William Eggleston Article

[Dave442]

I enjoy looking at his shots. So often with my shots I am happy when I have the subject and don't have something in the background distracting from it. With his stuff you remember that the whole image is the subject. It lets you spend time taking it all in, or going back and finding something new.

 

[JoeW]

I don't do a lot of street photography. I'm more likely to look for unique settings or events or action. So I'm not a big Eggleston follower. That said, Eggleston is absolutely one of the "bigs" of this past century when it comes to photography. He may not be everyone's cup of tea (or coffee) but it's important to recognize why he matters. Here's why he's a really big deal as a photographer:

1. He, more than anyone else, made it acceptable to shoot color as art. Before, the assumption was that if you were shooting art, it had to be B&W as a photographer. Now we're used to film or digital that allows us to saturate or even over-saturate colors so Eggleston's work looks a bit "ho-hum." But in his time, he shocked a lot of people with the realization that color works could indeed be artistic.

2. Eggleston is the answer for all the newbies who say "there is nothing to shoot where I live" or "I live someplace boring--no good shooting here." Eggleston made the mundane his subject. Rather than travel someplace exotic, he sought to find exotic (usually subtly) through the everyday commonplace world we all lived in.

3. Eggleston exemplified the stereotype of America at that time. Rather than feeling like you had to be French (or foreign) or go to Paris or London to shoot good work, his works tended to be subjected that were strongly associated with America...gas stations, parking lots, diners.

 

[The_Traveler]

My 'philosophy' is that the 'content' is premier and any resultant meaning or impact should derive from that.
The supporting elements of composition, detail and color should do just that, support the content.

I think Eggleston's work is beautiful but my takeaway from every single one of his pictures is the same; 'even banal settings can be beautiful if the color is beautifully managed.'
[My response to AA is similar; 100% of his pictures are technically perfect, but 99% of them are emotionally empty. Fans love all them them for the technical perfection which, in my opinion, is an unworthy object of attraction.]

I want viewers to turn away from any of my pictures remembering different meanings or impact and seeing the color and detail as helping.

 

[fmw]

William Eggleston is one of the most influential photographers of the last century

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Sorry to hear that. I cringe at the notion that these images would influence the photography of others.

 

[tirediron]

Here's why he's a really big deal as a photographer:

1. He, more than anyone else, made it acceptable to shoot color as art. Before, the assumption was that if you were shooting art, it had to be B&W as a photographer. Now we're used to film or digital that allows us to saturate or even over-saturate colors so Eggleston's work looks a bit "ho-hum." But in his time, he shocked a lot of people with the realization that color works could indeed be artistic.

Howzzat? People have been shooting colour film for art since the second day they sold it!

2. Eggleston is the answer for all the newbies who say "there is nothing to shoot where I live" or "I live someplace boring--no good shooting here." Eggleston made the mundane his subject. Rather than travel someplace exotic, he sought to find exotic (usually subtly) through the everyday commonplace world we all lived in.

Fair enough, but I would dispute that he is a good answer. I've looked at as many of his images as I can find since you posted the thread, and I would guess that fully 75% of his work is, IMO, simply bad photography. He does capture some interesting scenes, no disagreement there, but in a snap-shotish manner, with no concern for overall composition, cropping or exposure.

3. Eggleston exemplified the stereotype of America at that time. Rather than feeling like you had to be French (or foreign) or go to Paris or London to shoot good work, his works tended to be subjected that were strongly associated with America...gas stations, parking lots, diners.

Was there really such a sense at that time? As for the association, having traveled all over the world, I've seen gas stations and parking lots on every continent and in every city I've visited. I don't see anything especially 'American' about them.

There's no doubt he's done well for himself, far, far better than I ever will, and for that, I applaud him, but referring him to him as a 'great' or 'influential' photographer? IMO, that simply cheapens those adjectives.

 

[Gary A.]

Am fascinated by the images. I am much more moved collectively than by any single image. I wish I could see the beauty of color and the banal like Eggleston.

This is weird, but coming from me it is probably to be expected.

In the 1979 Rose Bowl game, USC was playing Michigan. USC's tailback was Charlie White. White fumbled on the one yard line during USC's final and winning scoring drive. One ref called it a fumble on the one while other refs decided he fumbled after he crossed the goal line.

When questioned after the game, White said that anybody can score with the ball ... It take a helluva player to score without the ball. That is how I feel about Eggleston. Eggleston is able to create successful images captured from the ordinary while I need a scene full of drama and the extraordinary to be considered successful.

 

[gsgary]

William in action

 

[JoeW]

Here's why he's a really big deal as a photographer:

1. He, more than anyone else, made it acceptable to shoot color as art. Before, the assumption was that if you were shooting art, it had to be B&W as a photographer. Now we're used to film or digital that allows us to saturate or even over-saturate colors so Eggleston's work looks a bit "ho-hum." But in his time, he shocked a lot of people with the realization that color works could indeed be artistic.

Howzzat? People have been shooting colour film for art since the second day they sold it!

2. Eggleston is the answer for all the newbies who say "there is nothing to shoot where I live" or "I live someplace boring--no good shooting here." Eggleston made the mundane his subject. Rather than travel someplace exotic, he sought to find exotic (usually subtly) through the everyday commonplace world we all lived in.

Fair enough, but I would dispute that he is a good answer. I've looked at as many of his images as I can find since you posted the thread, and I would guess that fully 75% of his work is, IMO, simply bad photography. He does capture some interesting scenes, no disagreement there, but in a snap-shotish manner, with no concern for overall composition, cropping or exposure.

