David Bowie has given a lot of great commentary on art. He basically said that the artist creates something and then it's up to the critique and audience to think what they think, but the artist cannot concern himself with what others think. The real artist can turn off feedback and criticism.
I like Eggleston's work, and I think the reason is his photos have sense of time and place without being in your face about it . Another thing is he took photos 99.8 % of other photographers wouldn't even think about photographing.
If we change the question from, "What does it mean" to "Why is it appealing" the conversation changes and responses, the dialogue, has more substance to it. With Eggleston, yes, "what does it mean" is a stupid question, but why us it appealing" he himself would respond differently with positive remarks. The reason behind this type/genre is that the pictures are taken because they were appealing to the photographer. I think it was Jay Maisel that we take pictures because we want to say, "this is what I saw and I wanted to share it with you, isn't it interesting?" When I first saw the Trike picture, with the houses there, my thought was, "families live here." It can be as simple as that.
Rather, "what is its appeal?...why?".... A photos appeal is only discoverable to the viewer, in certain the appeal is only discoverable by a few, the interpretation per the viewer
Great discussion, and you made some excellent points. It is unfortunate we sort of live in a world of pageantry, where a select few get recognition. Meanwhile, there are countless brilliant but unknown photographers, athletes, singers, innovators. We really ought to rethink how we discover and reward people, the whole merit system in general.
While it's important to do it for ourselves, we also need to share and have our work seen, even if it's one photo in a local art gallery. I was thinking that I wish the photo program I'm in would be more open about sharing student work, maybe on a facebook page but especially in the school gallery. (Well, no one goes to the gallery so maybe FB is better.) Printing and framing photos takes it all to the next level, and is pretty hard in my experience. Too bad the newspaper can't run a section on photos. People post their sunset photos on Nextdoor, maybe photographers should be doing the same.
I've noticed this at school, is seems to me the more normal of a picture, yet often with oddness in it, the more my teachers seem to like it. I'm in awe of my classmates that can take these kinds of pictures. Like one was a self portrait of the photographer laying face down in the grass. I never would have thought of that. I tend to worry about lines and exposure and take more typical subjects. I guess that's one of the benefits of being in a class and seeing each other's work.
You might think you could take that but you would walk right by it and not even notice, he makes the thing look so epic. Same as the airline glass pic. His sense for observation is what makes the shots interesting.
I find that tricycle photo so interesting. I feel like the photographer found a perspective that reminds how big the world is when you’re a child… Then again, what do I know? I’m just an amateur hobbyist.
@spinrodriguez8930 ive seen it before and always thought that, it messes with my OCD on lining things up with the car not central to the wheels of the bike but it's what made me like it more
The best description or "mission statement" for lack of a better positioning about Eggleston was his own statement that his photography was 'democratic'. Ugly things, beautiful things, odd things, dirty things, rust whatever it was all game for his camera. From then on I fell in love with all his work. Again its context for his work. Thats a mindset to begin to appreciate all the that work, Joel, Friedlander, Gary, Helen Levitt. Sternfeld and on and on. Also, knowing that Eggleston lived in the south, there's enourmous context for 80% of that time period and historical context if you care or grew up in that time frame. I can appreciate Weston and Stieglitz and Eggleston so call me greedy. When I check on the Trike shot years ago its was valued at $250,000 thousand. Probably a lot more today.
I love how you identified that photography these days has to have something extra to draw attention while the true masters made successful photographs of just normal subjects. I wish we could get back to that again. Honestly, everyone's photos are starting to look alike because we go to the same places and shootv the same things as everyone else. Unique is no longer celebrated, and that's a shame.
As was mentioned in spektograf's comment - we should remember we're in our current time. The photographers I mentioned were found in another time. I feel it'll only be another 10 years before the 'greats' from now start to surface
Right on, I'm with you on this. But I would say that the sameness we're experiencing when we look at work done by folks on instagram, flickr, et al is due to everyone trying to be unique. If everyone is unique, then no one is unique.
You are right on photos looking alike. I try my best everyday to create images that are not already created by someone else. It is so hard to do. We look at the same subject and instinctively compose an image and press the shutter button. What we see is perhaps what every other photographer would see standing in the same place looking at the same subject. It is for us to look for that unique angle or perspective that is not so obvious.
@@boristahmasian9604 I think that is the key these days, especially if you are photographing the same locations. I choose to photograph subjects that are not so well captured, and then try and look for unique ways to frame those odd subjects.
Whenever I hear, "I can take that picture", I think "well maybe you could but you DIDN'T" I realize recently that the act of declaring your work as art and show it to the world is a very important act as an artist.
As usual, you make some fascinating points. It’s only when you try to emulate William Eggleston that you realise what a deep and thoughtful artist he is and how powerfully symbolic his work is. However, he places a responsibility onto the viewer to bring something to the image themselves if they want to. Or, as you say, you can just enjoy the photograph, or not, and accept it as meaning nothing and to hell with all the high-brow stuff which sometimes seems obligatory.
We tend to think of “traditional “ landscape images as being the images that are exhibiting peace and solitude, yet if you look at your examples here they have the same effect whilst mostly being mundane and everyday subjects. Your comment about busy images is so very true.
I don't buy into the premis that photography these days needs to be loud and shouty to get noticed. That may be true for Instagram but I go to photography exhibitions on a regular basis and there are some very interetsing photographers doing great work out there that probably wouldn't get noticed on Instagram because the images aren't immediate and grab ones attentioin in a matter of milliseconds. With regards the likes of William Eggleston, Saul Leiter etc they were among the first to make the everyday and mundane interesting. It is their "intent" that makes them artists and the more I photograph the more I start to really appreciate how great these masters are. If you are thinking "oh I could do that" the chances are you still have a lot to learn. Thanks as always Alex for another thought provoking video chat (chatorial?)
