God how I hate Eggleston:)

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> You really are pretentious. You should try exploring this point instead of hating me for pointing it out.

</blockquote> </i><p>

 

Another classic Grdner "My genius is beleaguered by cowardly, closedminded pedants" post. Ought to apply for a trademark.

[beeman458]

"Another classic Grdner "My genius is beleaguered by cowardly, closedminded pedants" post. Ought to apply for a trademark."

 

Thank-you Z as I expect much more of this type of this, intentionally out of context, pile on negativity (vitriol/hate) to come. Do you think you can converse in a straight up friendly manner?

 

I'm curious, what have you done to challenge the status quo? Are you the box that that keeps the think enclosed? Do you push the envelope, or are you the envelope? What do you do that's outside the artistic party line? What thought is behind the finger connecting the mind to the shutter? Are you willing to discuss your think openly, (or anybody for that matter) in context to photographic history, for benefit of the forum? What thoughts do you have that's unique to photography? How have you changed your photographic style to better reflect your maturing photographic outlook?

 

Try a little bit of non-pedantic conversation. It's okay to do this, the water's (common sense) fine.

[hatley]

The addage "you dislike in others what dislike most about yourself" I think applies very strongly here, as well as the idea that what you put into the world often seems to be the very thing you see everywhere. That has a lot to do I would like to think with the comments I made about Wegman, and perception in general in my view.

 

Anyway.

[beeman458]

"The addage "you dislike in others what dislike most about yourself""

 

That must explain why I work so hard to rid myself of these dislikes so I can come to be at peace with my artistic journey.

 

How are you doing with your coming to be at peace with your artistic journey?

[twmeyer]

As I noted before (sigh) you have reached the age of making up stuff to prove your own point of view. "<i>What do I encourage or do, that's so detrimental or threatening to society at large that's considered "dangerous?</i>" I didn't say anything about being dangerous to <i>society</i>, this is a tag you seem to hold for yourself. I meant that your feedback loop is dangerous to your own sanity, which might, I suppose, turn into something dangerous to society (going postal was the implied result of the feedback loop in your own head, see your above: "<i>I am hated because...</i>" etc.)<p>As further proof that my concerns may be justified, note the proportion of responses you seem to be making to yourself in this, and every thread, otherwise known as "feedback"... that horrible screeching noise that occurs when a PA system's microphone gets too close to the speakers. <p>Regarding your diatribe on hatred: I'll lift a quote from another, more rational thread here, "if you're a hammer, all you see is nails"... t

[beeman458]

You're so mature. Try adding to the content of the forum.

[twmeyer]

Don't you have enough to complain about already?<p>It's interesting that all our exhange here has been because you so stridently objected to my opinion that the general public's taste is not a useful barometer for gauging artistic endeavors.<p>I wonder what I might contribute to this forum, that you would approve... t

[beeman458]

"It's interesting that all our exhange here has been because you so stridently objected to my opinion that the general public's taste is not a useful barometer for gauging artistic endeavors."

 

Just admit it, you got nothin when it comes to philosophy and art.

[._._z]

Twaddle.

[beeman458]

"Twaddle."

 

You got nothing either Z.

 

When a person comes to a thread and says nothing but negativity, it's insightful as to their character. One only needs to read what you and other's, who've posted their negativity on this thread, have to write in other threads to realize what's being written is anything but insightful, educated or challenging. It doesn't take a genius to understand the why of why others intentionally take what's been written, constantly, out of context. This out of context writing is done so regularly and when commented on, nothing is done on the offending party's part to correct the error, so it becomes patently clear that it's intentional. In fact some will go out of their way, to do it again and again and again; malice. If that's all some here have, then that's all they've got, so be it. Being nice doesn't seem to be reciprocated here. Jerk behavior is encouraged. So much for forum rules of engagement.

 

Z, what was the last thread you posted in, where you wrote something challenging of the artistic status quo? When was the last time you wrote something publically that disagreed with "art experts?" When was the last time you wrote something revealing about yourself?

 

To say you're an intelligent and articulate person is easy, putting your think on the chopping block, to me, is where it's at when it comes to philosophical debate. Let's see some of your intelligence.

 

I heard a term the other day, "Agreed speech." and all many here do, is parrot the artistic party line.

 

Try being nice Z, it's not hard..... or is it?

[._._z]

All Gardner's done since he's arrived at photo.net is argue endlessly about nonsense in this forum, and resort to attacks when things don't go his way. More twaddle.

[beeman458]

"More twaddle."

 

Again Z, you got nothin; just down, never up.

 

What do you challenge in the photographic art world? What do you disagree with in regard to what the "elite" have to say about "anything" involving contemporary or earlier photographic art? What do you have to write which challenges and moves philosophical conversation forward? Why do you even come to this thread, if not for the negative? Where's your philosophical conversation?

[._._z]

Thanks for proving my point.

[beeman458]

"Thanks for proving my point."

 

Z, you don't have a point. Keep trying.

[beeman458]

I know I'm dealing with immaturity on several levels and yet sadly Z, hope springs eternal.

 

I won't expect mature conversation from you so you're off the hook.

 

Wishing you well with your photographic pursuits.

[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."

 

The above comment was the purpose of the thread.

 

"There, public admission done..."

 

I'll now abandon the thread as it's being hyjacked and is now doomed to enter the childish phase.

 

Wishing all well with your photographic pursuits.

[._._z]

Thanks for proving my point yet again, Thomas.

[bobbyc]

With Eggleston, the fundamental issue is not so much his aesthetic sense but his

pioneering work with color photography.

[pavel_olavich]

Anyone that looks at .Z's post history will see that he likes to hit and run...jab & run....it's his genre, his MO. Mean sarcasm, flippant remarks, bullying, just list his history....and then now he hammers on Old Gardner.

 

I hope he gets happy someday.

[fred_obturateur]

I'll pass on the junk-food controversy and go back to Eggleston : imho he did his best work in the 70's... that is when he was an unknown dressed in black excentric Texan who exposed his Kodachrome films sparsely (one subject one shot). After he was discovered by Szarkowski around 1976 he became famous but imho again he never produced works that equaled his "early" pictures. Ironic, isn't it?

His latest work (the French town of Dunkerque) is average....

http://www.photosapiens.com/article.php?id_article=1651

[sprouty]

Tough to get through since those damn French have a different word for everything.

 

Any links to something with a few more images? Because based on the two shown in the article, all I can say is they look rather, well, like Eggleston.