Telling trivia from truth.

[luis_g]

<p>I've seen this picture of Eggleston's in print, in two different samples, out of what is probably an edition of 12. I did not get organ/meat from it, though I can understand how a carnivore :-) could interpret those wires as marbling, but blood, passion, vitality, and a strong visceral feeling/response <em>to </em>it.</p>

<p>Given W.E.'s truly extraordinary color sensitivity, it's easy to understand the gravity of his complaint about the difference between viewing this on screen and print.</p>

<p>One thing to keep in mind about Eggleston. He's visually a descendant of Walker Evans, content-wise (which means Atget also). Formally he parted ways on the frontality, among other things. Cultural artifacts (specially signs) frequently inhabit Eggleston imagery, and as with so many other things, he's not dealing with the newest, latest, rarest, or most melodramatic, but the banal (although not when it comes to light). Eggleston is, conceptually, an aftermath photographer. He photographs what all of us have overlooked a thousand times, walked over, removed from the driveway, slept on, bathed in, cooked our meals in, etc.</p>

<p>This picture will not seem like one of those, but keep in mind that it was not rare/spectacular/exotic to W.E. -- or the American South. In the course of my meanderings, I've been -- and stayed in -- (insert strains of <em>House of the Rising Sun </em>here) similar-looking rooms.</p>

<p>He says he is "...at war with the obvious", and maybe he means the usual loud/exotic/sensational subjects and situations of commonplace/banal photography, but somehow his sensitivity to the common, banal, everyday things all of us have become desensitized to never extinguished. He kept himself alive where the rest of us became zombies. </p>

<p>Ironically, since all but a handful of photographers are aware of, understand, or can effectively deal with the banal, this inverted the whole thing. The banal is largely invisible, not because of its newness, but the opposite: We are habituated to it. It's extremely difficult to photograph it, and as we see here on a regular basis, conceptual Orientalism is alive and well.</p>

<p>Eggleston is a multifaceted, highly individuated man, an artist in several media, but in all of them, his brilliance, wit, grace, poetics, eccentricity, sensitivity, unbridled passion and love give his work its distinctive signature. </p>

<p>Back to "<em>Greenwood, Mississippi, 1973"...</em> The symmetries and geometry of this image have W.E.'s signature graceful fluency of the oblique approach. Note how the corner in the background describes a "Y" on the vertical plane. The white power cords departing the ceiling fixture make a "Y" on the horizontal plane. My guess is that the photographer stood on a chair, since these light fixtures tend to be in the center of a room, though I would not be surprised if W.E. held his Leica and flash up at arm's length to do this, or levitated (!).</p>

<p>That light fixture is a cultural artifact, in part, because it is telling us about the dwelling it is in, and its evolution. We can follow the wire to the far right, and it goes to feed electricity to another (fluorescent, which would have made the room seem a lot darker than the flash does, though it could have a black light bulb in it) white longitudinally-shaped light fixture where the wall meets the ceiling that has been added to the room. And, maybe moved after the room was painted, beause one can see an unpainted patch about the same shape as the fixture's footprint nearer to the corner. If one looks carefully, one can see a dab of the red paint on the fixture. The other cords likewise go to feed other devices. Why aren't they plugged into a wall fixture? Maybe because they're already stuffed with power strips? Or more likely because it's an old house, and the ancient (replaceable-type) fuses have had problems that haven't been fixed yet.</p>

<p>On the lower left there's a dark rectangle that looks like it could be a door/frame, or a 3D object, like a shelf? Across from it, on the right-side wall, is a poster that was once quite popular, of sexual positions in fluorescent colors assigned to astrological signs. It hangs, not surprisingly, right under that light fixture.</p>

<p>The flood of that blood-red color, the poster with sexual positions, cords, astrology, tensions raised between the organic and geometric composition, and above it all, the light bulb being out, say a lot with very little.</p>

<p> </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>One thing that is apparent in the Eggleston image is the enigma of what we don't see. And that by itself is not a very important response, certainly not incited by the image itself. What about what is there, what does that tell us? Three wires are plugged into the light standard, rather than to some other sockets, making the light a sort of procreator of the other lights attached to it (we don't see all of them). But this light is itself silenced, not excited by that common or primary electricity source. The hot red ceiling suggests that even though the light is not lit, the source of all this electricity is there, but oddly is not realised.</p>

