Wow Tom, your really pressing Doug's buttons. This is the most he's written to the list in years. Regards, Bob S. :-)
On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 5:10 PM, Doug Brewer <[email protected]> wrote: > Tom C wrote: >> >> Hi Doug, (take everything I say as not an argument, but more or less >> musing) >> >> I don't know the history of Eggleston or how/why he became famous. >>> >>> From the exhibit I saw, I suspect either some beatniks in a coffehouse >> >> somewhere or some art professors who talk vs. do, were looking for >> deeper meaning and stared at some photographs long enough until they >> thought that they'd found it. Realizing he could achieve fame and/or >> money by doing more of the same he set out to deliver what the >> 'intellectuals' wanted. > > You're going to play the populist card? > > If it weren't for Eggleston, Stephen Shore, and Joel Meyerowitz, and their > pioneering color work, we'd probably all still be out looking for Saint > Ansel's tripod marks and f/64ing the hell out of our monochrome emulsions, > because no serious photographer would ever shoot in color. > > Like it or not, critical and curatorial judgment affects what we do. Edward > Hopper would have been laughed out of any number of salons and local art > clubs, but someone had to decide his work was good. Monet, Gauguin, , Walker > Evans, the list is endless. People who produced work that was not in keeping > with the prevailing style. Someone stepped up and said hey wait, this is > good. Then that stuff goes on to influence whoever came next, either in > agreement or opposition. > > Of course, it can go bad. I don't care for what Andy Warhol did, but I > understand what he was saying, and somewhat agree. > >> >> The above may not be true, but it's the sense I get, because if I were >> to show a similar set of photographs, which would be quite easy to >> produce, I'd be uniformly chastized. > > Sounds like a challenge to me. Go ahead. Make a gallery of Eggleston-like > photos. But do keep in mind, and this is key: subject matter plays but a > supporting role in the work. Color is everything. > > But don't do it for my amusement. Do it as a challenge to yourself. Get out > of your photographic comfort zone and see how easy or hard it is to produce > usable work in a different style. > >> >> If a person deliberately sets about shooting in what I'd call a >> 'crappy snaphot style', is it good because it was deliberate as >> opposed to haphazard? Or is it good because it reminds people of the >> way things were in years gone by and hence evokes an emotion? >> >> I called his photographs crappy because I found them largely devoid of >> any discernible style or intent, and I did not find them aesthetically >> pleasing. I did not enjoy the majority of them individually nor did I >> see any cohesiveness as a group. If that was what he was shooting for, >> he achieved it. > > Well, they do have a discernible style; He doesn't shoot like anyone else. > Intent is there, but you (generic you) have to be open to it. > > >> Yes, I deliberately tried NOT to articulate the reasons why I would >> consider a photograph good, and leave it open to interpretation. :-) >> >> Why? Because I KNOW, that sure as grass is green, if I elaborate on >> some specific criteria that someone will argue the opposite or the >> exception, and point out to me (as if I'm a total idiot) that I cannot >> be the sole arbiter of what makes a good photograph (and I can't). So >> I did not fall into the trap. :-) > > I don't think anyone thinks you're an idiot. Remember, I'm carrying the > minority flag on this. If anyone looks foolish, it's me, and I'm quite > accustomed to it. You've met me. Do you really think I'm allowed out in > public that often? > >> >> I do however agree with your statements above. The formula for making >> a good photograph is wide and varied, and we can easily become trapped >> in our formulaic way of seeing and producing. That, in essence, >> probably becomes our style, but it's certainly good to keep an open >> mind and consider that our subject at the time could posiibly benefit >> from a different approach than our norm. > > Yes, I like to call it working the subject. > >> >>> The same can be said for how we view photographs. We like best those that >>> are like what we shoot, as photographers. The trick is to separate our >>> photographer selves from our viewer selves and go from there. Can we do >>> it? >>> Can we look at other photographs, or do the years seeing the world >>> through a >>> viewfinder ruin that for us? >> >> It should not ruin it for us, but as individuals we all have >> preferences and tastes in both subject and style. Certainly we can >> learn by trying to see thinngs differently than our own personal norm. > > Yes. Again, it doesn't matter to me if you or any else likes what I like. > What I am intensely curious about is how other people see. >> >> Tom C. >> > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