Are is subjective . Replicate it, nobody cares ...they famous because it was new at the time . Built rapport and connection . That's all ....many can do the same but they won't be famous ...because it's ready done and not famous .
One thing that was instrumental in forming my taste in photography was a book titled “US Camera 1956.” Part of what drew me to this book was that I was born in 1956. I found this book in my father’s library when I was about 13. That photo you included in your video, of the boy pointing the revolver, was one of the photos in this book. My favorite photo in this book, was a photo of Grace Kelly, just head and neck sticking out of a lake. I suggest that those old US Camera annual photo books are worth taking a look at. You see images that were made when photography was taking its place as an art.
I am seeing this for the first time... I believe the picture is more than the trike, it is also the carefully framed car in the backround, the surroundings and the angle the trike is taken at, which, using perspective, makes the trike so much larger than the car, reflecting back to childhood and how one felt when riding their first set of wheels, and how that may have influenced their love afair with transportation, that transferred to adulthood and all the trappings therin. The carport, the house, the journey across the street through life to get there... When I have enjoyed shooting the most, I loose myself in all my surroundings, and become one with my camera, lost in my mind in seeing what is beyond the obvious... the trike is a great example of this. Thanks again for your inspiration.
Looking at the comments: the appeal is in the imagination from the different perspectives. It is what art is, just like mona lisa. The photo triggers different people to see it differently and give meaning to it in our own perspective.
To me, the problem in the art world in general is there a gate-keepers who arbitrate what is good and what is trash. Often these gate-keepers will demand a steaming pile of 'meaning' behind a work; whether it's a painting, photo, etc. when often there isn't a specific meaning behind the work. For me, most of my photos are either nature photos or 'street' photos showing life and maybe a joy of life and nature. But I never went out and took a specific photo with steaming pile of 'meaning'.
There are gatekeepers. I'm not sure I'd agree that gatekeeping is a problem though. It might be the gatekeeping is done badly. But I think most people would agree there is good and bad art. And there's gotta be someone who decides which is which.
There are absolutely many bad faith gatekeepers and charlatans. but I do think we need experts and critics. I think of it this way. Art critics are people who spent a lot of time about viewing, comparing, thinking about many many artworks and explaining why he/she thinks a certain artwork is great. You can take it or toss it. It's just an opinion. But well formed and researched opinions of critics can enhance your experience of enjoying art more deeply and thoroughly. Also you can learn how to form your own opinion about the artwork by reading why critics thinks that way.
I agree 100% on the gate-keeper idea. I have seen my fair share of mediocre work that has been propped up and as a result made the artist famous and so many good artists that go unappreciated. It is easier to get exposure today but you still need an insider(s) to prop you up to become really known and reap some rewards.
Concept (the idea) is everything these days. I even argued with one if my Fine Art tutors that art is stuck in the 70/80s and we haven't moved on. He did ask me move on to what and I said anything that isn't like it is now! Sometimes absolute rubbish is championed as brilliant. I often feel its the case of the Emperor's New Clothes. Like a previous comment said that you need someone on the inside to promote you, then you'll make it whether your good or rubbish!
this is such a smart video. something i've been struggling with is allowing myself to look for quiet images instead of looking for the once-in-a-month decisive moment on the street.
A couple of years ago, I had the absolute pleasure of listening to Carl De Keyzer, talking about his photographs from North Korea. The images seem serene and they look like he took his time making them. But all where a relative rush-job. No tripod, no flash or whatever. He was very aware of how the images come across and said that that was just the result of years of experience. With maybe a naughty Belgian look in his eye, but absolutely not arrogant or superior. Very matter-of-fact actually. He just knows how it works. It hit me that the great ones, try all to reach a level of simplicity. And the quality of the images lies somewhere beyond words.
When I first started photography I did not like his pictures, but over the last couple of years of study, I’ve come to embrace that willingness to photograph “the ugly”, things others just walk on by. Eggleston and Daido Moriyama’s approach is very freeing!
You’re making an excellent point about photography; a point that’s actually very hard to make simple and clear. You’re doing it well. After 50 years of trying to find my understanding of photography, I’m just now beginning to understand the kind of photographs you’re showing. While an extreme example, the photography of the couple Bernd and Hilla Beecher demonstrates the purest form of quiet and objective photography. While not stylistically the same as the photography you’ve shown in your video, the idea of quiet objectivism is in the work of the Bechers. While I’m not suggesting that everyone’s style should follow what this couple did with their photography, (that would be boring) I think it can serve as a guide, along with the work of Vivian Meier away from the Kodak moment I suffered from for years to a photography that does take effort and time to master.
Being of a certain older age, these photos take me back to a time no longer with us. In my mind, I see them as documentary shots, as that was what most people took in those days, including myself. They also saw in colour but used black and white film, which was the norm then, colour being expensive, if you could get it. If these were in colour, and they had the processes available to us today, they may make a greater impact. Compared to what people take today, seeking the overblown WOW factor, I find them extremely interesting and quieter, and thankful that those photographers took the time to record what they saw, in their time and day. Thanks, Alex, a very interesting and thought provoking video. I’m now sorry I threw out a lot of my BW images from late 1950s onwards.
