William Eggleston - his work is not banal at all

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Well, Charles, you're partly right. From articles I read in your link states that back in the mid '60's WE thought it was a great idea to glorify mediocrity using the new mass produced photographic color process...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For Eggleston, this confrontation with visual mediocrity was an altogether exciting and unforgettable experience and was to become an important basis for his later work.</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>During various visits to the shopping centers which were now springing up all over the country, Eggleston succeeding in combining color photography with ordinary, everyday impressions and, in so doing, defined the essential elements of the original approach to color photography in the twentieth century.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>From this article...<br /> http://www.egglestontrust.com/hasselblad_weski.html</p>

[charleswood]

<p>Thanks Tim. Interesting.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Charles Wood </strong>- "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."</p>

<p>and..." No amount of education is going to make me <em>like</em> those examples of WE's work."</p>

<p>Like/dislike has nothing to do with this thread, and no one, least of all me, is trying to <em>convert you or anyone else </em>into liking or even an understanding of Eggleston. I couldn't care less if you do or don't. Charles curiously (or possibly in the spirit of some kind of retaliation over my comment?) uses my previous description for a vast majority of work here and elsewhere to describe how he sees Eggleston's Portfolio Seven, as opposed to using his own words. Interesting. <br>

__________________________________________________</p>

<p>Weski: " Steichen was committed primarily to the kind of photography which was distinguished by its strictness of composition, masterliness of execution and significance of content."</p>

<p>...and I would submit that those conventions are still the norm in a majority of photography sites including PN. The mentality hasn't changed much <em>in forty five years. </em>And I'm not saying it should or shouldn't, only that it hasn't. Make of that what you will.<br>

__________________________________________________</p>

<p>Although I disagree with Weski on some things, I believe he is on point coupling Evans' remark about documentary & art with Eggleston's use of the snapshot esthetic. I can't prove it, but believe this link was made through William Christenberry. I also believe his ideas on the snapshot were influenced by Garry Winogrand's, who believed the snapshot to be a rigorous photographic form -- and obviously the photographic ur-language that most viewers are wired for.</p>

<p>I mean in particular this G.W. description of the snapshot:</p>

<p>"I <em>knew that was coming.</em> [A question about the snapshot]<em> That’s another stupidity. The people who use the term don’t even know the meaning. They use it to refer to photographs they believe are loosely organized, or casually made, whatever you want to call it. Whatever terms you like. The fact is, when they’re talking about snapshots they’re talking about the family album picture, which is one of the most precisely made photographs. Everybody’s fifteen feet away and smiling. The sun is over the viewer’s shoulder. That’s when the picture is taken, always. It’s one of the most carefully made photographs that ever happened."</em></p>

<p>When most photographers were desperately trying to distance themselves from the snapshot (and they still are), Eggleston swam upcurrent, grasped its power, embraced it, and put it to good use in his own terms.<br>

________________________________________________</p>

<p> </p>

[sjmurray]

<p>Luis, my point is that even if W.E. chose to shoot from the hip, which he no doubt did from time to time, I would defend his choice to do that as an artist. That's my main point: the artist consciously chooses his or her style. You asked me earlier why I thought Eggleston generated so much controversy. I think its because Eggleston's style often <em>looks</em> like a casual snapshot, even if it was very intentional. This will cause some people to assume he has no more skill than their mother, hence, the controversy. It also means many of his photos are so much like snapshots that they are not very interesting to many people, which we are also seeing here in this discussion. Its kind of like the phenomenon of someone looking at an abstract painting of a famous master and thinking "my three year old could do that." How many people's mother made large dye transfer prints of them and went around to art galleries to make a name for themselves? Obviously, Eggleston was very intentional in his art. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>that some are wired to get more out of pretty than conceptual</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I do think our wiring affects our taste and our openness to different things. But I think it's much more than wiring. My taste has been changed over and over again through exposure, reading, looking, education, influence of others, my own ever-changing circumstances, my own growth as a photographer.</p>

<p>.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>No amount of education is going to make me <em>like</em> those examples of WE's work.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>For me, there's a time for liking and a time to set it aside and be challenged, moved, made to question, be made uncomfortable, even be accosted by a photo. Sometimes, there's just the matter of appreciating historical movement and perspective and leaving my own taste out of it.</p>

