I think Doug has valid points even though I was not impressed with the bulk of Eggleston's work on display last weekend.
I bow to his knowledge on the subject because he no doubt has a far vaster knowledge of photographic history than I do. And in the end, even discussing the subject has made me think, which I believe was Doug's intent (or maybe he just likes me better after having met me in person). LOL. Tom On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Bob Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
