God how I hate Eggleston:)

[beeman458]

I'm embarassingly having to eat my words publicly as ironically I'm slowly

coming to peace with "my" dislike for "his" kind of photography.

 

I do not see his effort for it's use of color as he's so boldly and in my mind

erroneously touted for as that's something which was done all along in the Santa

Clara Valley, pre Silicon Valley days; I know this coming from the 60's and 70's

photographically speaking. I have become appreciative of the publication of his

efforts (not so much the artist) for the freedom this photographic style gives

one from "calender art cliche." "I'm at war with the obvious."

 

There, public admission done and yes it was that hard:)<div></div>

[andy_laycock]

Believe me he's had to put up with considerable hatred from people like you and it hasn't even slowed him down one iota. There was one memorable moment in the documentary about him where he's looking at his latest prints and says something to the effect of "I think this is the best work that I've ever done". His friend then replies that he says that every time he looks at his latest work. He's been photographing since he was a boy and now in his late 60's he's still finding excitement and passion for his photography. And no doubt he'll continue to produce consistently good and honest images.

 

There's no reason to hate Eggleston. He's not stopping anyone from shooting what they want and in fact he's allowed many to follow their creative pathways in the face of hostility and pressure.

[beeman458]

"He's not stopping anyone from shooting what they want and in fact he's allowed many to follow their creative pathways in the face of hostility and pressure."

 

I too continued in my path despite receiving the same form of agression at the finger of this forum:) If you reread my comments, the heading is tongue in cheek (note the smiley face) as my feelings towards Eggleston have changed (mellowed) somewhat over the years and considering comments I've made in past public missives on this forum, it's only fair to post, publically, a changing attitude on my part. "Fair's fair." :)

[andy_laycock]

Hey Thomas, yes I did realize you were making peace with your feelings on Eggleston and I find it quite big of you to do so. I guess I've always liked him since my interests have always been the common objects around us when everyone else was going nuts over Velvia dreamscapes, overcooked 'fine art' prints and bums sleeping on park benches.

[thomas_sullivan]

I first heard of him, and saw his pics, four or five years ago. And my immediate thought was that he was boring. Of course, at the time, my list of photographer's names that I actually knew the work of could be counted on one hand. Diado Moriyama was impressing me more at the time, and that was the complete other end of the photographic spectrum. Time went by, my list of photographers that I was aware of got extremely large, and I was seeing more and more color work that impressed me.

 

Then one day while surfing the web I ended up on a site with a lot of Eggleston's pics.......and was stunned as to how wrong I could have been. There was this color and subject interaction i never noticed before. Such mundane subject matter, such pastel colors, none of it really calling attention to itself.......but I found myself immersed in the image. Locked onto the scene itself......in there with it. Still didn't know why.....but I was really liking what I saw.

 

Shortly after that, was the first time I ever read the art critic's words on him. The phrase that stands out, that comes the closest to why I like what he does now, is "Eggleston's pictures are like that Martian that only has a couple hours stay over on Earth, doesn't know any of the tourist sites, and this is what he would take pics of" (paraphrased from memory....forget who said it). And that's it.........he makes the everyday, ordinary, see it all the time stuff..........look new. He makes me look at it for the first time. Even though I've seen the same thing a thousand times before....he makes it so I can't take my eyes off it.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

His, and Friedlander's work is better under influence. It's amazing how much fun that boring shit can be when you're drunk.

[h._p.]

LOL, Dan.

[john falkenstine]

Writing about Eggleston is old hat.

[mike butler]

Hi Thomas,

 

Welcome to Eggleston Anonymous.

 

I'm just working the early steps in my Eggleston program...but isn't he doing what artists

do? Finding a shred of beauty and dignity in the everyday, the mundane, even the banal?

 

I'm dying to know whether he's embraced digital and what color space he uses. Maybe that

will be revealed in Step 10, 11, 12...

 

;-)

[andy_laycock]

Mike, in the documentary on him he's asked if he shoots digital. He answered no and I didn't get the impression that he has any interest in it.

[beeman458]

"...but isn't he doing what artists do? Finding a shred of beauty and dignity in the everyday, the mundane, even the banal?"

 

Does the general public know, understand and appreciate this point or does it become a case of doing it for ourselves and the rest be damned?

 

Being freed from the cliche is satisfyingly very freeing but having little to no understanding in a world sans Soho becomes the sound of one hand clapping.

[andy_laycock]

�Does the general public know, understand and appreciate this point or does it become a case of doing it for ourselves and the rest be damned?

Being freed from the cliche is satisfyingly very freeing but having little to no understanding in a world sans Soho becomes the sound of one hand clapping.�

 

I�m not sure I understand your point Thomas. If you are implying that there has been no effort to �share� him with the world at large then you are mistaken. He�s appeared in numerous high profile shows in a number of cities over the past 30 years. His books are sold everywhere including the major chains and his documentary is sold on Amazon. The general public seems to have little interest in photography as art, but most people interested in art, especially photographic art, will know who William Eggleston is.

[chris_waller]

I first encountered Eggleston's work about 20 years ago and then saw and exhibitionin London abotu 15 years ago. When I saw the original of his lightbulb and red ceiling I was hooked.

[john falkenstine]

The General public could probably care less about Eggleston.

[AJHingel]

Thomas, I don't think it is worthwhile hating Eggleston. Hate your enemies, if you have such ones. Eggleston is just another very good photographer amond so many others.

[beeman458]

"Thomas, I don't think it is worthwhile hating Eggleston."

