Eggleston at the Whitney: a review

[jtk]

The element in some contemporary photography that makes me most uncomfortable is "irony." I think Eggleston dwells in irony as much as in the "deadpan" Martin Sobey mentioned.

 

I think irony's implication is that the photographer sees something the masses don't see. That pose of superiority seems unjustified, simultaneously seeming of most interest to critics, hobbiests and students than to the best photographers. It may limit future appreciation of Eggleston and company, since it's so obvious.

 

I don't think "irony" is a component of our great music, literature, graphic art or photography. "Irony" is immediately adjacent to "camp," with all that implies.

[kristina_kraft]

I agree with Martin. It's true. I totally forgot about Maxwell.

 

John, your link on New Yorker is simply great. So nicely said about him. The photograph in this article, the one with Presley is so vibrant and bright. So strangely in a way, simply perfect as Presley was.

 

What is "deadpan photography"?

 

Regarding Diane Arbus. I've seen movie about her life, with N. Kidman. Probably Diane would say, "Tell me your secret" That's how the movie ends. (I'm little off the track).

 

John, can you tell more about how is irony seen in contemporary art. Why irony, in which context. I don't understand you. But this irony seems to me kind of tricky and intrigues me.

 

Personally, I enjoy so much in taking color photographs. Here there is no any aspect of drama, sorrow, pain, depression - and all that soul-killing attributes.

To me color photography is a soul-healer. That's why Presley looks so alive.

[jtk]

Kristina, "irony" is a concept that's mentioned frequently by critics. There may

be a language issue.

 

Ironic situations or images have secondary impacts or hooks that are in-jokes among people who, I find, need to

feel superior to someone else. Perhaps they're jealous, even of people they consider at a lower social

stratum (such as Elvis, responded to by an intellectual photographer).

 

Elvis Presley was a gifted "artist" if anyone has been. Beautiful. But he's also ridiculed by people who want to

feel culturally superior, don't appreciate Elvis yet visit Graceland, accumulating images.

 

Paul Simon, who said something significant and accurate about photography with his song "Kodachrome," said

something important and accurate about Elvis with his song "Graceland." Simon is perceptive and emotionally

honest. "Ironic" images are perceptive on the surface, but perhaps not honest.

[jtk]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMnSI2EHJ3Y ....Kodachrome

 

....Graceland

 

....Graceland: Paul Simon & Willie Nelson

 

...Elvis

 

... Elvis, channeled by Willie Nelson

[kristina_kraft]

John, now I understand. Thanks for the songs.

[kristina_kraft]

Visiting Graceland web sites, I just don't quite understand why Lisa - Marie can't make a fresh photographs of Elvis bedroom, or second floor in general. I mean 30 years have passed. It could be just as with National Archive documents that can be publish after 30 years publicly. So that the world can be informed. It's really too bad that millions of people can't see the second floor, almost silly.

 

It would be great to see in details his brush, clothes, etc.

What do you think, John?

[jtk]

Kristina, I think Elvis did his own archive and died when his time was right, like Hemingway. I wasn't a fan while The King was alive, but I always knew he was real. Maybe you could create something with those details, but I'm not that subtle.

 

That was ancient history to me, but maybe somebody from another culture will see something extra...

 

Here's how short, crude videos can be important photography. Hint.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHEO_fG3mm4

 

A sweet n' sexy love song to Condoleeza Rice. Steve Earle meant this from his heart . Beyond irony.

 

Eliza Gilkerson, absolutely not loving somebody:

 

Neil Young...Better late than never. No irony at all: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6unBQZHp2w&feature=related

[fate_faith_change_chains]

I love <a href="

from the heart this one... " Irony

",

and the not so narrow spectrum of meaning that comes with the word, is almost unavoidable in the experiencing of all modern art, but more

so in the viewing of it than in the making of it I think.

 

 

 

 

The viewer of a photograph or a certain work of art, may always be looking for hidden

clues and meanings, for crossreferences to works of art or ' cultures from a certain period in time ' that came before it or even long after the

artwork was made, in wich case it's clearly the viewer giving the ironic meaning.

 

Looking at a photograph made some 20+ years ago, and almost inevitably viewing it in the light of art that came after it, with this ' burden of

knowledge ' attached to it, the irony is more in the eyes of the observer than in that what's being observed I think.

[don_e]

This past year so often threads in this forum become discussions of movie stars and music celebs. I don't know what it has to do with philosophy or photography, but people do love their shows and their music.

[fate_faith_change_chains]

" This past year so often threads in this forum become discussions of movie stars and music celebs."

 

Why so serious ?

[jtk]

Don E, not knowing what this has to do with photography suggests you are not paying much attention to

photography...IMO.

 

Photography is associative, as Phylo pointed out. In fact, the associative aspect explains most of the clicking.

 

If you'd like to concentrate more on clicking, P.N has some great Forums for the purpose.

 

Perhaps, if you have ideas of your own, you'll start some Topics of your own?

