William Eggleston - his work is not banal at all

charleswood · March 18, 2012

Tim - true enough. I'm saying to myself that room reminds me of some childhood friend's first apartment whose mind had gone awry. The hair lady - makes me cringe to be reminded of those who in those days seemed as though frozen in time. So personally, I don't like to be reminded of scatterings or stasis. I have enough of that to deal with, in pictures it doesn't interest me, I don't want to think about it more than my real life already demands. Give me a puppy pciture, I can deal with that!

ann_overland · March 18, 2012

I think the way to assess the matter of luck is to look through a photographer's body of work, as you are doing. If you start to see a consistency of vision or approach, something that seems to hold the body of work together, you can be pretty sure it wasn't just random luck even if there weren't specific intentions formed about each shot.

</blockquote>

Fred, I believe that what you said here is very essential. Until a photographer finds his/her own unique way of making photos, they will just be copying other photographers work, and there will be no consistancy in what they do. When they are convinced that what they do is right for them, their work will show it.

And like you say: The intentions behind each shot might not have been very specific, but it is how the mind of the photographer works when he knows what he is doing. Sometimes a photo can be great even if the photographer wasn't 100% aware of every aspect of the composition when the photo was made.

A photo made by an experienced and skilled photographer that knows exactly what he/she is doing, is almost like a signature. There is a consistency in what catches their eye and almost compels them to make the photographs. That consistency can be recognized by the viewer. If the consistency is not recognized, "the body of work" can be difficult to relate to by the viewer. But the viewer can still relate to and find individual work great.

je ne regrette rien · March 18, 2012

Tim's description of the "red ceiling" is extremely accurate. I must say that it's not the ones of WE I like most, maybe

because the "human element", which is there, is in the end very well concealed.

This picture conveys a certain anxiety.

By the way, red is one of the favourite colours of WE, who in an interview said "I was lying with my friend and his wife on

his big bed, talking. Suddenly I saw the ceiling, took my camera and snapped the picture".

No posing or staging, therefore.

But considering the environment in which he lived, and in particular the relationship with his friend TC, this scene is not

surprising. TC was a dentist, a character, who apparently used drugs and who was murdered with an axe. And the house

set on fire.

It was WE's environment which contained these uncommon and uncanny elements. He recorded them in this

extraordinary way.

Martin Parr says of him "he's a quirky character".

The "red ceiling" is a photo perfectly reflecting Eggleston's being, existence, way of living, philosophy of life.

aplumpton · March 18, 2012

"The "red ceiling" is a photo perfectly reflecting Eggleston's being, existence, way of living, philosophy of life."

</blockquote>

Luca recognizes what is important in perceiving the image in regard to what is known about Eggleston, his attitudes and his life. All that can or does add to our appreciation of an image. Similarly, my experience when perceiving another very different image, "La Source", of Ingres, was enhanced by a bit of knowledge about the painter's life and his age and state of his art when painting it and the very perceptive analysis of the painting provide by Arnheim in one of his books. But mainly, I think, we are or should be on our own during viewing, if we are confident of our art experience and capabilities.

Fred mentioned, which Ann cited, "Until a photographer finds his/her own unique way of making photos, they will just be copying other photographers' work." I also agree with that oft considered qualification and I believe that it is important to our own evolution of an approach and aim in photography. There is I think a corollory or extension to that statement, and it may go something like this: Until a viewer applies his own intellectual, aesthetic, emotional and sensorial criteria to evaluating a photograph, will he/she obtain a true reading of the work, rather than that of other viewers, however popular or credited are the latter.

Art fills at least a partial vacuum, not because nothing is already there, but because we have an insatiable appetite for new experiences that are provided by artists who have equal appetites and for whom the status quo is not the solution. The red ceiling was also my own first experience of Eggleston. I didn't find it trite at all. I might have been inclined to call it banal in its sense of ordinary, but as someone who looks for meaning presented in ordinary things and other details of our existence, I didn't find it ordinary at all. Not like a red fire hydrant or red mail box might be, unless the latter were placed in a particular more intriguing or challenging context than usual. I sensed the co-habitation of an imperfect wiring with a passionately red ceiling and the apparently random directions of the wiring (to where, why?), that together suggested a tension. Only later, when Tim mentioned his perception, did I go to the less visible borders of the image and recognised the Kama-Sutra style drawings, which considerably reinforced the red of the ceiling and its symbolism of passion or other strong emotions. I like that. Does the wiring going off in different directions suggest a sort of dissipation, a sort of comment on the society or persons which the red room reflected? I had seen and photographed ceiling wiring fairly similar to this beforehand (but only two branches and not three) and less powerful than Eggleston's image, positioned on a very ordinary dirty cream white ceiling of an inexpensive country hotel. This allowed a certain empathy for what he was doing. My feelings about his much more potent image are not yet fully crystallised. Do I need to know the history and life of Eggleston and his friends? For me, not really.