It is a slowing down, and appreciating the moment. A child's trike is momentary because childhood is momentary. There can also be whistful or even melancholy meaning to it. A picture of the Grand Canyon is awe inspiring, but does it have an interpersonal connection? That's what i like with street or urban photos
No, or maybe yeah . What is the history of the grand canyon ? Why is a giant hole there ? Gotta think deeper . To bad if u can't cuz u ain't wired that way!!! Do some urban /street give connection too ?
Eggleston's work has another appeal for me: nostalgia. The world he photographed is gone. I had a tricycle just like the one he photographed. I lived in a house similar to the one he photographed. My childhood was captured on similar film. A lot of his photos invoke that feeling in me.
I just discovered your channel while I sit on the sofa, post operatively speaking. I've been glued to it, now, for over two hours. When I can turn the rear dial on my camera with my right thumb, again, I shall press your ideas into practice, thank you so very much!
There seems to be an emotional distance in his photographs that is difficult to reproduce. And thanks for relieving me of the need to like all of his photographs.
Very well put as usual, I love your approach of the subject, you make me think while entertaining me, for that I'm very grateful. William Eggleston images are often very well composed views of very mundane objects. I confess that most of his images does not speak to me but some do and make my mind wander inventing stories. I think his work makes more sens when viewed as a whole in a book or an exhibition, then you discover that there is a meaning to this puzzling obsession with non subject matter.
I like Eggleston’s quiet photographs-is the tricycle just a tricycle or something more? Was William Carlos William’s red wheelbarrow just a red wheelbarrow or something more-there’s a poetry to Eggleston’s photo that I really like. Great video Alex.❤
The genius of Eggleston's (and similar artists work) was their ability to capture iconic images of a time while immersed in that time. We all can make a few of those images but the ability to capture images that speak of a time and place again and again is a form of genius that separates Eggleston et al from those of us who aspire to create art with a camera. I cannot open a book of images of Eggleston without an emotional response. I know those people and remember those stories.
If everyone could "go out and take that picture", we'd be out doing it. My problem is looking at those photographs and saying, " Why can't I take shots like that?". They ARE amazing.
Good piece Alex. Thanks. Personally, I like these types of photos in that they represent a never to seen again slice of time and offer up so many questions. Yes, all photos are a slice of time but even today a skilled photographer can head to Yosemite and sorta-kinda recreate some of Adam's photos. To me, arguing over what style of photography is or isn't art is about as important as whether you say I-S-O or eye-so. We're very fortunate to have so many viewing options to pick from.
I really like this video, even though it's kinda about exactly what I do and I disagree with most of it. I find that there is an art world and there is a photography world. The two are very different and they have very different expectations. A lot of photographers, especially on social media, for example, love to hate on my photography. And then I take the same photos into an art gallery and they go ga-ga crazy about them. That's the different experiences in action. To get acceptance from the art world, you really need to know about art. And that means knowing about more than photography. It means taking the time to learn about art history and to study the works of those who came before. I say this to photographers and they get mad at me for it. But it is true. Knowing art history helps to make something of prior art work as well, including photography. For me, for example, I look at Eggleston's tricycle and I see a still life. If you spend time looking at other still lives perhaps you can see it too. Does that mean my interpretation is the only right one? No. But it does help get something out of it. Art isn't something most people spend time on. But learn about art and you'll learn about art photography. And you'll also find yourself better equipped to gain acceptance as an art photographer. Art is just like anything else. If you want to excel and know about it, you've got to take the time to learn. Everything else in life is that way. I'm not sure why so many people seem to expect art to be different.
Thank you. I like your analysis. For me, retired from professional work, it's "does this interest me" - and often, I'm the only one who it interests, but I LOVE it. I spent 6 years with degraded vision due to cataracts and complications - now, almost every single thing I see has a bit of magic. :D
I just have to say, I like how you somehow find yourself getting on the "Soap Box". If a creative person can't talk about their specific field and end up on a soap box, I just wonder if they're not passionate enough about what they do. Love your videos.
As always, you say the things that many of us feel, but aren't quite brave enough, or don't quite know how, to articulate. And, as another commenter pointed out, the comments on this video are an encouraging reminder that we are not alone in feeling alienated by the endless stream of eye-watering imagery that makes up so much of social media now. And, at the same time, we are not alone in being able to appreciate these photoraphers whose work taken as a whole becomes a unique document of a time and place, without feeling like we therefore have to search for photographic jargon to justify why every image they've ever taken is brilliant lest we be accused of "just not getting it". Hearing you express these things, and then reading all the relevant and well-thought (and CIVIL!) comments makes me want to comment (which I generally never do) just because I want to feel a part of this great community you are helping to facilitate.
Eggleston was doing color when most were not, and did dye-transfer printing, which is an art on its own account. Shore was dragging around an 8x10. They also "spoke the language" of their time. I really like their photos, but we should also be aware they were both connected to Andy Warhol. That certainly didn't hurt their reputation as artists.
The trouble with sharing single images out of context it plays towards them being random 'snaps'. But the viewer really needs to see them in series in books or exhibitions for context. There is often a narrative too that accompanies them beyond a single capture. But ultimately every image invites you the viewer to draw their own conclusions towards what it means because of their unique societal programming and perceptions/ experiences. That is the power of art.
Fantastic video, Alex. Thank you. As Eggleston said himself, “there is no particular reason to search for meaning”. Let’s just get on with it and each enjoy it.