 

It's easy to kvetch, harder to be an individual.

[sobeystudio]

So I saw the show yesterday. It was as expected, a big white room with lots of color photographs hung very nicely in white frames with

white mattes. Eggleston puts the emphasis on the photographs, and they are intriguing and beautiful. I think that we have seen so much

color and deadpan photography in the past 30 years that we have a difficult time looking at work like Eggleston's and appreciating it,

including myself. He did something special at a time when B&W was the norm. He has a keen sense of moments and their ephemeral

nature. He did something with a passion and substance. He documented a epoch in his own voice and that speaks volumes. I was

wrong in that I thought many of his prints were larger scale, but of course they wouldn't be- color technology wasn't there yet. His ability

to see the color of the era is powerful, and this is something great for me to see. I also went upstairs and looked at Alexander Calder,

"The Paris Years" and was blown away. I haven't previously seen many of the works showed and I was totally excited, and enlightened

to his brand of genius during this period. This is part of the difficulty that people may have with work like Eggleston's- we've seen it-

printed very well in magazines and posters and on the internet. You had better be really open to the experience to walk away with

anything different than you might already understand from mainstream media.

[don_e]

It is neither being "serious" nor "kvetching". It is an observation.

 

And, if I were to play: why are you being so defensive?

 

Of course, it might have been irony.

[kristina_kraft]

John, now I got it. Do you mean that the song "You Were Always on my Mind" is ironic? Tell me, what kind of man he was when he wrote such a lyrics? How can man think on a woman and at the same time not giving her enough and healthy love, claiming "I'm so happy that you were mine" ? Why so many contradiction? It looks to me as his real experience. Maybe he was feeling crucified somehow and ended...

 

What's your opinion, John?

 

Yes, in this case this is my association just looking at Eggleston's beautiful and old photograph.

[jtk]

Kristina, no, I didn't communicate clearly enough. I meant "You Were Always On My Mind" was heartfelt, the opposite of "ironic." Some photography is heartfeld, some is ironic (perhaps making bitter statements), some is simply pretty or illustrative or nothing at all.

 

Don E, You typically avoid expression of full thoughts, relying mostly on negative comments...those aren't "observations". With minimalistic comments, you feel you can't be pinned down...which makes you feel safe. Reminds me of the photographer who defends himself against his viewers, saying they "just don't get it."

[jtk]

Martin, I enjoy your responses to Eggleston and Calder exhibitions. Definitive Picasso/Matisse (Louvre) and Bill Brandt (Albuquerque Museum) exhibitions turned me on in similar ways: I entered both with appreciation limited by reproductions and isolated pieces, left excited and perhaps changed by Picasso and Brandt.

[Norma Desmond]

John--

 

"Heartfelt" can also be sappy. "Irony" may, as you say, suggest an air of superiority but it may pierce the surface in a

way "heartfelt" sometimes doesn't.

 

There can be heartfelt irony when someone tries earnestly to communicate contradictory or conflicted themes or

emotions.

 

Isn't it ironic that I love him and hate him and can't I be heartfelt in expressing that.

 

Push-pull photographs, ones that draw me in and simultaneously push me away, can be very powerful and sincere.

[jtk]

Fred, I understand... but we differ.

 

I think "irony" is no more than a less amusing version of "camp." It's amusing, but negative and false. It pretends to "pierce the surface" but it leads astray.

 

Perhaps irony can be "heartfelt," but I pity that heart's impurity (to use yet another simultaneously Victorian and Buddhist concept :-)

 

The push-pull you mention isn't "irony," to my way of thinking: It's paradox. It's paradoxical that you experience joy and suffering from the same relationship, but it's not ironic unless you want to...perhaps... diminish the relationship. You may wish to diminish the relationship with an ironic comment, but that doesn't address the truth of the relationship...and no label can do that, though poetry might. I'm no poet so I'm stuck at 90% of truth.

 

Paradox doesn't inherently carry negativity, and I think irony does. Loving someone and simultaneously hating them describes a paradoxical relationship in conclusively distorting verbal terms, and as such it may (will inherently?) diminish understanding. I think this is where poetry trumps analysis.

 

If you say you love/hate you've taken the feelings 110% past the truth. If you say these unlabeled feelings are confusing and you don't understand them fully, you've arrived at 90% of the truth and not deceived yourself. IMO :-)

 

I don't know if photos can address these issues beyond making "ironic" images on the one hand (which seems easy..we see that a lot) and "heartfelt" images...which can certainly be "sappy" but which I hope can be more.

 

What's wrong with "sappy," btw? :-)

[don_e]

"Don E, You typically avoid expression of full thoughts...you feel you can't be pinned down...which makes you

feel safe"

 

I always enjoy your mind-reading, John. Why are you kvetching, why so defensive, why so serious?

 

"This past year so often threads in this forum become discussions of movie stars and music celebs."

Seems like a "full thought" to me.

