Requesting Comments (Off Topic)

[DioDLL]

As I said ealier, that was a great post. It really woke me up and made me look at things differently. You did a great job supplying the information to help digest these photographs.

I plan to go to the library and take out an Eggleston book. Might
be worth it for you too.

That is how I feel about every exposure. Each one has something
that really bothers me. I am now thinking about these pictures
more than any of the pictures that have been posted on this forum
ever. I wonder if that is what art is? They are not super sharp
and really cool. Go figure.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dpdata

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic/photos
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 All rights reserved.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dpdata

 

[pbleic]

Sorry if it seems that way to you. If you read my posts you won't find that.

I am really happy that a few people in the post have said that this shook up their thinking and made them consider the photos, and why they react to them as they do. That is the essence of art - appreciating how it makes you feel and trying to understand why. Positive or negative.

For those who just dismissed the photos as junk, and don't care to consider why - this is completely your choice; I find nothing wrong in that.

Paul

First, I have to honestly say that I don't care for the superior
tone that some such as Paul are coming off with in this set of
posts. I think there is an excellent reason many are referring to
these photos as junk. Building yourself up at the expense of others
may be fun but it isn't the way to enlighten others.

To put it another way, I consider the tone in some of these posts
very condecending. Let the master teach the grasshopper.

That may not be the intent, the motive, or the result, but frankly
it does come across to at least one observer (me) that way.

Second, as referred to above, I think there is a reason people are
considering these photos junk and not art. The problem is that they
were stripped of their context. These photos were not meant to be
art by themselves. They do not stand well by themselves. A single
note from the most heavenly aria is still just a single note and is
generally not art. It is just a note.

The art in this case is in the collection. The art is in the whole
which is greater than the sum of the parts (at least potentially -
I haven't seen the whole).

My daugther has a collection of photographs that she has been
taking. She loves photographing such inspiring topics as rotting
fruit, pollution, and filth. Singly, anyone would rightfully
consider the photographs as not just junk but revolting. But they
do tell a story and that story can be art (how good is up to
debate).

--
If you are a new user chances are good your question is answered in
the FAQ at:
http://www.marius.org/eos300dfaq.php

For a small gallery of my photographs, see:
http://ratphoto.home.comcast.net/
See my profile for my equipment

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic/photos
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 All rights reserved.

 

[pbleic]

The art in this case is in the collection. The art is in the whole
which is greater than the sum of the parts (at least potentially -
I haven't seen the whole).

Agree, to be sure.
But, each picture is art in itself. That part I don't agree with you about.

My daugther has a collection of photographs that she has been
taking. She loves photographing such inspiring topics as rotting
fruit, pollution, and filth. Singly, anyone would rightfully
consider the photographs as not just junk but revolting. But they
do tell a story and that story can be art (how good is up to
debate).

I hope she wins the Hasselblad Award and is displayed at the Museum of Modern Art ;-)

 

[RonInHouston]

I, for one, can see the art. That 1984 blue Oldsmobile Cutlass is a classic!!! First new car I ever purchased.

Ron

What do you think of these photos? Do you think they would sell?

 

[CANiSLAYu]

Individually those pictures are not very good as numerous people have said. You can't take it out of context and expect everyone to appreciate it. It's like giving us a few random words from a Shakespeare sonnet; individually the words mean nothing, but combined they create something worthy of praise. I imagine with these particular photos it is the same thing.

 

[DioDLL]

William Eggleston, a curator for a major museum or a person with a background in art photography were to read this statement.

Those look like snapshots and anyone of us can do
better than that I am sure

It probably would not bother them, they would dismiss us as foolish.

You may not be able to appreciate it, but what would you do better? Would you focus the shot better, move your shooting position so the lamp post is not in the way? If this is how people are looking at it they are missing the point.

--
http://www.pbase.com/dpdata

 

[RATPhoto]

The art in this case is in the collection. The art is in the whole
which is greater than the sum of the parts (at least potentially -
I haven't seen the whole).