<p>Is this the paradox sought by the photographer? I think not, really, and I think that what we are TRYING to see in it is a bit too forced, whether it is Julie's, Fred's or my interpretation (sorry if I have missed other equally independent interpretations). I think that a more significant image would have induced a more common interpretation of the image than what we have seen here from the three of us. Induced? Yes, because I believe that powerful images can do this, even though the significance of the image might be nuanced and require a concentrated attempt to understand it (more than the fleeting glance).</p>

<p>I wrote this before Luis' comment and find it interesting that he sees a similar relationship between the central and peripheral light fixtures.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Luis, I'm not surprised by your articulate description of the photo. I get a lot out of hearing your concise ideas, clearly and specifically stated, and your lack of fluff. It will serve as a memorable example to me of how to write about photos and of visual literacy.</p>

<p>Arthur, interesting that you've (at least in part) based the significance of a photo on your desire for it to have a more common "interpretation," and that interpretation by <em>three</em> people. By the way, when I used the metaphor "the cream rising to the top," a lot of what I had in mind was that the top (of the room) seems to be all we see. What's left out is significant to the photo (and is a matter of perspective, a distinctly photographic concern) and is incited by nothing but the photo, otherwise it wouldn't have come up in the context of the photo . . . and it's worth noting, given your concerns, that it came up for both of us. What any photographer leaves out of the frame has significance to what's in the frame. In this case, it's so obvious that a part of the room we would normally expect to see is not in view and is a blatant and highly effective use of what's not there.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Click on "Portfolios":</p>

<p>http://www.egglestontrust.com/</p>

<p>This is not to say that the "Articles and Essays" link is not worthy as well, but first things first. . . .</p>

<p>From what I can see, it is most definitely about color, as the artist himself claimed. Many of these are new to me, although obviously not to many of you.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>When I say that art IS the scale, what I mean is that art finds, reveals, what the viewer has in him/her; what he/she brings to the experience of the art. If I bring an object of unknown weight to a scale, the scale will find and reveal to me the weight that is in that object. If the object has no weight, that absence of weight will be revealed. Ditto for all the other meters and scales and measuring, sounding, tools for bringing to understanding what is not evident otherwise. Those devices are not what is revealed; what is revealed is some property or aspect or feature of the thing that is brought <em>to</em> the device. Art is the device. You are the thing.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Julie, that was an interesting read, but, if I had to choose so starkly, I would go with Pythagoras:</p>

<p>"Man is the measure of all things: of things which are, that they are, and of things which are not, that they are not".</p>

<p>There are yet other possibilities. I am not a relativist. . . except when it comes to art. Over-interpretation of art, especially forced interpretation, tires my soul. Most of all, I find it boring.</p>

<p>So many subjects; so little time.</p>

<p>Too many critics; not enough photographers.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie, Julie is not playing critic, she's able to see, something that's probably good for a photographer to do.</p>

<p><em>"Man is the measure of all things"</em> has led man to rape the environment and endanger his very existence and, MORE IMPORTANTLY, the existence of the planet, the greater whole. (It was said by Protagoras.)</p>

[AJHingel]

<p>But Landrum what you describe is in other context called <em>apathy (</em>why not here?<em>)</em>, and is not to be recommended if one wants to understand, related to, or, if it is permitted to refer to it, make art. Little art has come about by just going out/or in there shooting. Little art can be "understood" by just passing by. It can, maybe in some cases, be felt using that message, but not understood, if you have such a need.</p>

<p>If "Art is the device. You are the thing." as Julie quotes, is right - to me it sounds somewhat right in its shortness and clarity (John will love it!) - then apart from just announcing the relationship and repeating it over and over again like a prayer, it demands some kind of "interpretation" to understand art of others (the "device" and the "thing") - and maybe even more one's own production. Art without mentale efforts is just what it is : Procrastination.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"From what I can see, it is most definitely about color, as the artist himself claimed."</em> <strong>--Lannie</strong></p>

<p>Careful.</p>

<p>Szarkowski:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"Artists themselves tend to take absolutist and unhelpful positions when addressing themselves to questions of content, pretending with Degas that the work has nothing to do with ballet dancers, or pretending with James Agee that it has nothing to do with artifice. Both positions have the virtue of neatness, and allow the artist to answer unanswerable questions briefly and then get back to work. . . .<br /><br />I once heard Eggleston say that the nominal subjects of his pictures were no more than a pretext for the making of color photographs - the Degas position. I did not believe him, although I can believe that it might be an advantage to him to think so, or to pretend to think so. To me it seems that the pictures reproduced here are about the photographer's home, about his place, in both important meanings of that word. One might say about his identity.<br /><br />If this is true, it does not mean that the pictures are not also simultaneously about photography . . ."</p>