 

And, your response...meowwrrr! Why is that? But, you did write above that irony (synonyms see wit) makes you

"uncomfortable". I guess it's true. I'll stop.

[Norma Desmond]

John--

<p><p>

To me, "sappy" is a superficial side of heartfelt. It's the picture-postcard photo of a beee-autiful sunset without a real

depth of emotional connectedness to that sunset.

<p><p>

As I see it, you're talking mostly about irony in one sense which would include sarcasm. It assumes intent on the part of

the speaker, writer, or actor ("actor" both in the theatrical sense and in the one-who-performs-the-action sense).

<p><p>

I think the distinction between paradox and irony is not one of negativity. Rather it is one of expectation and often a

matter of who knows what and when they know it.

<p><p>

Catch-22 has one of the great all-time paradoxes:

<p><p>

"There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that concern for one's own safety in the face of

dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he

had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would

be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy

and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to."<br>

(Joseph Heller, <i>Catch-22</i>)

<p><p>

On the other hand, Sophocles and Shakespeare give us irony, Oedipus discovering that he, himself is the king's

murderer for whom he's been searching and Juliet waking from a faked death to discover Romeo having killed himself

thinking she was really dead.

<p><p>

In the cases of irony, we know what the characters don't and the <i>discovery</i> by the characters has a unique kind

of emotional impact on them and on us.

<p><p>

There seems no such <i>discovery</i> (expectation, anticipation, etc.) in the case of a paradox, which can nevertheless

have impact and effect.

<p><p>

The push-pull of a photograph may only be paradoxical, but if it goes deeper, it becomes irony, and effective irony at

that, not the diminishing kind you refer to.

<p><p>

It may be that photographers have tended to use irony in the superior and even campy terms you talk about. That

probably says less about irony and more about photography, it being harder to establish the required narrative in

photography to let a more sophisticated use of irony work. There's irony in <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?

photo_id=6064026">THIS</a> recent PN Photo of the Week, but there's also an element of camp (or at least easiness

or superficiality) than undercuts it.

[Norma Desmond]

s/b: <i>that</i> undercuts it.

[twmeyer]

Thank you Fred... for so eloquently stating the obvious. <p>This defensive and bogus concept of the elitist boogeyman makes me hungry. I think I'll have a nice <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=obama+arugula&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a">arugula salad</a>... t

[jtk]

mmmm! Arugula! But Real Amurricans eat wedges of iceberg lettuce with that dayglo orange industrial dressing.

 

Fred, your point about "discovery" seems one of the central issues:

 

I don't experience as many "discoveries," as I do mysteries, but it'd be easier if I did... I think "discoveries" are more likely attempts to make paradoxes vanish, than they are to be significant or honest. "Born again" for example, may be a "discovery" that vanishes whatever seemed mysterious or awesome to that person.

 

In your example http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo.tcl?photo_id=6064026 the "discovery" we are probably happy to see infantile joy, which lets us skate blythely by the meaning of the monument...it illustrates the "easiness or superficiality" that we may both find uninteresting.

 

btw, it's also a very fine image, too "easy" though it may be. Again, I'm not opposed to "sappy" in general, I just try to avoid it personally...as an elitist :-)

[Norma Desmond]

I wonder if a fine image would have let you skate blythely by the meaning of the monument . . . the possibilities for ironic

photographs.

 

Discovery is easy? Nah.

 

Born again is not a discovery. It's a teaching and a following. And were it a discovery, it would only be one of many types, and

not representative of other kinds of more compelling discovery.

 

Mystery and discovery live side by side for me. I've discovered an incredible amount about photography and about

myself through photography and about others through photography. Yet mysteries remain and even multiply. Discovery is a process as

much as an end. A discovery does not have to be an answer, surely not a final answer. It can be as simple as learning a

new way to phrase a question.

 

What I get at the end of Romeo and Juliet is not Shakespeare's answer to life. It's a deepening of the mystery.

[kristina_kraft]

Fred,

"Push-pull photographs, ones that draw me in and simultaneously push me away, can be very powerful and sincere..." - Can you explain me, because this is very interesting, what do you mean by that? Give me some example. Why do you think it is powerful?

 

John,

"It's paradoxical that you experience joy and suffering from the same relationship, but it's not ironic unless you want to...perhaps... diminish the relationship..." - I agree. You said it perfectly. I know that feeling. I can't escape from it. I accepted it and I live with that notion. But I can't explain on philosophical level why I feel like that. Maybe you may want to explain.

 

Juliet, for me, didn't discover Romeo's death. I don't see discovering in this case. Rather I see it as her stupidity because she didn't check the pulse in the neck. She didn't do anything from medical perspective. Neither she didn't touch his heart to feel the pulse. Why Shakespeare missed that?

 

I am more of the type of a person who likes to discover and recognized. Mysteries makes me nervous.

 

Now I feel like a character in a book, having tea time and conversation with you guys.