William Eggleston - his work is not banal at all

[chris_antidote]

<p>@Tim Lookingbill I figured, because I didn't mention anything about his process etc. No worries, mate. </p>

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<p>Now I'ld like to address the importance of the process in reference to my comment...</p>

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

These three images...</p>

<p>http://tlchurchphotography.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/MG_8029_thumb.jpg<br>

http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4005/4231045637_03625b220a_z.jpg?zz=1<br>

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2554/4117669096_74afc58969_o.jpg</p>

<p>...I found by googling "shot with Alien Bees". To me they have a slick and polished professional look. They're perfect looking. Top shelf. But they have a sameness about them as if taken by the same photographer which they were not. Same lights, same process, same look. There's a ton of them like these online much like the family snap shots W.E. emulated back then.</p>

<p>In the future will this look eventually become a cultural symbol some day to represent digital photography from long ago? Where do we go from here?</p>

[luis_g]

<p><strong>Stephen Cumblidge - "</strong>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>

<p>Which says far more about PN and the ambient esthetic than Eggleston and the rest of the world. Your 'criticisms' are based on the idea that because you can't see it, it can't be so, and that PN's endemic arbitrary ratings system is a standard against which all work is measured. I don't want to be the one to break it to you, but it's not. You're telling us a lot more about yourself than Eggleston, whom you obviously do not understand. Remember, the Egglestons you don't begin to grasp are now 45 yrs old. Most of PN is conceptually stuck in pre-Robert Frank days.<br>

____________________________________________________</p>

<p>@ <strong>Chris Antidote - </strong>Your insults are forbidden here, do nothing to further the discourse, and are unnecessary. Also, using another user's work against him, <em>and putting up one of his pictures, which you did not take, not to mention the one by Eggleston, is strictly forbidden on PN.</em> I trust a moderator will take them down ASAP. You say you own a gallery, please act like you have respect for the arts and people in general, even Stephen. Thanks.</p>

<p> </p>

[Norma Desmond]

<p>Now that Stephen and Chris have each reinforced their positions, I'm content to let them duke it out to their heart's content with no further interference or interest from me.</p>

[charleswood]

<p>And thanks, Luis, you are making more sense to me as I re-read your comments and I appreciate them.</p>

[yog_sothoth]

<p>I am a technically-minded person, and I like to look for measurable metrics to answer questions. I think that the ratings system could give an insight as to if WE's photos are Banal. The ire that was brought out by this observation seems to show that it has struck a nerve in many people. </p>

<p>Tim Lookingbill's responses are was what I was looking for and cover the issue very well. </p>

<p>As for googling studio photos and complaining about the sameness of todays photos, stock studio portraits have looked the same for a long time, they are just easier to take these days. There are a lot more people taking a lot more photos now than 45 years ago. You can find whatever style you want if you go looking for it. A lot of brilliant people taking amazing images are going to get lost in the crowd. Google different styles and you will find a wealth of great (and awful) contemporary images. <br>

<br>

As for people who respond to questions with "He's famous, so they are good" and "You are just too stupid to get it" need to learn a bit about how to defend their positions. Neither response does much to convince people of anything. </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Steve, I just want to make it clear that I, and probably most others here, do not think "You are just too stupid to get it". Ignorance/stubbornness and/or a lack of education is/are not the same thing as stupidity. There's nothing to defend because you haven't mounted even a faint semblance of an attack or challenge of any kind. </p>

<p>I do agree with you that several brilliant photographers have and are getting lost in history for a multitude of reasons. With apologies for mentioning her name yet again, Vivian Meier is a perfect example of someone whose work almost vanished into oblivion.</p>

<p>The "measurable" metrics of Photo.net have nothing to do with the reality of art. </p>

<p> </p>

[luis_g]

<p>Thanks for the kind words, Charles.</p>