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
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow
the directions.