I think when you come to the realization that there are no gatekeepers with respect to what defines a great photograph and that there are no rules, only recommendations based on one’s opinion with respect to time, space and composition. Then I feel you will have the freedom to create images that WOW you as the creator. Don’t worry about what others do or say as it is only an opinion, focus on what drives you to create images and have fun, who knows who may find your images a decade or so down the road, they just may inspire someone to create … just a thought. Cheers, great video Alex.
'seen together' - I think that's the key thing here with a lot of these photographers work. The single images often don't work at all, until seen in the context of their whole career
@@ThePhotographicEye just read Joel Meyerowitz ‘how I make photographs’ It was something he greatly encouraged you to do. Looking at his books like readheads or a question of color he clearly drinks his own medicine!
I think what you said after 12:00 is important: Not everybody has to like (all) the pictures of famous photographers! It doesn't take away from the quality of these photographers, it just means that someone doesn't like the shots. I would compare it to my "dislike" of Mozart: Great composer, marvelous melodies, great artistic skills - but I just don't like his music. And this is a great relief to me - I often thought "What are all these people talking about?" and wondered if it's me. But then I find images great that other people don't find anything great about. I think it goes both ways: Now I rather take a step back and try to see what others see, and sometimes I actually "get it", even when I would still not "like" it.
Thank you for making this; I watched it a few times already. If I taught art in high school, I'd show this in every one of my classes every year. Be open to taking in all kinds of art and then seeing how you're affected by it. Try to let it open a new perspective within yourself. But also realize you don't have like all of it, or even most of it. It's just fine if you say that you just don't get most art. If more of us understood what you're saying here, I honestly think we'd be better for it. One last point for what it's worth. I came to appreciate photography as an art form when I was a teenager after seeing Ansel Adams' print, Monolith, The Face of Half Dome. But now, like you, I prefer Robert Adams' work. I'm with you all the way on that one.
I like Eggleston's photography... you make very valid points and I especially agree on the fact that we must try to escape as artists from predefined norms and the pleasant but mundane. Photography doesn't mean you got to always "serve" something commonly appealing...the more you groom your taste the more you search for other details that are not the easily evident. Sometimes photographers simply just try to impress even more and more and more in themes that are thoroughly worked upon such as landscape photography as trying the perfect sunset, or mountain scene: and of course this is fine. But the next level of satisfaction lies in the details, in the deeper review & meaning and if you have some experience under your belt you immediately recognize this quality. Such is Eggleston's work. For others this depth can be found in the following: symbolism, geometry, color rendition, social themes, colloquial settings, nostalgia, the familiar or the unusual and in visual poetry and lyricism amongst a few. And I think this is what also distinguishes an artist from a trophy hunter. Many photographers in our day and age have become trophy hunters. Chasing the high score of social media feedback rather than focusing on deeper feelings and visual communication.
I started listening/watching, (listening being more important) to your site and kept coming back because you introduced me not only to good ideas but to a plethora of images and photographers. I agree with Eggleston, it was a stupid question, I however have a different interpretation of what my images mean to me and hopefully someone can benefit. I say this so you'll understand where I come from and where I've arrived at. We were poor, at the age of 11, I started work, by 14, I worked 40+ hours a week, by 19, I was leading a team. The entirety of my adult life I was mid-level to upper management then to business owner. At 65, I changed from my position of successful business owner to owner/hobbyist photographer, by 66 semi-retired amateur photographer. Now at 69, I enjoy my free time (it's not free I have already paid for it) but my images be they an old chicken coop or what ever represents a happy free moment. No life and death decisions, no stressful leadership duties and I not only hope Egglestons images meant that to him but all photographers images can mean that to them.
Reading through the comments and listening to the commentary I am left wanting. First the photo's are technically excellent; detail in the shadows, formal compositions etc. What I have not read and did hear you mention is the bigger context of where Eggleston fits in the broader sense of photography. Eggleston is clearly following in Robert Franks foot steps. New photographers, in my opinion, if they want to improve would benefit from spending time learning about art history.
Eggleston's tricycle gives me feelings of sadness and fear. I don't understand why, but the fact that it evokes emotion, even if uncomfortable, makes it a good photograph for me.
Well yeah, of course we didn't take that photo, because in 2024, unless you're part of a money laundering scheme, no one is going to consider your snapshot of tomatoes on the sink in your dirty kitchen to be "art". (8:41)
Common term . People get famous by connection and rapport . Who they know , what they did that makes them easier to move the ladder .... If u try to replicate nobody cares ...Tru story
This video helped me. In the future I’ll make time to look a little longer. To ponder what the shooter might have seen. Not every piece of art needs to be earth shattering. And if i give it a moment, something valuable is likely to emerge. Thanks for expanding my view. Well done sir. 🙏
Good video. And like all your good ones, it made me reflect . What I see in that Eggleston photo is a parade of ghosts in a ghastly history. It is an ankle view of a row of middle-class midcentury ranch houses under a southern mid-winter sky. All is seen through the architectural screen of a toddler’s trike, as though it were harbinger of a childhood with a bright and shining future. But I am a southerner from Birmingham, Alabama, born at mid-century, so I see also the new, segregated white subdivision, the early frosty morn just over. Football season just over. Baseball season not yet come. That picture could be Birmingham. It could be Montgomery, or Selma, or Philadelphia, Mississippi. But it is Memphis, where in less than a decade Dr. King will be shot dead. And I can almost hear that dread music wheezing way way down low, “Look away, look away, look away, dixieland.” I believe that any picture that can take me on such a trip is worth the time spent with it. And that’s why I keep coming back to your place. Thanks.
