Is it impossible to make an extraordinarily bad photograph?

[leslie_cheung]

<p>That's a competent photograph, Alan. Not *extraordinary* bad in any sense in my book... </p>

[Julie H]

<p>Alan wrote: "Ranking is idiotic for the judge(s) and the picture."</p>

<p>It doesn't matter whether or not they're "idiotic." They are *useful* in the same way that the necessary first handful of snow is what is *useful* in the generation of the snowman. That initial handful is soon concealed in the middle of Mr. Snowman's nether parts, but it is nevertheless (very) useful as the originating materialization -- out of the field of snow -- of the coalescence/formation of thoughts/realizations.</p>

<p>The thing is, not to <em>stop</em>. A picture is an invitation; a rating is a response, a <em>push</em>. To defend, develop, etc. etc. out of which emerges more than what you had without that initiating irritant (the sand in the oyster, to use another popular metaphor). Whether or not any actual dialog with the rater comes out of an anonymous number, it's still a minimal kernel (good, bad or maddeningly indifferent) around which thoughts can coalesce and develop (in both giver and recipient).</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I think part of the problem with ranking is that it encourages people to be "pleasers" not photographers. It is frustrating to be caught, as a judge, to be so limited and enabling. Part of growing as an artist -- and we're all artists, darn it! -- is to learn the language of the medium. It isn't "Rank one to seven, with seven being the highest." </p>

[Julie H]

<p>It's been my experience that "pleasers" are born not made. Even artists can be "pleasers" ... (all those thousands of 'Madonna and Child' in the history of art). There's room for all kinds.</p>

[red_robin]

<p>Not to brag but . .. ... most of my truly terrible shots are lost to history and my delete button</p>

[frode]

<p>They just are and cannot be made.<br>

Just like dust bunnies. No one knows where they come from, and no one let them in on purpose. No one will ever seriously try communicate with them, hunt them for food, or keep them as pets. They just are. If you try to make one, it will be art, and not a real dust bunny.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>... <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/eggleston_underbed.jpg">dust bunnies by William Eggleston</a>.*</p>

<p>... <a href="http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/69.521">dust bunnies by Man Ray and Marcel Duchamp</a>.**</p>

<p>[*actual title is <em>Memphis, Tennessee</em>, c. 1972; in the collection of Niedersächsische Sparkassenstiftung Hannover; published in <em>The Hasselblad Award 1998: William Eggleston</em>]</p>

<p>[**actual title is <em>Dust Breeding</em>, 1920; in the collection of The Metropolitan Museum of Art]</p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_k.]

<blockquote>

<p>... most of my truly terrible shots are lost to history and my delete button</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Could it indicate that film users have better chance of preserving their extraordinarily bad photographs?</p>

[frode]

<p>Thanks for the links to two interesting pictures Julie! The Eggleston image for some reason reminds me of Tom Waits. An also of my childhood in the 60s when views like that was quite normal on dull, rainy indoor-days (from a childs perspective). And Duchamp actually breded those bunnies, and later stuffed them and had them photographed by Man Ray. Didn't know that, but the result is actually quite interesting. Dadaism definitely do not result in 1-ers.</p>

[mhahn]

<p>Personally, I think that particular Eggleston photo proves that even a great photographer can produce a "1." It is a 1, isn't it? I mean, what's it got going for it?</p>

[Julie H]

<p>I'd give it a 6. First, it made me stop (a tire-screeching stop, at that). Next, it made me work. Finally, I laughed.</p>

<p>It's a really, really bad idea to try to "explain" Eggleston to people who don't want to like him, but if you're teetering on the edge of maybe wanting to at least try ... If a picture of his seems really mind-bogglingly crummy to you, try putting all ideas of form -- of what it "is" -- out of your head. Try seeing it as composed out of color (color playing with color; color interacting with color, etc.). Go airborne ... Then bring it back to earth, into the "where" (under the bed ...) ...</p>

<p>A Jasper Johns quote in the spirit of 1-ness: "I heard a story about Willem de Kooning. He was annoyed with my dealer, Leo Castelli, for some reason, and said something like, "That son-of-a-b****; you could give him two beer cans and he could sell them." I heard this and thought, "What a sculpture -- two beer cans." It seemed to me to fit in perfectly with what I was doing, so I did them -- and Leo sold them."</p>

<p>... which reminds me of the Eggleston picture of a really filthy public toilet full of really yellow urine ... published many times and widely collected ... (to myself: "think color; think color" [holding my nose] ... )</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>The thing I know about looking at pictures is to sum up everything I CAN see and everything I think about. I think about lying in bed in a room like that with stuff ,in the course of daily life, accreting… and so on. It is MY narrative evoked partly by the atmospheric mood of the picture and material objects. To me that is a <em>successful</em> picture of its type. The deal with many photographs is that they are about thinking about things. They are not<strong><em> of</em></strong> something material.<br /> With Eggelston the ultra banality is soooo unaesthetic at times. He makes a record -- you supply the narrative. You have to know how the game works.</p>

[Julie H]

<p>Well put Alan. I very much agree. One might also add the well-known Eggleston blurb about his "being at war with the obvious" ... which includes (especially) the aesthetically obvious.</p>

[alan_zinn]

<p>I lived in Memphis for a year in '85. It was my first exposure to deep South region. Started looking at Egg stuff then. I was seeing everything he was shooting real time and it looked to me like <em>anybody</em> could have shot it. I guess that was the point. Some of Eggeleston's work can be indifferent to formal issues.</p><div></div>

[Julie H]

<p>A lot of the very best work in many forms of art looks effortless; that's often what makes it among the best.</p>

<p>Anybody <em>could</em> have shot it; only one person <em>did</em> shoot it.</p>

<p>Speaking of "indifferent to formal issues" <a href="http://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/eggleston_stuffedtoy.jpg">here's another Eggleston test image</a> (think 'color,' think 'color' ...).</p>

<p>[i'm picking out his ... erm ... "hardest to love" pictures. If you're not familiar with his work, please don't take these as exemplary.]</p>

[mhahn]

<p>I l ike a lot of the Eggleston pictures I've seen quite a bit. I liked almost all of them that I saw when I did a Google search of him after looking at the stuff-below-the-bed picture. But I don't feel compelled to figure out how to make myself like all of them, and that one, I can't work up much enthusiasm for.</p>