 

The heading was tongue in cheek. Please make note of the smiley face at the end of the heading:) Smile, smile, happy, happy:)

 

"Hate your enemies, if you have such ones."

 

Got nobody to hate as I got no time for I got no energy cause hate takes effort:)

 

I'm simply making public ammends for some past comments that I'm no longer supportive of. Some here know of what I write, others don't. Wishing all well with their photographic efforts.

[AJHingel]

Sorry Thomas for unintentionally having interfered in an insider story that might not be any of my business.

[beeman458]

"Sorry Thomas for unintentionally having interfered in an insider story that might not be any of my business."

 

My apologies if I made it seem that way.

 

I have/had a certain strong negative distaste for Eggleston and his style of photography. I have made this point very clear on this forum over many, many encounters and postings. To keep a very, very, very, very long story short, I'm making a "certain" peace with Eggleston's photographic style. Since I've made it a point to make public comment as to my distaste, I felt that for benefit of those who have followed my artistic sojurn and past negative comments in regard to Egglesto and his style, it was only proper/fair for me to make note that I've softened my stance in regard to Eggleston's photographic style.

 

Hopefully the above will shed light on the enigma my post caused.

[bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa]

"I'm making a "certain" peace with Eggleston's photographic style."

 

Do you think anyone really cares? What a freak show. Sheesh!

[andy_laycock]

"Do you think anyone really cares? What a freak show. Sheesh!"

 

What a dick!

[beeman458]

"What a freak show. Sheesh!"

 

Lisette Model comes to mind in that regard.

 

http://www.photo-seminars.com/Fame/lisettemodel.htm

 

And she was a main contributor and influence in Diane Arbus's photography and began what I term the "Freaks are Us" photographic style.

 

When one writes of a a "real" freak show, "Le Theatre du Grand Guignol" comes to mind.

 

http://www.grandguignol.com/

 

So if one wishes context to their written thoughts, then one needs to do more than post vitriol as a response for I'm sure you know and understand the philosophy behind photography, Eggleston and the others I mentioned above.

 

I stopped by your photographic portfolio...... wishing you well with your photographic efforts.

[clayh]

I almost never cruise this forum, but I can't resist making this remark about Eggleston. Go to any 'indie' or art-y movie. Look at the lighting, scene composition and the filming style. For a good current example, say, check out many of the scenes in "Little Miss Sunshine".

 

It is warmed-over Eggleston. Even if most Americans have never heard of the guy, they have probably been exposed to cinemaphotographers who imitate his style. Some of the cinemaphotographers probably don't know who he is either. They are just copying the style of someone who does. Some are better imitators than others, as you would expect.

[AJHingel]

Thanks Thomas for the explanation above.

 

I wonder whether the indisputable (?) influence Eggleston has had on American photography (and films it seems) is an argument that the guy was a photographer to admire. I don't appreciate much his photos but I fully accept him as an extremely important artist.

 

Concerning the change of feelings towards Eggleston that Thomas announces, the event is surely not important for most of us I would believe . What is interesting is the reasons for such a change of appreciation and in my view you have only given some bits and pieces to explain it. This is not a critic because of the obvious difficulty of putting words on such personal developments.

[beeman458]

"and in my view you have only given some bits and pieces to explain it. This is not a critic because of the obvious difficulty of putting words on such personal developments."

 

I can easily explain it, just didn't want to bore the forum with the details.

 

I came from the cliche of "Calendar Art" and the Zone V workshops associated with Ansel Adams and the F/64 gang back in the 60's and the 70's. Along the road, about the new millenium, I tripped over the disconnect between contemporary photography and the wonderful world of the beautiful cliche. About five years ago, I decided to explore this disconnect because I had become disenchanted with calendar art as it no longer had the same meaning to me as I found myself wanting more.

 

To keep a long story short, enters Eggleston and all which surrounds him and the controversy my posted comments caused this forum going back many years. I still have strong feeling on the man, his art and personal behavior and how I see this behavior affecting his photographic ideals "but" my stance has softened considerably as to his style of photography. I appreciate more his comment "I'm at war with the obvious." and appreciation breeds a sort of acceptance; not to be confused with respect.

 

I disagree with much that has been written about Eggleston and what he's done for photography (another much longer story) but the one thing, to me, that he's done, was to solidify the act of making the banal acceptable.

 

One has to go back to 1915, "Milk Bottle" and Steichen to appreciate how Eggleston's efforts solidified this change or freeing up of photography from the strict painterly rules of what was acceptable to photograph exemplified by Steiglitz's very well thought out and complimentary mime of Impressionism; even though he didn't touch upon the philosophy what the Impressionists were about:)

 

http://masters-of-photography.com/S/steichen/steichen_milk_bottles_full.html

 

With the above in mind, I found myself learning how to blend the two worlds of Calendar photographic art and Postmodern photographic art and in the process came to appreciate that without Eggleston's efforts to gain notoriety back in the 60's (he was a huge self-promoter,) his style (and those of a similar bent) would not have been popularized and photography might still be wearing a Victorian straight jacket created in part by Stieglitz.

 

So here I be, in a bit of a conundrum of appreciating and creating in the banal yet found I was still wearing the negative mantel knitted together with written missives of the past. It seemed the only way to shed this albatrotic mantel of sin (redemption,) to me, would be to make public comment:)

 

Voila!

 

Hope the above is insightful:)

[AJHingel]

Thanks Thomas. Great insight into your dialogue with recent history of photography that surely must interest many on PN.