[charleswood]

<blockquote>

<p>as opposed to using his own words</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I know. I'm becoming more sensitive to other people's feelings.</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Steve Murray - "</strong>Luis, my point is that even if W.E. chose to shoot from the hip, which he no doubt did from time to time, I would defend his choice to do that as an artist."</p>

<p>I do not see any need to defend it. </p>

<p><strong>Steve - "</strong>You asked me earlier why I thought Eggleston generated so much controversy. I think its because Eggleston's style often <em>looks</em> like a casual snapshot, even if it was very intentional. This will cause some people to assume he has no more skill than their mother, hence, the controversy."</p>

<p>I don't disagree entirely with the above, but believe that is secondary. The reaction to Eggleston is not unique in the histories of art and photography, and in other cases had nothing to do with the snapshot style. It always had to do with departures from convention. People who have spent a lot of time and money to conform to the ambient definitions of "photographer", "amateur", "pro", etc have expectations, and when someone who departs from convention comes along, it is at best bewildering. To cite just one very well-known other example of this, Robert Frank encountered similar reactions from both experts and amateurs. Today, most people have no problem with Frank's work, and accept it whether they understand or like it, or not. Eggleston is more difficult and is taking much longer. His brilliance and transgressions against convention cut deeper than Frank's did in his day. The great majority of aspiring photographers mistakenly believe that development in photography is analogous to distancing themselves from the (perceived to be lowly) snapshot. To see someone reverse that field, taking the medium to new places and opening up new maps and territories is unsettling, but the issue lies in the cliche'd minds of photographers, not so much with W.E.'s work.</p>

<p><strong></strong></p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>I think Steve's dye transfer comment being one of several components in differentiating W.E's "snapshot-esque" style from regular snap-shooters points back to what I always thought in my gut about image making in general and that is...</p>

<p><em>"If you want to create a unique and interesting image, do it in a unique and interesting way."</em></p>

<p>Even the lucky shot from the hip requires the image maker to develop an interesting way of finding scenes that would make an interesting image shooting that way. There's still some sort of process involved that can't be ruled out as an influence on the final result.</p>

<p>Whether it's art can only be determined by the viewer's sensitivity toward recognizing the lengths of what the process delivers to the final result.</p>

<p>As an example of what I'm saying there are two versions of W.E.'s image of the dolls on the hood of a cadillac in two separate portfolios on that site that are noticeably colored differently either due to color process of the original or the scan of it for web viewing intentional or not.</p>

<p>My feelings changed about the image between the two versions. That's what one tiny portion of the "process" of image making can do to an image. It can be as subtle as shooting in a snapshot style or as blatant as printing using an unusual and expensive dye transfer method that distorts the colors in a "photographic color process" style.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>Eggleston's pictures are no more snapshots than Walker Evans' are documentary pictures. I do not think it takes a deep understanding of the medium to grasp that while they're in the snapshot <em>style</em>, they're anything but snapshots. W.E.'s style has been used in many films, and copied unsuccessfully by countless photographers.</p>

<p><strong>Tim - "</strong>Whether it's art can only be determined by the viewer's sensitivity..."</p>

<p>I'll be ultra-polite here and only say that is untrue. </p>

<p><strong>Tim Lookingbill - "</strong> It can be as subtle as shooting in a snapshot style or as blatant as printing using an unusual and expensive dye transfer method that distorts the colors in a "photographic color process" style."</p>

<p>I could buy that if it wasn't for the fact that Eggleston has had prints done by the corner drugstore, pro printed type-C's, Dye Transfers and Giclee's as well. Plus anyone who knows about dye transfers (my wife worked at one of the last major labs doing dyes in the U.S.), and I have several in my art collection, should know that the process does not have <em>inherent</em> color distortions. It offers a tremendous range of color contrast and saturation. Looking at Eggleston's prints, one sees a very wide range of color, from subtle pastels in some, to outrageously saturated in others. He doesn't have a prescribed or set approach, but an eclectic one.</p>

<p>Now, the color variations in reproductions, specially the Eggleston book & album covers vs. his own prints and scans by his estate vary a lot. Not to mention between uncalibrated monitors...</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Luis G.- "</strong>W.E.'s style has been used in many films, and copied unsuccessfully by countless photographers."</p>