I think we have to separate 'liking' certain images (or styles/genres) from 'appreciating' them. Pictorial work, impactful images, fine art images all appeal to beauty, shock, or a currently relevant aesthetics, and people generally like most of them and appreciate what they represent. Go outside this, and they become more of an acquired taste, a bit like sprouts. Then the question comes to the fore of the effort to understand them, i.e. acquire the taste, versus the reward of consuming them going forward. For many it's a lot of work to appreciate that type work with an uncertain reward. If wider photography is your thing perhaps you give it more time & effort and the rewards potentially become huge. This video does a great job of touching on many of the relevant aspects as an intro to 'art photography'. Nice one!
Really enjoyed the video! I must admit I was underwhelmed the first time I looked through Robert Frank's the Americans. So many people reference it a major influence but it took me some time to appreciate it fully. I think maybe being Australian and seeing the book for the first time in 2020 there was a lot I didn’t understand surrounding that time in America.
I love banal and mundane photography because of the understatement it provides. The "nice" photography that people expect to be a "photograph", such as golden hour sunsets, are ok, if that is what you like. It is different horses, for different courses. Your metaphor with music is the perfect way of understanding the art of photography. Sample everything, it allows you to greater appreciate what you like.
Eggleston was my gateway drug. I also had the amazing luck to spend an evening with the man after a visit to the Foundation (my ex grew up with his children.) It was everything you would want it to be. It ended with a 5-10(?) minute improvisation on his gorgeous grand piano.
I received a photography book that was pictures of objects that were left or washed up on the beach. I was unimpressed at first. Like you said, I was thinking I could take the same pictures. The more I looked at it, the more I started to appreciate them. I'm not sure what it was that changed my mind.
The Greatest thing about art is it's subjective. I work in a photo environment where there will be a few or many photographers. Not one of us take the same photo. The audiences will like what they like. I just try to be me and do what I like.
recently I was a Berlin and took a photograph of a teal moped at night. It was boring. Then I lowered the camera, got closer and took an Egglestone-angle image. Much better. The moped now looks large. It is an usual depiction of a mundane thing. That is the meaning.
I agree with you about the gatekeepers of "Art" and their power: Eggleston benefitted enormously when Swarkowski promoted him, exhibited his work at MoMA and wrote the long foreword to _William Eggleston's Guide,_ the book that trike photo is the cover shot for and a really dull book it is. To me, Eggleston's work is almost entirely about colour within the frame; the figures, objects and surroundings are almost immaterial to the pictures. As such, he bores me stiff. He has made a very few images I can admire, but his ratio of interesting to crashingly dull is at least as high as my own keeper to dross ratio. Another photographer who made truly pioneering use of colour - and who exhibited at MoMA ten years before our Bill - was Ernst Haas: his work shows skill, wit and a sharp eye as well as intriguing colour and I could look at his work for ages.
I read your comment and thought, "Yes. I agree. Eggleston bores the pants off me, and Haas is brilliant." Then I thought about how I see Eggleston's work. It always reminds me of a long contemptuous look down someone's nose presented as ironic because that kind of cultural elitism is not welcome in late/post modernism. Then I punched "Eggleston anthropological" into Google and sure enough that's a dominant take. Like the old image of the white explorer in safari gear writing about the exoticisms of "the natives", Eggleston catalogues the highly unaesthetic downmarket America that not long ago was usually associated with Walmart. That and some obsession with particular color arrangements in the shot.
Have to agree with everything you said (which is a novelty with anyone for me). Photography is the great democratic art - you don't need years of training ... which is why painters often felt threatened by it at the turn of the 19th/20th century. These days the advent of 'good' cameras on phones has made anyone walking around with a 2K camera feel defensive. There are millions of masterpieces of photography that we will never see and all too many mediocre ones in exhibitions. Unfortunately we end up going back to 'how much is it worth ?" to define what is good art and what is just the mundane.
Summed it up, back in the 50s going on till the late 70s the world was buzzing everyone was part of the community. Todays era everyone is isolated, people are afraid to be out explore their city. So you don’t get those moments anymore.
I completely agree Alex, there also seems to be a lot of want for a word snobbery with photography club judges who like to pigeon hole pictures that don't seem to shout out loud and just because there not in vogue then they will pick them apart, I've had it happen to me.
I love the trike image! For me that image is about size, youth, form and proportion. I have looked over William Eggleston’s work, and it can be hard work to understand! William Eggleston leaves his work to the viewer to interpret. I prefer Robert Frank generally! But maybe William Egglestone’s brilliance comes down to several aspects. The hierarchy of colour, life as it was at the time, and the way it challenges the simple and direct image. Also the limited colour palette. You need to view and digest the work and apply your own understanding. In the end, we like what we like and that is good enough for me! I have seen a framed print of the Trike image by Eggleston. Ticked off the Bucket List! Respect for everyone’s taste!
The Philosopher Photographer strikes again. Great video Alex, this puts into words things I've been feeling but could never articulate. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks, Alex! I love that trike photo. It really resonated with me in a heartbeat. I'd like to add my two cents to the concept of "Art" photography, which is similar to the discipline of architecture. Everyone likes to see a "Wow!" building but most people would choose to live in an ordinary house because it resonates to them more than just a matter of visual aesthetic taste.
I think that you got it on the nose. Most viewers of any art form are casual viewers and have no desire to invest the time it often takes to get to the "aha" moment. In my photography, I challenge the viewers to slow down and see if there is an aha moment for them. I don’t often spoon feed.