What is important, I think, is that we develop our appreciation for art and life sufficiently to be able to stand on our own two feet when viewing new images and not to be "overly" dependent upon the views of others. We don't often depend upon those other views when we spontaneously go out to a concert, see a new film or sample new and fine food. Our own senses in those cases normally prevail over those evoked in the statements of others.

When we say to someone that "they don't get it", I think we must be careful to remember that in some cases their abilities to perceive the value of a work may be as great and as intelligently applied as ours, or even as relevant as the positions put forward in the prior positive critiques.

luis_g · March 18, 2012

Ann Overland - "A photo made by an experienced and skilled photographer that knows exactly what he/she is doing, is almost like a signature"

I am interested in exactly what is meant by: "knows exactly what he is doing". Do you mean technically?

I'm not in agreement with the idea that one has to find their uniqueness and the rest will follow. Eggleston is not like you and me in very significant ways. If the photos don't convince you, look at his video Stranded in Canton. Un-PC as this will sound, I'll say it: All men are not created equal. It's not his wealth. There are millions of wealthy photographers. Those here who think they could have been Egglestons had their families only had the money are sadly mistaken. It could be put more indelicately, but I'll leave it at that.

The world, and the American South in particular (and I've lived there most of my life) is rife with characters who are also not mainstreamers. People who didn't make the choices you did, desire what you sought, etc., or become what you became. While many will look down upon TC the dentist, his wiring, interior decorating choices, drug use or Eggleston's twice-as-bright life, they forget that those lives also had glories and some positive outcomes most here cannot imagine.

Most of W.E.'s "environment", certainly the outdoor stuff, is hardly "uncanny" or "uncommon". Eggleston goes to a place I lived in for over a decade, and in a few days comes up with a trove of images unlike any I or any photographer I knew of there ever made. He goes to Paris and returns with a Paris like no other. Or Dunkirk, Egypt, Berlin the American West, etc. It's not about where he is, but about who he is.

sjmurray · March 18, 2012

It’s interesting that whenever William Eggleston comes up in a discussion about photography there always seems to be a strong polarization of opinions. For me the main point is that the creative expression of any person is their “art.” When I look through the folders of the myriads of photographers here on this site what I am seeing is the creative expression of all these people. The thoughts, theories, experimentation’s, subconscious motivations, conscious efforts, etc. presumably all go into the creative expression of any individual no matter what medium they are using. Hence, it is immaterial what Eggleston was thinking about or trying to do with his photography. It is simply his art. The fact that his photographs look a lot like the pictures taken by someone’s mother is immaterial as well.

Back in 1969 I was taking a photography class in college, and the assignment was portraits. I was shooting Ektachrome at the time, 35mm. I did a series of portraits of my friend Bill and had the roll developed. To my surprise, when I examined the developed slides I realize that I had used to the same roll on which I had already shot a bunch of random photos, so that I now had 24 slides that had portraits of Bill superimposed with random landscapes and household objects. Some of them turned out to be rather interesting, so I presented them to the class as if I had done the whole thing on purpose. Well, the reaction of my classmates and professor were that they were quite impressed by my creativity. I, of course, did not mention that this was all a big mistake, but instead I enjoyed some notoriety as the most avant-garde student in class. If I had chosen at that juncture to continue to experiment with the superimposition of images on slide film, which would have been conscious choice at that point, I could have gone in this direction for a long time, making 16 by 20 prints of superimposed images, and that would’ve been my “art.”

The point is Eggleston has his own motivations for doing the types of photos that he does. If the art world finds his work fascinating and worthy of praise it means that he has “touched a nerve” (or many) somewhere to get these reactions. I suspect that maybe it’s because his work is so polarizing that it gets the attention that it does.

Norma Desmond · March 18, 2012

so I presented them to the class as if I had done the whole thing on purpose

</blockquote>

Steve, it was you who thought to present it to the class as you did. I think that matters, doesn't it? Another person would likely have tossed it all and forgotten about it. That you took all the shots matters as well. That all makes it in at least some significant ways not just a mistake. And besides, happy accidents happen to the best and most intentional and conscious of artists. It's part of the deal. Good artists almost can't avoid them. But that doesn't mean your intentions don't matter. I think artist's intentions matter very much, both to the artists and to the viewers. They are not the ONLY thing that matters, by any means. But they can be very much a part of the work and that can happen from the making to the viewing.

