sam_richardson

Martin Parr, Nick Waplington and Tony Ray-Jones all have the ability to make me laugh. Odd, but they are all British??!! I think the Brits don't take themselves as seriously as we do here.

Eggleston was very much 'at war' with this type of photography.

 

And it ain't working either:)

 

-----------------------------------------------------------------

 

'Ain't it':)

 

Hmmm let's see now:) Eggleston appears to have a chapter in the history of photography devoted to him:) You on the other hand....well, you're a pest exteriminator, well past your artistic prime:)

 

May god bless your evening and come by for a nice chat :)

Thats ultimately what seperates Eggleston and other great artists. A consistent, unique POV which resonates ( either positively or negatively).

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This supports a link that I made yesterday. In his editorial Mark Hobson (who has good credentials) said this is what makes a successful artist. Someone who has a consistent vision, a vision that they have taken ownership of and has their mark stamped all over it. You'll notice that Gardner does not do this and does produce a mishmash. He does have a style but it's not his - he has camera club aesthetics. This comes from the need that everything must either be beautiful or photographed in a way to look beautiful. Recently he believes he's founded a new movement, which involves taking banal subject matter (in his opinion) and photographing them in a way that makes them superficially attractive. This involves photographing bright neon light reflections in the rain at night and the use of low angles, with a wide angle lens to hightlight the subject and then having something in the background either working against or for the main subject. This is commonly known as layering. What he doesn't realize, because he refuses to look at the work of others, is that this style is as old as the handheld camera. It's very alive in the world of popular photography. Eggleston was very much 'at war' with this type of photography.

 

PS ask TG who these people are that say they hate Eggleston's work.

I forgot to add the Hobson also gives a list of modern 'masters', which includes Eggleston

This is totally off track, but while Googling Sally Eauclaire I came upon this great little editorial by one of her consultants for The New Color Photography - Mark Hobson.

 

It has nothing to do with this discussion but I just thought it was good advice, from someone who knows what he's talking about, for those who are interested in taking their photography further than Photonet.

 

http://www.naturephotographers.net/articles0304/mh0304-1.html

 

PS I'm an HTML retard, can someone tell me how to make proper links, as well as bold and italicize. Thanks.

I second Phylo's suggestion on the New Color Photography. It'll also give you plenty of other references for you to educate yourself with.

I should also say that #8 is quite cute...as intended.

I know critiquing is frowned upon in these postings but that's all the more reason I should do it :) I really liked #6 because there's a connection with the people and you have become part of their world, although they may want you out of it. It has tension, which I always find interesting. The rest are okay but nothing really stands out, although I do find the shot of the 'baby backpackers' to be quite humorous - they're so typically yuppie.

Abebooks has 4 pages of his books for sale. I use this site all of the time to find books and have never been disappointed.

 

www.abebooks.com

Meaning what Dancing Barefoot? What's wrong with my comments on this matter? Boris posed a question and I gave him my answer. Why not contribute to it instead of just making insults. Put your dislike of me to the side for one moment and give your best reason why Mitch Epstein has been overlooked. Do you think that he has been overlooked? If so then why?

I would have to say that when talking about landscape photography, in general, that American's practically invented the genre, as we know it. So I think it would be fair to say that most of the notable examples of landscape photographers are Americans. The American's have a tradition of landscape photography, especially of the large format, fine art style. It's not surprising given the fact that the development of photography and the exploration/settlement of some pretty impressive landscape, occured at the same time.

I see her recent book as a new chapter in her life. It's very different than her family pics but not so much from her, generally unheralded, fine art series. I'll admit that I have only browsed through it and didn't feel the need to buy it, but then again I never bought her other books either. To answer the question, I don't think it sucks at all, but I found it too grisly to want to look at for very long, or have in my library.

Boris there's more to a country and culture than it's major cities. Major cities have always been multicultural, everybody knows that. Throughout history they have been the major hubs of global interchange. Maybe you've never lived in anything other than major cities where the influence of the outside is minimal.