3. Eggleston exemplified the stereotype of America at that time. Rather than feeling like you had to be French (or foreign) or go to Paris or London to shoot good work, his works tended to be subjected that were strongly associated with America...gas stations, parking lots, diners.

Was there really such a sense at that time? As for the association, having traveled all over the world, I've seen gas stations and parking lots on every continent and in every city I've visited. I don't see anything especially 'American' about them.

There's no doubt he's done well for himself, far, far better than I ever will, and for that, I applaud him, but referring him to him as a 'great' or 'influential' photographer? IMO, that simply cheapens those adjectives.

Yeah, people have been shooting color since it's been available. But it was his 1976 show at MOMA that was really only the second major show of color photography regarded as a form of art and the first real time that critics and individuals in other art forms started to say that color in photography was more than just recording what was seen but was actually a legitimate art. Remember, while you say that people were shooting a lot of color (I don't disagree), you still had many notable critics and artists claiming that photography was not an art or that B&W was the art form.

You're entitled to judge his work and like it or not, or consider it as failing to meet your standards. It's ironic I"m defending him here b/c I don't really enjoy looking at his work a lot. But he absolutely is a great example (and probably one of the earliest ones) of a photography making a statement that the mundane can be interesting (and not b/c you did an Edward Maupin and froze action or shot macro). Instead of a mindset that you had to shoot something unique or go someplace very different to get create art, he was making the claim (whether you agree with it or not) that the everyday, the mundane, that what is all around us, can be effectively captured as art.

I phrased the last point poorly. Yes, there are eating establishments and gas stations all around the world. But if you look at the stereotypes of America/North America in the 1970's, what (other than landmarks like the Grand Canyon or unique structures like the statute of liberty) seems to be something you'd look at and go "ah, America?" A rodeo maybe. A jazz club (less so these days)? A baseball game? They may all be true examples but they're also not everyday, common, mundane parts of life. Most people who've been a lot of places would tell you that other than maybe San Francisco and NYC, the USA is very much a country in which cars are almost indispensable and a major part of our self-definition. Roads, parking lots fit in to that. Diners too. I've seen little bistros with tables outside all around the world too--but to me they still exemplify France. OctoberFest and Beerhalls--they're around the world (even in DisneyLand and Disney World) but I still associate them with Germany. The point is NOT that he shot things only available to North America. But that he shot mundane, common stuff that is also ironically a bit iconic of what the USA seems like to some visitors (especially if you stay away from the landmarks--built or natural).

 

[Gary A.]

I am still thinking about many of the images I viewed yesterday, the hair, (back of the head), of the freshly doo-ed woman, captured as if it was a formal frontal portrait, the tricycle at attention standing guard over the yard/house, et al ... Per my signature :"Everywhere you look there are photographs, it is the call of photographers to see and capture them."

I am always very impressed when I see a photo of everyday life, a scene or object most of us would walk past without a second thought, captured in an extraordinary way. Eggleston's work is fascinating to me, everyday images that we would normally walk past, but they grab Eggleston's imagination. Similar to the subjects he shoots, Eggleston's images are easy to discard and walk past, but for many of us that stop and examine his photos, in a quiet, subtle and minutiae manner the images speak volumes. I think if I had Eggleston's eye of seeing the extraordinary in the ordinary, it would drive me crazy.

As I stated earlier, anybody can score with the ball, it takes a special player to score without the ball ... It is easy to take an interesting photograph of Yosemite, of the Olympics or of a battlefield ... It takes a special skill and vision to take an interesting photo of a 'boring' place, of Memphis of my kitchen cabinet.

 

[Gary A.]

William Eggleston is one of the most influential photographers of the last century

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Unbelievable, but Gary A. has finally found some common ground with gsgary.

 

[tirediron]

William Eggleston is one of the most influential photographers of the last century

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Unbelievable, but Gary A. has finally found some common ground with gsgary.

Ruh-roh... folks, I think we have a tear in the fabric of the space-time continuem!

 

[gsgary]

I am still thinking about many of the images I viewed yesterday, the hair, (back of the head), of the freshly doo-ed woman, captured as if it was a formal frontal portrait, the tricycle at attention standing guard over the yard/house, et al ... Per my signature :"Everywhere you look there are photographs, it is the call of photographers to see and capture them."

I am always very impressed when I see a photo of everyday life, a scene or object most of us would walk past without a second thought, captured in an extraordinary way. Eggleston's work is fascinating to me, everyday images that we would normally walk past, but they grab Eggleston's imagination. Similar to the subjects he shoots, Eggleston's images are easy to discard and walk past, but for many of us that stop and examine his photos, in a quiet, subtle and minutiae manner the images speak volumes. I think if I had Eggleston's eye of seeing the extraordinary in the ordinary, it would drive me crazy.

As I stated earlier, anybody can score with the ball, it takes a special player to score without the ball ... It is easy to take an interesting photograph of Yosemite, of the Olympics or of a battlefield ... It takes a special skill and vision to take an interesting photo of a 'boring' place, of Memphis of my kitchen cabinet.

My favourite is the shot under the bed

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[gsgary]

William Eggleston is one of the most influential photographers of the last century

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

Unbelievable, but Gary A. has finally found some common ground with gsgary.

What do you mean, we both love B+W film

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk

 

[The_Traveler]

This might be due to a psychological effect called 'priming'; we are influenced by the fact that he is well known and his pictures are well thought of, the pictures are well edited and printed, even that we decided to go back and look at them. Thus we are 'pushed' to find the details that may make our response align with what subconscious has been primed to see.

 

[HughGuessWho]

^That