Viewers can be fooled all the time. I don't read too much into that. It's kind of an outlier and doesn't really prove anything to me. There are all those blogs where great photos of renowned photographers are shown and they get negative critiques. I take all that with a grain of salt.

.

When I look through the folders of the myriads of photographers here on this site what I am seeing is the creative expression of all these people.

</blockquote>

Boy, not me. I see a lot of unthoughtful photographs and snapshot-like pictures. A lot is neither expressive nor creative, IMO.

.

I suspect that maybe it’s because his work is so polarizing that it gets the attention that it does.

</blockquote>

Definitely something to consider. An important point. I tend to think differently, though. Some great work is polarizing and other great work is not. Some mediocre and even some really awful stuff (for example, pornography) is polarizing as well. Doesn't make it creative or art or worth much attention. I don't know Eggleston's history well and should look into it more carefully, but I suspect his art was recognized before it was polarizing. I suspect the polarizing came later. One of the reasons I'm skeptical of this idea is that I've seen many critique pages here on PN that garner a lot of very different kinds of reactions. Someone inevitably comes along and says that all the reactions and so many comments means it must be great art. I don't buy that for a second. I know you're not quite saying that, but it's one of the reasons I don't see polarization as a sign that something is worthy of artistic attention.

charleswood · March 18, 2012

creative expression of all these people.

</blockquote>

Creative expressions yes. Art: all art is creative expression, not all creative expression is art.

I see a lot of unthoughtful photographs and snapshot-like pictures.

</blockquote>

Which when said of W.E. is controversial, a matter of opinion.

Norma Desmond · March 18, 2012

Charles, you may have misunderstood me. I don't think saying that WE's photos are unthoughtful or snapshot-like is controversial. As a matter of fact, I welcome serious and mature criticism of even my favorite photographers. It's the mocking and dismissive tone that a few here adopted, as if to say if they didn't like someone's work it just shouldn't even be taken seriously. I have actually critiqued in some detail and with much appreciation by the photographer work that I consider unthoughtful and snapshot-like, because I think most people who are trying aren't there yet but can find a voice. Sometimes all that's needed is a nudge. But I do try to take photographers I critique seriously. I know my own work has been critiqued by some fine photographers who approach critique similarly to the way I do and I've appreciated their feedback immensely, both sincerely honest negative and positive feedback.

luis_g · March 18, 2012

Steve Murray - " I suspect that maybe it’s because his work is so polarizing that it gets the attention that it does."

What do you think makes his work polarizing?

Steve - " When I look through the folders of the myriads of photographers here on this site what I am seeing is the creative expression of all these people. The thoughts, theories, experimentation’s, subconscious motivations, conscious efforts, etc. presumably all go into the creative expression of any individual no matter what medium they are using. "

That's not what I see. I see lots of emotional atrophy, servility to acceptable cliche's, emulation of signifiers and generic images.

Perhaps what a photographer thinks is immaterial to you and others. While I do not pretend to know what others think, I'm interested. Otherwise I wouldn't be here.

aplumpton · March 18, 2012

"That's not what I see. I see lots of emotional atrophy, servility to acceptable cliché’s, emulation of signifiers and generic images."

</blockquote>

Luis, I have been looking for your comments on the photographs of those who seem to respond with some sincerity to this post, but - and excuse me if I am in error - I have not seen your critiques in their portfolios. If what you state above is the case, I think many would be happy to profit from your specific critiques, your experience and your knowledge.

Unfortunately, when seeking some enlightenment in forums dedicated in part to photographic approaches (as this one and the philosophy forum) and art value, we often only see lots of defense of the photographic art establishment (albeit not a static category) by the equivalent of "you don't get it" (not necessarily your specific words, but a not uncommon phrase here) or a more positive but general statement. The posters you are referring to venture to question, and I presume with some intellectual honesty, the value of the works of those of the establishment and the question of what makes those works very special. Instead, what is often delivered to them is some general personal response or some anecdote about the photographer’s life. It would be of real value-added, I think, to see some qualitative yet rational explanation of what those photographers might be missing in perceiving/seeing those works. Everyone can benefit from enlightenment on the qualities of superior images, rather than facing an apparently condescending attitude to those of differing evaluations of the artistic value of certain works popular in the art world.

Perhaps the "great unwashed" among the photographers of Photo.Net, many of whom I think are trying to progress in their art (as is evident in a number of portfolios), should benefit from constructive comments on their work, and why it may possess emotional atrophy, servility to acceptable clichés and emulation of signifiers and generic images, or other apparent clichés of approach. That might be more useful than general comments that are probably more appropriate to the general public that have a camera, than to those committed to the medium of expression but who perhaps haven't found an approach that is them and has some uniqueness to it.