 

I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying. You mentioned that he's been overlooked, which to me means that he's been overlooked in the west. I'm saying that perhaps it's that his books (which is how we see his work) have been centered on cultures that we commonly associate with travel photography....in the west that is. They get pigeonholed to a certain extent. It's just a thought. Dont' read too much into it.

Richard Milner, those are my exact sentiments. I think sometimes people confuse 'flash' or complexity (as opposed to the straightforward) in photography, with creativity.

No, I don't think that Boris, but Epstein went to live in cultures that are 180 degrees from the European-based culture that we both belong to. A culture that I can't relate to as there's little in common in either the habits or appearance of the people, their clothing and architecture. In that situation how can it not resemble 'travel photography', at least superficially? It makes it more difficult to delve deeper into the lives of the people when they and their surroundings look so exotic. I'm not saying that Epstein is as cliched as most travel photographers but if I were to be looking for serious art photography I would pass by a book on India or Vietnam because I know that it will inevitably contain photos of old women squatting in rice paddies. It's too predictable.

I appreciate what you're saying Jeff. I guess with Laughlin it's different because he was a photographer first and foremost. I think I should probably check his writing out before I pass judgement on him.

Jeff you kind of illustrated my point in that they provide good quote-fodder for forums. I agree that quite a bit of it is interesting but for me it just doesn't compare to a body of work by a photographer that I admire. I guess I'm just not as good with the written word as I am with the photograph. Now that I think of it 99% of my books have pictures in them :)

I also like Szarkowski and the 55 series because they are generally talking about individual artists and their place in the art world. It's the ones that describe photography itself that I find of little use...unless you're arguing (sorry, 'discussing') it on a forum. Out there in the real world, when I'm with my camera, I never think of Susan Sontag :)

Boris, I wonder if the reason for his relative obscurity is that he lived outside of the country for so long. Didn't he spend most of his life in India and elsewhere? This kind of transforms his work into the dreaded 'travel photography' genre IMO.

 

Thanks for bringing him up because he's a master regardless of his subject matter.

I don't understand why people get so caught up in what writers on photography/art have to say. I can understand why it can be interesting but, I just find that their words pale in comparison to the photographs of the artists themselves.

What a coincidence. I've just been looking through Family Business this evening. It's my second time through and it's even more emotional than the last time. I haven't seen much of his work before this but this one book is at the top of my list of current favorites. Get it, if you can afford it.

The point of my above, even if what I see in Eggleston do I consider pure amplified visual noise, if a group wants to rock out to his irreverent visual tunes, I'm cool with that.

 

------------------------------------------------------------------

 

You are???!!!! You sure didn't seem very cool about it when you started your barrage of comments. In fact you seemed quite miffed that others did enjoy his work and that historians consider him important. Why this sudden change of tone? Why are you still arguing and challenging just about every comment supporting him? Why haven't you moved on to some other thread? Thomas, you have to be the least cool person I have ever encountered. Please quit insulting us with you lies and exaggerations.

I rejected B&W back in the late 70's and so grew up with color and pretty much assumed, reasonably, that everybody else did also.

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Who is 'everybody else' in this statement? The formalists? Shutterbugs? Photo-realists? Commercial and travel photographers? What is your frame of reference? You said you rejected the world of photographic art in the 70's so what 'everbody else's' are you lumping yourself in with?

Eggleston has had a huge influence on my photography both in form and content. Further his work gave me the confidence to believe in my own fascination with the beautifully banal. His statement "I am at war with the obvious" has been my rallying cry.

 

There, now you have a response to your challenge and like the last challenge you can quit harping on it. I wonder what dead end avenue you are going to go to travel down next time in your attempt to discredit Eggleston?

 

BTW what does a color photo that you took in 1976 have to do with Eggleston?

I haven't looked at the work but it sounds like fun. I'm glad that there are those (Calle et al) out there who think in this way. It's a refreshing change from the hyperseriousness of 'fine art'.