Eggleston's work has me scratching my head. Most of it looks like casual snapshots, but I also find them interesting. Perhaps for the nostalgia value of a time in 60's and 70's that are part of my distant memory. I participate at a weekly contest site that sometimes has challenge topics of "In the style of _________". Sometimes it is a member with a distinctive style, sometimes a well known photographer. The ones of a big name will often have a lesser known work of theirs inserted into the challenge that will frequently end up towards the bottom of the results. The shots with wow factor usually are at the top, whether or not they actually capture the feel of the photographer's work.
I love the photography of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, but I also love some of the work of Robert Adams and Raymond Moore. The same goes for Hass, Egglesstone etc. At times I want the silence of the photograph to allow me to make my own mind up and othertimes I want the photograph to speak to me. After all it is art's business to raise the common to grace.
Wow! What a great video essay. I currently follow *a lot* of YT photographic content creators. I'm in an absorption phase, I guess. One of the common threads I see, which parallels your thesis in this video, is that many of their images might be called "unremarkable". These are experienced photographers, many of them running a business as a professional photographer. They are capable of doing the work. What I get from this is exactly what you talked about this morning. Many of the images you shared this morning (I love this aspect of your channel, BTW) were similar in that respect -- they might be termed "unremarkable". But, each of them was made because the maker found something interesting in the scene. As a viewer, my job is to determine if my interest aligns with that of the maker. Sometimes it does; sometimes it does not. And, sometimes (I think) I find something interesting that the maker did not. I cannot know whether my interest aligns with the maker's (or not). But, I often find something in the image that *is* interesting and makes the image less "unremarkable". Furthermore, there is something freeing in this realization because when I'm out and about (I always have a camera, even if just the iPhone) if I find something visually interesting, I make the capture. Sometimes I'll even stop and work the subject to see if there is a more interesting perspective or composition. But the point is that I saw something interesting and stopped to make the capture. As a photographer, I'm just a hack. But, I make photographs of things that I find interesting. I share some of them on my weblog, along with a wall of text (Ha!). I know a few friends and family members stop by for a look and that is good enough. But I take time to post them to share. This is OK. In each of the images you shared, the photographer saw something interesting. They stopped to make at least one photograph of that thing. Not all of us will connect with the image, but I found enough of them interesting enough to want to see more. The Eddington capture of the trike was fun. I found it interesting. ;) Keep up the good work, sir!
Thanks for this topic... I like the mid century stuff... Liked it then in magazines, Life etc and still like it now. (I'm 74 in 2024). If I try this style now, I get a few not my cup of tea, but who cares!
I am reminded of a time, quite a few years ago now, that I was in the Corcoran Museum of Art in Washington, DC. There was a very stylish young woman giving an elderly gentleman a tour of the art. The stopped in front of a seven foot tall painting. Abstract art. She says to him, "Now, this one is cubist...but not cubist enough." I swear, it is enough to melt the brain. I, on the other hand once bought a post card of an Alexander Calder sculpture of a wire frame fish with bits and bobs hanging off of chicken wire. I sent it to a friend with a note that said I wouldn't have paid 50 cents for it at a yard sale. Then again, I could go to the East Wing gallery and spend my whole afternoon looking at the Calder mobile that hangs in the atrium and be just awestruck.
Last summer, I made repeated trips from the cool pine forest-covered mountains of northern Arizona to 115F Phoenix to get my truck serviced. (Never buy a Land Rover product.) It's a 2-hour drive and, because of the heat, I would leave my house at 5:15 AM to arrive at the garage when they opened for business. After dropping off the keys, I took a Lyft to breakfast and then walked from the restaurant to the Phoenix Art Museum. The museum opened at 10:00 AM. I made this trip a handful of times and spent a handful of wonderful days at the museum. What made those days wonderful? I knew I had to kill at least five or six hours until the truck would be ready. I took my time with every exhibit, read every sign, sat & pondered the works. Sometimes, I would just sit or stand to be in the presence of a work. If my first reaction upon seeing something was, "What the #@$% is that?" I'd double down on spending time with it. That time and effort didn't make me a fan of every work I saw. But it did help me to understand why I liked the pieces I liked and why I didn't connect with the others. Photography is very much the same for me. I don't connect with Eggleston's work. I think I understand why it's so revered. American society worships the automobile and everything it represents: wealth, power, success, freedom, style, sexual prowess, etc. Eggleston turns his camera to a tricycle and says, "We teach our children to worship mechanized mobility from the time they're able to walk. Why toddle around the neighborhood when you can ride in style on this beauty? This is your God." I get it but it doesn't resonate with me. It doesn't speak to me the way an Adams, Dykinga or Muench landscape does. The way Tom Mangelsen's wildlife photography does. An Avedon fashion photo, Man Ray, Sam Abell, Vivian Meier, and many others. But most important, the experience of looking at, analyzing, loving, hating, or meh'ing another photographer's work can't replace the joy, satisfaction or fulfillment I feel when I'm out documenting the world in my own way with a camera. My photos may never find an audience beyond myself and the folks who love me enough to hit the like button. That's OK. Whatever future my photography does or does not have, in the moment I'm making it, it's giving me a feeling of accomplishment; of doing something that is worthy of my time and effort. That's enough for me. I think it's enough for the artists who achieve world acclaim, too. They aren't artists because of the fame or fortune. They're artists because they can't not be artists. They just happen to have grabbed onto the brass ring. That's part of why I come to your channel, Alex. Great works are celebrated as great but the mundane works of schlubs like me aren't kept outside in the cold & dark. We're all photographers. We all do it because it's in our blood. You give us a home and an opportunity to find inspiration in the works of others.