I agree with you that those characteristics exist and also with what you often say about the aesthetics and the place and importance of photographic art. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother to challenge you on the above questions.

sjmurray · March 18, 2012

Luis said:

That's not what I see. I see lots of emotional atrophy, servility to acceptable cliche's, emulation of signifiers and generic images.

</blockquote>

My answer is that many photographers here are not particularly good artists, or well trained, or creative etc. That does not matter to me. What matters is that they are making an effort to express themselves. Lots of people play the guitar or piano, or sing in choirs and are not particularly good, but it means a lot to them to be expressing themselves in some way. I'm not saying I see great art, by any means. Your judgement here seems rather presumptuous in that everybody here needs to be performing at a certain standard set by people like you!

Why do I think Eggleston's work is polarizing? Well, just look at the posts in this thread!

Norma Desmond · March 18, 2012

What matters is that they are making an effort to express themselves.

</blockquote>

Steve, I think many people are not. And I've heard many photographers say as much quite adamantly as a matter of fact. If you remember both Don E. and John Kelly, they were quite vociferous about not using photography to express themselves, often heatedly so. Some photographers are simply recording, intentionally or unintentionally so, and they say as much. Many are taking travel shots and family shots which are more a matter of preserving memories than self expression. Many, many, many are trying to make pretty pictures, especially ones that they and others will like. Sometimes there is expression in those and often there is not.

sjmurray · March 18, 2012

I appreciate your comments, Fred. About my 1969 story, yes, you are correct, I did recognize the serendipitous fortune in my "mistake" and recognized the value in it. As I stated, I could have gone on from there and done more of this genre as my "art."

About people expressing themselves: Maybe we are using different definitions. Being a counselor by profession, I live by the dictum: "a person cannot "not" express him or her self." A person sitting in group and not saying anything is certainly "saying something" if you get my drift. To me any time you focus the camera at something and press the shutter, its says something about you, whether you want it to or not. I guess some people are denying that they are expressing themselves. Ha!

Norma Desmond · March 18, 2012

Steve, doesn't it dilute the meaning of self expression or expressing oneself to make it so ubiquitous? I have to think there's a big difference between someone simply recording something or preserving a memory and someone actively achieving a different level of artistic self expression. Likewise, there's a big difference expression-wise between sitting in a room with one's mind meandering and actively expressing one's innermost feelings. If we don't call only the more conscious and more active thing "expressing oneself," then there should be another word or phrase for it. And whatever that is is NOT happening with a lot of people using cameras. I also think there's a difference between expressing oneself and expressing oneself artistically. Oh, but that one would get us mired for days!

luis_g · March 18, 2012

Arthur - " I have not seen your critiques in their portfolios. If what you state above is the case, I think many would be happy to profit from your specific critiques, your experience and your knowledge."

Arthur, I agree with you, but do not do critiques here, never have, and have said so in the past. I do not do short 2-3 liners, except in a non-critique commentary in a post or mail. Mine run long (as some here well know from reading them elsewhere) take time and energy, and I do not have enough of either to do that here as well. From what I read, there are plenty of run of the mill, adequate peer critiques one finds for free in this type of site. I do look at photos here, and with the numbers of images in question, a small minority, but what I said is still what I largely see. I specifically did not say that 100% fit that description. There are exceptions, and I've remarked on that in the past. I would like to make it clear that I would not restrict my comments to PN hobbyists, but also to pros and to a lot of other places on the web that I have seen -- and a lot of my own work as well. It's my opinion of what I largely see, nothing more. Having said that, there is a tiny amount of good (and better) work about here and elsewhere. On vetted or expertly run sites the percentage escalates.

Steve Murray - "My answer is that many photographers here are not particularly good artists, or well trained, or creative etc. That does not matter to me. "

It does to me when we're talking about art, as in this post. What I was not saying is that the work that I commented on is negative, worthless or a waste of time. It is all to the good, whether from the weekend duffer, family chronicler, aspiring pro or artist etc., and I welcome every single image. Its human measure is of great value. On this I did not disagree with Steve, but that's not all I see.

SM - "Your judgement here seems rather presumptuous in that everybody here needs to be performing at a certain standard set by people like you!"

Not even close, Steve, though I appreciate your effort. It was and is what I see. That's all. I don't care to affect/control what they -- or you -- do, nor do I have any expectations. If I did, I'd be doing unasked-for critiques here, but I am not. It's naive to think that what I said is an attempt to control anyone.