<p>http://www.flickr.com/groups/william_eggleston/pool/with/4329168787/</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Luis, you're reading way too much into the intent of what I'm saying. I don't know who you are or the level of your experience in image making not that makes any difference.</p>

<p>But I do know what goes into creating an image and know that the process whether it's in the act of looking, composing and reproducing chemically, thermally, stochastically or digitally, all defines and controls the final results that deliver the emotion and impressions a viewer derives from any image. The viewer contributes to the experience through their own sensitivities. This is what keeps "Joe Sixpack" from running and/or starting his own MMOA. You can deny and/or argue that all you want but no one experienced, seasoned or PhD'ed to death is going to convince me otherwise.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Plus anyone who knows about dye transfers (my wife worked at one of the last major labs doing dyes in the U.S.), and I have several in my art collection, should know that the process does not have <em>inherent</em> color distortions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's nothing but color distortions (compared to what was in the actual scene) in any 2D reproduction process. It's these distortions that add to the emotion and uniqueness in an image otherwise we wouldn't have terms like bleach bypass, cross processing and color grading in movies.</p>

<p>Again I must emphasize my original intent in my previous post in that the "process" of image making comes in many forms and W.E. used several to create his images.</p>

[luis_g]

<p>It's complicated, because variations in color perception between humans vary greatly (15x+). Distortions begin there. Unlike monitors, eyes cannot be calibrated. What made dye transfers so attractive was their incredible flexibility. Their signature was slight unsharpness, unless registered with extreme care.</p>

<p>My emphasis was that Eggleston's early drugstore prints, a common enough process, are nothing like Aunt Bea's. Nor are his more professionally printed ones. I agree that the entire chain of choices defines the final print.</p>

<p>Again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything, and will let this matter rest here.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>I do get the feeling that many of his photos would be lucky to get much more than a 4 to 4.5 if submitted for ratings here.</p>

[chris_antidote]

<p>@ Stephen Cumblidge However, most the photos here that get good ratings aren't in museums and world renowned art galleries. Nor are they awarded top honors at companies like hasselblad or receiving Getty images Lifetime achievement awards. Which, by the way, to some degree, says something about the people in here giving ratings.......</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>So, if someone gets shown in a gallery their photo of shoes under a bed and random plants suddenly becomes high art? With many of his photos the only thing present is the reputation of the person taking them. If a non-famous person took them would anyone pay any attention to them? </p>

[chris_antidote]

<p>@Stephen Cumblidge Well, compared to what? your bad insect photos, terrible architecture work, or the all centered portraits? </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>With many of his photos the only thing present is the reputation of the person taking them.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The only thing you recognize is the reputation. There's plenty present that you may not see or may not appreciate.</p>

<p>__________________________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If a non-famous person took them</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A non-famous person didn't take them, didn't think to take them, and didn't put together the body of work. Eggleston did.</p>

<p>_____________________________</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I do get the feeling that many of his photos would be lucky to get much more than a 4 to 4.5 if submitted for ratings here.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hardly a standard that matters to me. I look at photos, not ratings.</p>

[Norma Desmond]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, compared to what? your bad insect photos, terrible architecture work, or the all centered portraits?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Chris, that's out of line and completely uncalled for. </p>

[chris_antidote]

<p>@Fred G ahahah! How is what I said any worse that what you did. You dissected his entire paragraph. ahaha. </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>We're here to share (and argue) ideas. It's totally uncalled for to trash someone's work because you don't like their opinions about something. I challenged what Stephen said about Eggleston. You maligned his own work, which has nothing to do with his opinions about Eggleston.</p>

<p>A guy could have the best work in the world and that wouldn't make his critical ideas any more true and a guy could have the worst work in the world and that wouldn't make his critical ideas any more false.</p>

<p>What I did is what these forums are about. An exchange (and disagreement) about ideas. You crossed a line. I hope you can now see the difference.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>Keep in mind that the thread is if the artist is Banal or not Banal. I am pointing out that absent the reputation of the photographer a large number of these photos would most likely get Banal ratings on PNet if they were posted today. Is this in doubt? You can say that they have special qualities, but would you expect them to rise to the top of the ratings here? </p>

