof fame that came from being promoted by John Szarkowski who became head of photography at MOMA in 1962. Szarkowski's predecessor, the grand and imperious Edward Steichen, had established photography as a major force in world sensibility via his Family of Man blockbuster to name just one initiative. Steichen's predecessor, Beaumont Newhall, had embedded photography in the on going and glorious tradition of art history via his writings, scholarship, and exhibitions.</p>

 

<p>Now Szarkowski had to make his own mark, a dramatic break with the past, and he chose to do it by lionising colour pictures. Of the bodies of work available at the time the output of William Eggleston was enticingly convenient. Eggleston was (and is) an amazingly prolific visual magpie, a multi-millionaire with thousands of off-topic, off-beat, non-traditional images. He also had three qualities that ensure sympathetic reception at MOMA; an American photographer producing images of American subject matter for an American audience.</p>

<p>The rest is recent history but I think from a long perspective the William Eggleston adventure will be seen as John Szarkowski's biggest mistake. In the meantime there are probably no pictures that William Eggleston could do to become un-famous, un-revered, and un-adulated. Celebrity has its own momentum.</p>

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>Now Szarkowski had to make his own mark, a dramatic break with the past, and he chose to do it by lionising colour pictures. Of the bodies of work available at the time the output of William Eggleston was enticingly convenient.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />This "history" is nonsensical.<br>

<br /><br>

By the time Szarkowski brought Eggleston into MOMA, he had made his mark on the world with Arbus, Friedlander and Winogrand. His Bill Brandt exhibition, well before the Eggleston show, was also hugely influential in the world of photography. I am personally quite happy that he brought the show "New Japanese Photography" to MOMA before Eggleston also, as it completely changed the perception of photography in Asia and also had its risks. By the time he did the Eggleston show, he had no need to "make his own mark," it was already done.<br>

<br /><br>

Given that, take the rest of the anti-Eggleston diatribe for exactly what the "history" is worth.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Maris Rusis - "</strong>William Eggleston does not make (never has) the key pictures credited to him. Many hardworking, talented, creative, and anonymous people do that. There are no money limitations. He can hire the best. And he knows how to raise hell if the results don't support his legend."</p>

<p>This is one of the biggest and most vile lies I have ever seen on PN. It is malicious, unsubstantiated crap. All of it, including the Szarkowski bits. I'd say what I <em>really</em> feel, but it would get my account deleted.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<b>Maris</b>

<br>

Your statements do not really matter. It is actually not important whether Eggleston prints himself or not, it is also not

important how much he edits. The really important fact is what he presents, in terms of concepts, compositions or colours.<br>

Also your remark on John Szarkowski is completely off topic. And off the mark as Jeff Spirer put it.<br>

I'm not talking about how much money Eggleston is able to put into his art, nor how much he edits.<br>

I have watched his output, studied his approach and I see talent and skill. I do not like all of his pictures, but this does not

really matter. He has a vision and combining composing, recording, processing and printing.<br>

I am not adulating him - he does not need it - I just studied him. His intentions and approach are clear and there are good

results, in my opinion.<br>

Some pictures may be the result of chance (the red ceiling, for example, or his uncle and servant at the funeral) but there

is a clear and coherent approach. The kitchen oven may be weak, but the blue vase on the table is actually very strong.

It is obvious that his celebrity has it's own momentum, but there are obvious reasons which show how and why this

momentum has come about.<br>

I am not "in love" with William Eggleston, I was just trying to explain that I found my key to understanding how and why he produces some pictures that I like.<br>

Your Opinion May Vary.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<b>Arthur</b>

<br>

Personally I would take a different approach. He takes the banal and makes it pictorial. I do not want to create confusion

here, but Mondrian comes to my mind, Magritte, Beuys, Picasso.<br>

In any case Eggleston "slices out" bits of life. There is one beautiful picture of a slice of a supermarket and it's sign.<br>

We might see some criticism there - there definitely can be - but that is pretty much up to us, our sensitivity and

perception.<br>

But you make a really fundamental point: he sees something banal which in fact is really important, and which we do not

see.<br>

Let me also add that my personal feeling is that he's profoundly American, and probably profoundly Southerner.<br>

Ok, Memphis can be dull, boring and ugly, as many have said when talking about Eggleston's work, but looking at

Memphis through Eggleston's eyes, to me it is not dull or boring or ugly at all.<br> There are these spaces, this light, the

balance of fills and voids. I find it an extraordinary way of presenting the banal.<br>

Because he has this outstanding capability of taking out slices and show them to us his way.<br>

Of course you need to be interested in what you see. Obviously this is not the same for all beholders. But if this work

strikes some of the beholder's chords, there might be grounds to consider WE a great innovative artist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Photos of the commonplace can make for good images, but that's not an immutable law.<br>

So even though the subject is banal, the photos needn't be. Henri Cartier Bresson photographed the commonplace and his work is widely considered to be great. But Edward Ruscha's Twenty Six Gasoline Stations leaves me cold, photographically.<br>

Egglestone's work does seem to have the qualities the o p suggests and do look a lot better than the results obtained by many people who photograph "stuff" and call it "ART."<br>

I was at the Tate Gallery yesterday and found myself watching a film of a toilet roll middle blowing in the wind. Hmmmm.</p>

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Maybe I will be famous if I make a still life with toilet roll middles only. No, I don't think so :-)<br /> <br /> I find Eggleston's work fascinating. I keep wondering what he was thinking when he made the photos. Surely the man must have a great sense of humor. In some photos I just don't get it. Still it is exiting trying to find out just why he made that photo. What his fascination with the subject was. He has his own, unique style that goes as a red thread through his photos.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p><strong>Luca on Maris -</strong> " It is actually not important whether Eggleston prints himself or not, it is also not important how much he edits..."<strong> <br /></strong></p>

<p> While it doesn't matter how much editing a photographer does, the truth does: For the record, Eggleston does not make a huge amount of exposures, and he has almost everything printed.</p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Luca, I agree that the subject matter is important and how he treats it, and it is an important aspect to reconcile in approaching Eggleston's portfolio. It might take some paradigm shift for some of us to appreciate what he is photographing. Yes, subject matter itself need not always be of over-riding importance, but rather the important thing should be how a photographer comes to terms with it, how he deconstructs or recomposes what he sees. It is sort of like, as a music lover but not a musician, I have had trouble approaching the works of Lejaren Hiller, Arthur Honnegger and Pierre Boulez, but once having attempted (and enjoyed) that I can see more than my antennae (of a particular orientation) had first perceived. Another related problem may be our expectations in regard to types of subject matterr. I admit to rarely being impressed by flower photographs (prefering the experience of the real thing), but the works of artists like Georgia O'Keefe and others changed that. I would very much like to see and pass some time at an exhibition of Eggleston prints, though, as with the case of other artists that I have too quickly passed over.</p>
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...