12:05 + 15:50 I think about this a lot. People need to be told what to like. Reminds me of this 9th Wonder quote: "Outside of the tastemakers, people don't listen to music. They watch, and they need qualifiers"
Photos do not always have to have meaning but rather a sense of wonderment not expressed by words and they should never be pretentious lest they alienate themselves from the viewer. Photoing everyday things in a candid sort of way can bring to life to the ordinary and when done in a way that is draws the eye to it,then it is a successful image. Photography is about capturing light and shadows to convey a message to the eye so that brain can interpret the captured image and then have an emotional response to it. I try to have my camera see what I see so as to convey some sort of response,nothing more,nothing less.
Great stuff Alex, you highlighted one of my pet hates in art ever since my teenage years. Some great examples of images as a viewer we either feel something or we don't. What's not to get about a giant tricycle that dominates the background scene, a somewhat obvious way of seeing things differently. A much over used word, possibly banned, juxtaposition. Much more interesting than an overly processed digital image. The name of Zzyzx would make me want to photograph it.
It is quite possible and valid to recognise that something is objectively good, important, infulential etc and yet still not like it on a subjective level. The opposite also applies, it is ok to like something that is objectivly poorly made, un-infulential etc. It is in that rare space where the objective and subjective align that art can change your life.
I was wondering what you were talking about for half your video. The images you showed have ALL raised an immediate meaning in me. Each of them. They are not random. The trike has to be seen in relation to the background. Then it makes sense. Maybe most are instinctively captured by the photographer. But I suspect that there is a chunk of dull ones, and the art consists of selecting the ones that resonate. And the ones in this video are far from random.
Hey Alex, great discussion and lots of very valid points. To me some of these photos like the trike are all about feeling. A feeling that takes you to a different place and/or time. Could I have taken the photo? Yes...Did I? No... That's where the artist proves himself over and over. Through a body of work. Not necessarily from one photo. To draw a parallel to the painting world, please check the painting Nighthawks by Edward Hopper. Most decent painters can replicate it. But it is a masterpiece nonetheless, regardless of personal opinions, mainly because of the feeling that it invokes. Not necessarily about the technical skill to create the work. Kind regards and thank you as always.
When I was a teenager, my uncle who is a painter and sculptor, told me that the prevailing thought at that time was that art had to have meaning. He said that you had to be able to make up some backstory or meaning to your art in order to get it accepted as such. He was chuckling at the seeming absurdity of that practice. I didn’t get it back then but after watching this video, I think I understand what he meant and why it was laughable to him.
![[#2024MAMA] G-DRAGON - 무제(Untitled, 2014)+POWER+HOME SWEET HOME+뱅뱅뱅+FANTASTIC BABY | Mnet 241123 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Ox29z5Nf1Uk/mqdefault.jpg)
David Bowie has given a lot of great commentary on art. He basically said that the artist creates something and then it's up to the critique and audience to think what they think, but the artist cannot concern himself with what others think. The real artist can turn off feedback and criticism.
I guess my father is a true artist then
😂
Well, in that regard. I’m doing something right in life.
@@timothywelke2047 A piss artist?
I believe, you have just enabled many photographers to start feeling better about their work.
can we appreciate how good the comments are to this video--such a breath of fresh air on the internets.
Oh TOTALLY! Yes, it's nice to see and read :D
I like Eggleston's work, and I think the reason is his photos have sense of time and place without being in your face about it . Another thing is he took photos 99.8 % of other photographers wouldn't even think about photographing.
If we change the question from, "What does it mean" to "Why is it appealing" the conversation changes and responses, the dialogue, has more substance to it. With Eggleston, yes, "what does it mean" is a stupid question, but why us it appealing" he himself would respond differently with positive remarks. The reason behind this type/genre is that the pictures are taken because they were appealing to the photographer. I think it was Jay Maisel that we take pictures because we want to say, "this is what I saw and I wanted to share it with you, isn't it interesting?"
When I first saw the Trike picture, with the houses there, my thought was, "families live here." It can be as simple as that.
It's the magic of a captured image!
Rather, "what is its appeal?...why?".... A photos appeal is only discoverable to the viewer, in certain the appeal is only discoverable by a few, the interpretation per the viewer
@@geraldricoguevara3340 The beauty in life is that I do no have to analyze why I like something or someone.
Great discussion, and you made some excellent points. It is unfortunate we sort of live in a world of pageantry, where a select few get recognition. Meanwhile, there are countless brilliant but unknown photographers, athletes, singers, innovators. We really ought to rethink how we discover and reward people, the whole merit system in general.
While it's important to do it for ourselves, we also need to share and have our work seen, even if it's one photo in a local art gallery. I was thinking that I wish the photo program I'm in would be more open about sharing student work, maybe on a facebook page but especially in the school gallery. (Well, no one goes to the gallery so maybe FB is better.) Printing and framing photos takes it all to the next level, and is pretty hard in my experience. Too bad the newspaper can't run a section on photos. People post their sunset photos on Nextdoor, maybe photographers should be doing the same.
I've noticed this at school, is seems to me the more normal of a picture, yet often with oddness in it, the more my teachers seem to like it. I'm in awe of my classmates that can take these kinds of pictures. Like one was a self portrait of the photographer laying face down in the grass. I never would have thought of that. I tend to worry about lines and exposure and take more typical subjects. I guess that's one of the benefits of being in a class and seeing each other's work.