Agree, to be sure.
But, each picture is art in itself. That part I don't agree with
you about.

I think we are now probably down to a question of symantics. What you are calling Art in this case, I would call craft. The single sublime note in the Aria is wonderful craft. The picture individually flawed but fitting the theme perfectly would still be great craft even if by itself it did not live up to a billing as art.

But if some would like to call such individual parts art, that word may suffice well for them just as for me, craft suffices.

--
If you are a new user chances are good your question is answered in the FAQ at:
http://www.marius.org/eos300dfaq.php

For a small gallery of my photographs, see:
http://ratphoto.home.comcast.net/
See my profile for my equipment

 

[pbleic]

Yes, together they may be amazing. But each one has a greatness - but not as "great shots." More, it is difficult to capture the banal so effectively. Together they paint a picture of America. But each one has a message all its own.

Individually those pictures are not very good as numerous people
have said. You can't take it out of context and expect everyone to
appreciate it. It's like giving us a few random words from a
Shakespeare sonnet; individually the words mean nothing, but
combined they create something worthy of praise. I imagine with
these particular photos it is the same thing.

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic/photos
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 All rights reserved.

 

[pbleic]

The art in this case is in the collection. The art is in the whole
which is greater than the sum of the parts (at least potentially -
I haven't seen the whole).

Agree, to be sure.
But, each picture is art in itself. That part I don't agree with
you about.

I think we are now probably down to a question of symantics. What
you are calling Art in this case, I would call craft. The single
sublime note in the Aria is wonderful craft. The picture
individually flawed but fitting the theme perfectly would still be
great craft even if by itself it did not live up to a billing as
art.

But if some would like to call such individual parts art, that word
may suffice well for them just as for me, craft suffices.

--
If you are a new user chances are good your question is answered in
the FAQ at:
http://www.marius.org/eos300dfaq.php

For a small gallery of my photographs, see:
http://ratphoto.home.comcast.net/
See my profile for my equipment

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic/photos
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 All rights reserved.

 

[Adam Rogers]

And I'm sure he'd appreciate the free advertising.

What do you think of these photos? Do you think they would sell?

 

[Wild-Mike]

Mike:

You are a fine artist, and photographer. But being an artist
doesn't mean that you immediately and completely understand and
appreciate all art. Nor should it. Not every artist understands
and appreciates the Italian Renaissance, Pointilism, Cubism,
Post-Modernism. However, as an artist I am surprised if you would
dismiss any of these so definitively and completely without really
appreciating their context. I would assume you would read what the
many many critics have said about them and think carefully about it
for a while.

Actually, there is a lot of art out there that I just don't care for. That is my own personal opinion though. I don't care for the majority of abstract art that I see. I am not an art critic and like many others, I see art that I like and art that I simply don't like. There are many talented artists and photographers out there, but just because they became famous doesn't mean I would automatically have an interest in studying their work, etc.

Similarly, I am surprised that you would read that Eggleston was
"the father of color photography" and one of the most influential
photographers of the century, and yet not wish to explore it,
consider it, look at his works in an exhibit or book.

No offense, but the images that you brought to the table simply didn't evoke any real emotions though ...especially the one with the cheesy plastic toys in it. I am sure that if I had the time, desire, etc. to study his work then I might share some of your interests with the photographer. I am also quite sure that I would still not care for the images that were used as examples, although the construction pic was somewhat nteresting ...but only mildly.

I am sure I have seen some of his work in the past and probably liked many of his photos. But I see it as if I purchase a music CD there may be a number of songs that I really like and other songs that I simply don't like and won't learn to like either. That doesn't mean that I don't like the musician just because I don't care for a couple of the songs they created/sang. It appears that you selected those particular photos for a reason ...they didn't appear very applealing by themselves.

Regards,
Mike

 

[pbleic]

http://www.masters-of-photography.com/E/eggleston/eggleston_cigarettes_full.html

I am sure I have seen some of his work in the past and probably
liked many of his photos. --

Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic/photos
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 All rights reserved.