Photography, like many things (and not just art) is very easy to do at certain levels, impossibly difficult at others. Of value at any level.

Last, what I was asking Steve about the "polarizing work" was about whether the work itself is inherently polarizing, or its viewers are. I think it is the latter.

sjmurray · March 19, 2012

Fred said:

there's a big difference between someone simply recording something or preserving a memory and someone actively achieving a different level of artistic self expression.

</blockquote>

Maybe this is why Eggleston's photos get so many reactions. To some, he is "simply recording something" and to others he is "actively achieving a different level of artistic self expression." How do we ever know? I have to assume the latter, even if it looks like he is just taking casual snaps of common events and scenes. This is his art, his self-expression, and to me that is valid. Very clever, this Eggleston. I read in one interview with him in which he claims he doesn't even use the view finder, but just points the camera in the direction of the scene. We don't know if he is pulling the leg of the interviewer or telling the truth. Again, in one way he is making it clear "it is what it is."

Norma Desmond · March 19, 2012

How do we ever know?

</blockquote>

We look. We think. We feel. We intuit. We empathize. We listen. We read. We check out the full body of work. We look again. Viewing openly, carefully, intelligently, and feelingly is as deep an endeavor as is creating good art.

ann_overland · March 19, 2012

Louis, I didn't mean just technically. I meant exactly the same as you do. The photos are a signature of the photographer when they are doing it in their own style. And their own style comes from making art according to who they are. They are true to their own ideas and convictions.

luis_g · March 19, 2012

Steve Murray - " We don't know if he is pulling the leg of the interviewer or telling the truth."

How do we know you are not yanking our leg? Or just being clever?

_____________________________________________

Ann, thanks for clarifying that.

luis_g · March 19, 2012

Steve Murray - " I read in one interview with him in which he claims he doesn't even use the view finder, but just points the camera in the direction of the scene."

Lots of people shoot from the hip. If one was interested in this, there's what W.E. says, what people who were there (witnesses) report, and the documentaries showing him at work. It is also naive to assume that any photographer must work in one mode or use one camera his entire life. Eggleston hasn't.

je ne regrette rien · March 19, 2012

It seems to me that William Eggleston is so controversial because it is quite challenging to understand what he does.

At a first, superficial glance one might think that he is "simply recording something" (someone making fun above said that "The best thing about Eggleston, for me, is he has made me come to realize my mother was a great photographer").

But there are two wrong statements here:

<ul>

<li>he does not record "simply". Actually his recording is quite sophisticated, in respect to composition, lighting, and printing;</li>

<li>he does not record "something": he carefully selects what he records and how he records it.</li>

</ul>

In the Holzemer documentary film his wife states that WE once said "you must not take anything for granted on this page [photo]. Every single tiny space works and counts".

Just considering the apparent simplicity of the picture the viewer could think it looks trite, or drearily commonplace and predictable. But actually Eggleston's compositions are pretty sophisticated.

The issue is that it takes an educated eye to look beyond the simplicity and see the sophistication.

Eggleston's compositions (every tiny space works and counts) are too careful to think that he shoots from the hip.

luis_g · March 19, 2012

Luca - "It seems to me that William Eggleston is so controversial because it is quite challenging to understand what he does."

It's not hard to understand for everyone. A lot of it has to do with defying 1960's-70's photographic convention, which was the mentality of the vast majority of photographers at the time, and from what I read here, apparently still is. Eggleston was an artist, before taking up the camera. A painter, and although it is not widely known, he has always painted.

je ne regrette rien · March 19, 2012

Luis,

I agree. And there are significant pictorial characteristics in his photos.

When he praises Cartier Bresson he notes his obvious knowledge of painting.

I am also aware of the breakthrough in the 1970's when "serious photography" was in black and white.

What I was referring to are today's critics, like the one I quoted above on the comparison with his mother's photographs. Some people tend to oversimplify.

Understanding also means knowing how to watch and what to watch.

And that's not for granted.

charleswood · March 19, 2012

<a href="http://www.egglestontrust.com/">http://www.egglestontrust.com/</a> Portfolis - Seven

It is in that example of WE's work that I also see "...lots of emotional atrophy, servility to acceptable cliché’s, emulation of signifiers and generic images."

That's just me. We are free to see whatever we want. The controversy derives from what must be a fact: that some are wired to get more out of pretty than conceptual. No amount of education is going to make me like those examples of WE's work. I can be educated into appreciating that others see value in his work, are stimulated and inspired by it. That's great, that another point of view, as valid as mine, yet so different, exists!

Sign In

William Eggleston - his work is not banal at all

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Posted Images

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in