</blockquote>

[Julie H]

<p>Lannie, Lannie, Lannie ... I'll give you the short version of my response, which is, "Is not." And what Fred said.</p>

<p><strong>Luis</strong>. Dearie. Sweetheart. Sugar plum. You know I think the world of you. But for god's sake, you've taken Eggleston's wonderful feral meat-eater den reeking of sex and slaughter and turned it into a sterilized, sanitized, French-cut castrated Poodle. In my opinion.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>If we consider the four descriptions (Arthur, Fred, Julie, Luis), each has a personal touch. There are differences in tone of voice. They also differ with regard to taste. Yet, to me, there are overriding (or underlying) similarities in what we take away that's of significance (despite differences with what we then do about that or think about that or whether we state it with an over-the-top guttiness or a more staid and contemplative thoughtfulness or how we individually internalize what we've all up to that point shared because of the coherence of the photo).</p>

<p>Luis hasn't turned this into anything. It's clearly the same photograph Julie, in her unique way, is describing.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>No matter how you slice it, folks, it is the human being who "weighs" the photo, not the reverse. Photos do not weigh anything. If you mean that how we respond to photos tells much about us, that is obvious and trivial--but who is going to be the ultimate interpreter of who sees clearly and insightfully, and who does not? </p>

<p>As for Pythagoras, I am hardly a Pythagorean, but,<em><strong> if</strong></em> (I said) I had to choose between Julie's view and Pythagoras' view regarding art, <strong><em>then</em></strong> I would, as I said, have to go with Pythagoras. There is much more to be said (as I also said), but in no case does the photograph "weigh" or evaluate anything. Pythagoras would be a disastrous foundation for ethical theory. For esthetics? I can only say again that IF I had to choose between Pythagoras' view and Julie's view, then I would have to go with Pythagoras. Julie's view is eloquent and clever, but it is still nonsense.</p>

<p>Otherwise, one gets into this pointless nonsense about who has the vision, etc., and who is to interpret the vision of others. If persons would simply evaluate the photos, we would be better off than getting into this business (through the back door) of who has this supposedly superior vision: make your case for the photo or the photographer, and have done with it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Sorry for the double posting. I deleted it, but this remains.</p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Julie - "</strong><strong>Luis</strong>. Dearie. Sweetheart. Sugar plum. You know I think the world of you. But for god's sake, you've taken Eggleston's wonderful feral meat-eater den reeking of sex and slaughter and turned it into a sterilized, sanitized, French-cut castrated Poodle. In my opinion."</p>

<p>Lots of butter, followed by a spanking in the form of God, flesh, reeking sex, slaughter and castration, all before 10 AM. Geez, a meaty " My... <em>slaughter? </em>Wow.</p>

<p>It could be a pimply teenager's basement room -- no windows/daylight pouring in, though in the Julie-verse it is probably always midnight in that stinky, sticky-floored den of iniquity -- for all we can see in the photograph, and there is no way to know from that, which is no small part of its oracular allure. As we can see, there's plenty of room for the viewer to project into. </p>

<p>[Not that it matters, and I shouldn't mention this, but it wasn't a pimply teenager's room . Nor was it a micro Baptist revival snuff film studio, or a secret Tryst & Tea room for Red Hat Society Ladies.]</p>

<p>BTW, I had no idea there was (cringe) a <em>French</em>-cut form of castration (visions of testicular topiary dancing in my mind). How does it differ from the er...banal... snip-snip kind?</p>

<p> </p>

[Julie H]

<p><strong>Luis</strong> said (and I am laughing my head off): "How does it differ from the er...banal... snip-snip kind?" Well, for starters you need your vise-grip artery forceps (I recommend Craftsman) ... and then ... Oh wait. Maybe this is not the castration forum (not today, anyway).</p>

<p><strong>Lannie</strong>, does Pythagoras mention what device he's using for all his measuring? And does he talk about what he's measuring? Because that's what I'm talking about. And don't tell me man doesn't measure himself ... I'll get out my vise-grip artery forceps ...</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Lannie's adamant goings-on about Pythagoras are mildly humorous, especially because he's talking about Protagoras, who said <em>"Man is the measure of all things."</em> I hope now that I've said that twice, we can let the numbers guy (Pythagoras) rest in peace.</p>