 

[Dr. Cabbie]

In this case, pbleic asked a simple-sounding question, "do you think these would sell?"

The question is so simple that it seems to ask for a simple answer, a context-specific answer, i.e. yes, no, it's junk, it's sublime.

Contrarily, I would imagine the "question" of Eggleston was, "What are you thinking when you see these ten, twenty shots of our modern, money-laden, convenience-heavy world? Is it pretty to you? Is our world pretty to you?" The answer wouldn't be so simple as, "yes, no, it's junk, it's sublime."

pbleic's question on its surface did not seem to request us to look further.

Continuing on the same line of thought, when a forum member asks the crowd to check out his photograph, the context is usually one of isolation - the member isn't intending anyone to look at the shot as part of a larger collection with a meaning behind it or as symbolic of anything - it's just a picture that the person is asking to be viewed on its own, in and of itself. The member isn't asking the forum to see beyond the surface - I would think if any member here presented a picture as a part of a whole presentation, as "art", the forum would rise to the occasion and consider the shot as "art."

Just a couple of cents thrown into the fountain.

--



http://www.pbase.com/dr_cabbie/

 

[chrissul]

Most people don't realize, selling art is all about marketting, finding the correct audience or the best person to buy the pieces you're selling, and putting the pieces in the correct context.

a bi-colored board may not be art unless it's showing something about the continuously changing nature of society and urban life and how you will always have a dichotomous relationship with the world around you, as represented by the opposing colors on a single board..

Individually those pictures are not very good as numerous people
have said. You can't take it out of context and expect everyone to
appreciate it. It's like giving us a few random words from a
Shakespeare sonnet; individually the words mean nothing, but
combined they create something worthy of praise. I imagine with
these particular photos it is the same thing.

 

[ioannis]

It seems to me that the point of the photographer is to provoke and shake peoples beliefs about composition, lighting etc. Like beauty, there may be a commonly accepted model but some will find some variants ugly others great.

 

[DoctorG1]

In the initial post there was no indication at all of any of the comments and critques subsequently posted. Why on earth WOULD anyone have done a google search on these images after reading the initial post , the question was asked if they would sell - that's all.

If you are fed ideas , maybe you can see something into what is essentially absolute drek..... you can describe a turd as "the effluence of human society" and then examine various examples and critque it as such and have a retrospective of it and diamond encrusted Rolex watches as 2 ends of a scale , but generally people that see a turd, see it as such.

Art is often lost up its own ass and in pretentiousness , and those that claim to understand it and dismiss the unwashed masses as philistines are generally those with a need to boost their own ego. As I have said before , there is no accounting for taste and personal preference and subjectivity is inviolate.

Some of the contributors to this thread are claiming those folk that did not appreciate these pics (most of the ppl) are lesser beings then them , closed minded and the cause of dissapointment and so forth. Plebic posted this KNOWING the response he would get , he claims to want to open minds and proceeds to tell others that judging something that leaves you cold ,as such ,is "wrong". I say NOT!!!! .

In my mind he posted them and then his responses to citicism of them to prove his superiority to us "plebs" who dont know a good thing when we see it.

You are more then welcome to thank him for this , but dont expect others to thank anyone for having their lack of "taste" , "critical appreciation" , "insight" and their "
closed mindedness" pointed out to them.

--
Rodney Gold

The nicest thing about smacking your head against the the wall is.......The feeling you get when you stop

 

[Brennan O'B]

What do you think of these photos? Do you think they would sell?

Of course not, These are intentionally offputting images. Here they are just ugly pictures. In the context of a gallerey they would have a very dirrerent effect. If you think that art in the 70s was about beauty ask Joseph Beyes or Christo ; the point was to shatter the beauty myth. Out of the context of a gallerey bad art is dismissed rather than pondered over. Within the context of a gallerey arresting images of the mundane can bring into questions our base assumptions of what is beauty and what is the role of art in our perception of the everyday. But no one buys a copy to hang over the mantel.

 

[pbleic]

But no one buys a copy to hang

over the mantel.