<p>Also, there are few more meaningless statements than that people should like something because it is famous. Sometimes the emperor has no clothes. Appeals to fame carry little weight in my opinion.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The only thing you recognize is the reputation. There's plenty present that you may not see or may not appreciate. </p>

</blockquote>

<p>Or that in many cases people are trying very hard to see things that aren't there. This reminds me of discussions about Andy Warhol. The art and the reputation get mixed into a difficult to separate mess. </p>

<blockquote>

<p>A non-famous person didn't take them, didn't think to take them, and didn't put together the body of work. Eggleston did.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And if someone else did I wonder if anyone would care. Have people been taking equally-good hipster style photos and not achieved success? </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Hardly a standard that matters to me. I look at photos, not ratings.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is the best response in my opinion. William Eggleston's photos are certainly not designed to be decorative photos with wide appeal. Many appear intentionally non-decorative. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Chris, that's out of line and completely uncalled for.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If one challenges a famous person on an open forum there will be insults. I don't expect otherwise. I did find the attack on my centered portraits amusing, considering the work of who we are discussing :-) <br>

</p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Chris, don't know how old you are but I think you might be judging with a non-familiarity with W.E.'s cultural reference established as a reaction to the advent of mass produced one hour lab color process photography (reaction similar to film vs digital) that became prominent right about the time he shot those images. The article I linked states this.</p>

<p>You couldn't possibly see any value in his image without knowing his deliberate use of the snap shot style as a use of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Realism">Social Realism</a>. In this case the realism is the wide spread look and style of family snap shots W.E. used as a symbol of the banality of everyday American life much like what was seen in the movie "Napolean Dynamite". Boredom of teenage rural life in the midwest ramped up to the point of ridiculous glorification of mediocrity using deadpan acting style and pacing to where it became a character/symbol in the movie.</p>

<p>The dye transfer reproduction print W.E. implemented I believe was used to ramp up this wide spread snap shot style to the point of symbolism with its "bold, pretty colors" look of mass produced one hour photos making the image more than it is. I can tell you none of my family one hour photo lab snap shots back then look like W.E.'s. There's something familiar but at the same time unfamiliar and that's what makes it unsettling and interesting to me. It's the familiar colors, subject matter and compositions, but something is off and it's hard to put my finger on it.</p>

<p>The same processes used to turn cultural references into symbols can be seen in the use of the posterized street art style of the Obama <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama_%22Hope%22_poster">"Hope"</a> poster. Most who weren't familiar with that style of poster would thought they made Mr. Obama look like he came from a comic book when in fact that style is emulating a familiar look seen during the cultural revolution of the '60's similar to the poster of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara_(photo)#Jim_Fitzpatrick">Che Guevara</a> .</p>

<p>The "Hope" poster is familiar but something is different and new about it. W.E. did the same thing back then except using a "snap shot" style with photography.</p>

[chris_antidote]

<p>@Fred G I may have stepped on some toes and I apologize for that. However, This is black text on a white background and there are no boundaries for this context. And I got to tell ya, there is a vase difference between good and bad work. I respect a persons' opinion 100% more who creates excellent body work, opposed to barely mediocre. I mean, maybe I'm not an expert, but I contribute and run a semi-nice art gallery in downtown Long Beach and I see a abundant body of photography art. It's one thing for an educated artist to critique something opposed to some guy who can't even fathom William Eggelstons compositions. Are you REALLY going to take that guys opinion over a seasonal professional or one of those photography masters? And the answer is F NO. unless you too, are an idiot. Because heres the thing, you aren't going to learn a damn thing from the guy in the room producing the worst work. </p>

[chris_antidote]

<p>@Tim Lookingbill I know his work. We hosted an exhibit w/ william eggelston, stephen shore, luigi ghiri, and Tierney Gearon, a few years ago. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Sorry, Chris. I got you mixed up with Stephen and his comment...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>So, if someone gets shown in a gallery their photo of shoes under a bed and random plants suddenly becomes high art? With many of his photos the only thing present is the reputation of the person taking them. If a non-famous person took them would anyone pay any attention to them?</p>

</blockquote>