<p>Julie, Protagoras doesn't mention what he's measuring. All we have from the Pre-Socratics are out-of-context fragments, the meanings of which have been argued for centuries. Plato has a go at it in <em>The Theaetetus</em>, where he's beginning the approach to his theory of Forms, which would be the objective and knowing opposite of what he considers to be the shamefully subjective and relativistic sophistry of the "Man is the measure" idea. But there are significant readings of the quote that consider it to be more about sensation and feeling (which may be photographic) than about relativism. A woman in Miami may experience the same temperature as cold that a Man from Boston experiences as hot. If someone <em>feels</em> hot, you can't very well tell them it's cold. Plato, of course, didn't much care for sensations and feelings and didn't mind telling people how to feel ;)))</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>A quote from Ernesrt Haas that I just suggested to John in another OP (Gould and Mehta) and gleaned from an essay by Ingre Bondi on the late photographer is just about right in my mind about one key aspect that separates banal and significant imnages.</p>

<p>In Bondi's essay, the last paragraph is particularly revealing of Haas.<br>

"About the nature of poetry and photography, he (Haas) wrote:<br /><em> </em></p>

<p><em>I see what I think <br />I see what I feel because I am what I see <br />If there is nothing to see and I still see it, <br />That's poetry <br />If there is something to see and everybody sees it <br />That's photography."</em></p>

 

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Importantly, Haas talks about <em>seeing</em>. If everybody <em>sees it</em>, NOT if everybody interprets it the same way.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>The "something to see" is what I think he refers to. The "something to see" of value is what most will declare as "nothing to see".</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"The 'something to see' of value is what most will declare as 'nothing to see'."</em></p>

<p>Indeed, possibly like a silly little swithed-off light bulb on a red ceiling.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Possibly, Fred, but that sort of light fixture (without the red ceiling) with wires going to other lights is not uncommon (a point also made by someone else) and has been seen and photographed by others unaware of Eggleston's image. I have spent 10 minutes unsuccessfully trying to find an older transparency of such a shot I took of a similar light in a small country restaurant in the 90s (and not knowing Eggleston's image). But I think what Eggleston saw was not that sort of geometry that is not unique, but the colour and what is outside of the frame. But I may be wrong.</p>

<p>Do understand that I am not supposing any notoriety similar to Eggleston's, just that the light fixture and its form and dependencies (other than the colour and relation to what might be outside the frame) is not something that is "nothing to see and then seen by the artist". Again, excepting the other mentioned attributes, if they are that.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>Sorry for typing Pythagoras instead of Protagoras--rushing to get that posted before my first class.</p>

<p>The rest stands.</p>

<p>Fred, if only we all had your vision. . . .</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p><em>"Fred, if only we all had your vision. . . ."</em> <strong>--Lannie</strong></p>

<p>If only we all had our own.</p>

[jtk]

<p><br />Searching for a truthy photograph ...<br>

<img src="http://www.document.no/2008/10/26/Diogenes_looking_for_a_man_-_attributed_to_JHW_Tischbein.jpg" alt="" /></p>

[aplumpton]

<p>He has his eye on me. Need I deliver, John?</p>

[fate_faith_change_chains]

<blockquote>

<p>I have noted quite a different perception in this forum on the value of certain images to different persons. Often that difference is exploited or referenced indirectly in discussion of the images or a concept that the images seek to elaborate. The weight of the argument is often related to personal preferences in the perceptions of images. - Arthur</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Perhaps truth is autobiographical, and we all share it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>"The truth is the way to reveal something about your life, your thoughts, where you stand. It doesn't just stand there alone, the truth. It stands there combined with art. I want to make something that has more of the truth and not so much of art. Which means you have to go out on a limb - because people are more comfortable dealing with art than with truth. "</em></p>

<p>Robert Frank</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The truth doesn't mean 'non-fiction', it means telling stories too, maybe especially so, <em>but</em></p>

<blockquote>

<p>"<em>Why not be silent ?"</em></p>

<p>William Eggleston</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think Eggleston's subjects as photographs are mostly <em>silent -</em> in all of their screaming colour - rather than <em>banal.</em></p>