Miserere and I had a brief discussion about Eggleston's work while we were wandering through. It got me to thinking rather than just feeling. Thanks Miserere! First, I don't study art, I don't read art critics' stuff, and I may have once heard the name Eggleston but had no clue who he was and what his purported place is/was in the pantheon of photographic greats. From the viewpoint of that naive viewer, I think I liked his work. First, except for the B&W portraits, it all seemed to be of one style. This is a guy comfortable with his vision of the world. Second, it was all of one "place." St. Ansel's place was not just Yosemite but all outdoors. Egglestons place was the American mid-south. I think both represented their own place well, in very different ways obviously! I wonder if someone who is an urban dweller with no prior experience with the Southwest or Yosemite, etc. could see the art in Adams' work? I think that one who has no prior experience with the American South would likewise have difficulty feeling the Eggleston work. But even so, there is much to be admired in both. Their compositions, their ability to capture the essence of place and time. Eggleston happened to use color rather than B&W and was obviously as comfortable with the use of color as Adams was with the use of sharp B&W.
Do I "like" Eggleston's work? I am not sure about that but I think so. And I did buy the exhibit book and I expect I will spend quite a few hours looking at the images. Do I admire his work? Sorta. Am I inspired to try to shot like him? No, I would rather find my own way. But for me, the important metric is Will I remember his images? And there the answer is Yes. There are a few that stick in my mind, and they join a few handfuls of other images I have seen in galleries, museums, and PDML books. Thanks to Doug (?) who first suggested that exhibit as a Saturday morning outing for the group. stan On May 12, 2010, at 7:51 PM, Mark Roberts wrote: > Tom C wrote: > >> 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, perhaps what's bugging you about Eggleston's work subconsciously > is that same thing that bugs me consciously about it. I'm not an > Eggleston hater - quite the contrary, I find I have a greater > appreciation for his work after seeing it in person and in a large > collection. I see some pretty good ideas at play and some pretty good > work resulting. What annoys me is the over-glorification of Eggleston > by the art world. It's as if, after years of dismissing color > photography, when the art snobs found one color photographer they > liked they overreacted to the point of near-deification, compensating > for past oversights by heaping excessive praise on work that didn't > deserve it. > > In short, I think his work does deserve praise, but not the ridiculous > adulation it's received from some quarters. > > -- > 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. -- 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.