This is a somewhat limited view of art buyers. In fact, these photos and many others by the artist have sold for much more than most people would ever think of getting for their pictures. Not because the buyers are "suckers," as some would suggest.

--
Paul

------------------------------------------------
Pbase supporter
Photographs at: http://www.pbase.com/pbleic/photos
--------------------------------------------------
Copyright 2003 All rights reserved.

 

[M Irwin]

and those
that claim to understand it and dismiss the unwashed masses as
philistines are generally those with a need to boost their own ego.

Come on, I didn't get any of that in these posts. This is getting to be like politics where one left-of-center person says one thing, the right-of-center person says another, the first guy rebuts by twisting the seconds guys words to the extreme, and the second responds in kind. Before you know it, they both look like leftists and rightists and are sitting across an impassable chasm, trying to rally troops to either side.

 

[pbleic]

A discussion of Eggleston in the context of a new movie.

His work is cited as a strong influence on David Lynch in Blue Velvet, Sam Mendes in American Beauty, and Sofia Coppola in The Virgin Suicides. Eggleston is not "1970's"; he is a major influence on an EVOLVING style in cinema.

A quote from the article, seemingly targeted at discussion points made here in this thread:

Eggleston's pictures have been described as "anti-heroic", "vulgar" and "boring"...At first glance, they could be amateur snapshots, albeit brightly coloured. ... On closer inspection, they're the opposite: precise compositions, graphically sophisticated and laden with implied narrative, sometimes even violence. There are rarely people in his pictures, but there is always evidence of human presence, and of the tension between the natural and artificial. Hence the telegraph wires, something of an Eggleston trademark. Time and again, they crop up in his work, running against the natural lines of the landscape, vanishing along a road into the horizon, or as subjects in themselves.

The review:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1132672,00.html

Beauty and the banal

He changed photography by finding drama in the everyday. Now Willliam Eggleston's images are casting their spell over film. By Steve Rose

Wednesday January 28, 2004
The Guardian

Elephant: Eggleston was at the heart of the film's aesthetic, says director Gus Van Sant

The opening shot of Gus Van Sant's new movie, Elephant, is of a big blue sky, shot from head height, interrupted only by a line of telegraph wires running diagonally across the bottom corner. Apart from the speeded-up movement of clouds and contrails from jet planes, and the soundtrack of teenagers' voices, it could be a still photo. More specifically, it could be a still photo taken by William Eggleston, the celebrated US photographer regularly referred to as "the father of colour". Eggleston didn't invent colour photography, but he put it on the cultural map with his work in the late 1960s and early 1970s. At the same time, he pioneered a way of seeing the world that changed photography, and, as Van Sant's homage indicates, is increasingly influencing the movies. You could say Eggleston's colourful, commonplace pictures are to US art cinema what Ansel Adams's pristine, black-and-white natural vistas were to the western.

Eggleston's pictures have been described as "anti-heroic", "vulgar" and "boring". He typically focuses on details of the everyday environment that go unnoticed: shoes and clutter underneath a bed; a naked lightbulb in a violently red ceiling; a dog drinking from a muddy roadside puddle. At first glance, they could be amateur snapshots, albeit brightly coloured. (Eggleston dye-transferred his prints for exhibition, achieving a degree of colour saturation no printing process can match.) On closer inspection, they're the opposite: precise compositions, graphically sophisticated and laden with implied narrative, sometimes even violence. There are rarely people in his pictures, but there is always evidence of human presence, and of the tension between the natural and artificial. Hence the telegraph wires, something of an Eggleston trademark. Time and again, they crop up in his work, running against the natural lines of the landscape, vanishing along a road into the horizon, or as subjects in themselves.

On the face of it, their appearance at the beginning of Elephant has little to do with the rest of the film, a dreamy, documentary-style reconstruction of a Columbine-like high school shooting. But Van Sant has acknowledged that Eggleston was at the heart of the film's visual aesthetic: "He's taking still shots of environment, but it's also characters and people," Van Sant says. "You're not exactly sure where they are, but wherever it is, it looks amazing."