100% - being exposed to more and varied ideas will help you as seed concepts for your own work
I'm still in sponge stage - trying to soak everything in :)@@ThePhotographicEye
Like brining up a topic that is controversial
You might think you could take that but you would walk right by it and not even notice, he makes the thing look so epic. Same as the airline glass pic. His sense for observation is what makes the shots interesting.
Once in a while I think about being all 'Eggleston', but then think better of it!
@@ThePhotographicEyewhat ever floats your boat! Photography (art in general) should never be a procrustean bed.
I find that tricycle photo so interesting. I feel like the photographer found a perspective that reminds how big the world is when you’re a child… Then again, what do I know? I’m just an amateur hobbyist.
I like the trike, its the way it overshadows the car in the background beneath it
A good example of an image we can project a whole lot onto!
You know, I never noticed that. I always just liked the trike itself. Now I like it more.
@spinrodriguez8930 ive seen it before and always thought that, it messes with my OCD on lining things up with the car not central to the wheels of the bike but it's what made me like it more
The best description or "mission statement" for lack of a better positioning about Eggleston was his own statement that his photography was 'democratic'. Ugly things, beautiful things, odd things, dirty things, rust whatever it was all game for his camera. From then on I fell in love with all his work. Again its context for his work. Thats a mindset to begin to appreciate all the that work, Joel, Friedlander, Gary, Helen Levitt. Sternfeld and on and on. Also, knowing that Eggleston lived in the south, there's enourmous context for 80% of that time period and historical context if you care or grew up in that time frame. I can appreciate Weston and Stieglitz and Eggleston so call me greedy. When I check on the Trike shot years ago its was valued at $250,000 thousand. Probably a lot more today.
Well stated!
I love how you identified that photography these days has to have something extra to draw attention while the true masters made successful photographs of just normal subjects. I wish we could get back to that again. Honestly, everyone's photos are starting to look alike because we go to the same places and shootv the same things as everyone else. Unique is no longer celebrated, and that's a shame.
As was mentioned in spektograf's comment - we should remember we're in our current time. The photographers I mentioned were found in another time. I feel it'll only be another 10 years before the 'greats' from now start to surface
Are they successful photos though?
Right on, I'm with you on this. But I would say that the sameness we're experiencing when we look at work done by folks on instagram, flickr, et al is due to everyone trying to be unique. If everyone is unique, then no one is unique.
You are right on photos looking alike. I try my best everyday to create images that are not already created by someone else. It is so hard to do. We look at the same subject and instinctively compose an image and press the shutter button. What we see is perhaps what every other photographer would see standing in the same place looking at the same subject. It is for us to look for that unique angle or perspective that is not so obvious.
@@boristahmasian9604 I think that is the key these days, especially if you are photographing the same locations. I choose to photograph subjects that are not so well captured, and then try and look for unique ways to frame those odd subjects.
Whenever I hear, "I can take that picture", I think "well maybe you could but you DIDN'T" I realize recently that the act of declaring your work as art and show it to the world is a very important act as an artist.
As usual, you make some fascinating points. It’s only when you try to emulate William Eggleston that you realise what a deep and thoughtful artist he is and how powerfully symbolic his work is. However, he places a responsibility onto the viewer to bring something to the image themselves if they want to. Or, as you say, you can just enjoy the photograph, or not, and accept it as meaning nothing and to hell with all the high-brow stuff which sometimes seems obligatory.
100% there..
We tend to think of “traditional “ landscape images as being the images that are exhibiting peace and solitude, yet if you look at your examples here they have the same effect whilst mostly being mundane and everyday subjects. Your comment about busy images is so very true.
I don't buy into the premis that photography these days needs to be loud and shouty to get noticed. That may be true for Instagram but I go to photography exhibitions on a regular basis and there are some very interetsing photographers doing great work out there that probably wouldn't get noticed on Instagram because the images aren't immediate and grab ones attentioin in a matter of milliseconds. With regards the likes of William Eggleston, Saul Leiter etc they were among the first to make the everyday and mundane interesting. It is their "intent" that makes them artists and the more I photograph the more I start to really appreciate how great these masters are. If you are thinking "oh I could do that" the chances are you still have a lot to learn. Thanks as always Alex for another thought provoking video chat (chatorial?)
Are is subjective . Replicate it, nobody cares ...they famous because it was new at the time . Built rapport and connection . That's all ....many can do the same but they won't be famous ...because it's ready done and not famous .
U need common sense
One thing that was instrumental in forming my taste in photography was a book titled “US Camera 1956.” Part of what drew me to this book was that I was born in 1956. I found this book in my father’s library when I was about 13. That photo you included in your video, of the boy pointing the revolver, was one of the photos in this book. My favorite photo in this book, was a photo of Grace Kelly, just head and neck sticking out of a lake. I suggest that those old US Camera annual photo books are worth taking a look at. You see images that were made when photography was taking its place as an art.
I am seeing this for the first time... I believe the picture is more than the trike, it is also the carefully framed car in the backround, the surroundings and the angle the trike is taken at, which, using perspective, makes the trike so much larger than the car, reflecting back to childhood and how one felt when riding their first set of wheels, and how that may have influenced their love afair with transportation, that transferred to adulthood and all the trappings therin. The carport, the house, the journey across the street through life to get there... When I have enjoyed shooting the most, I loose myself in all my surroundings, and become one with my camera, lost in my mind in seeing what is beyond the obvious... the trike is a great example of this. Thanks again for your inspiration.
Looking at the comments: the appeal is in the imagination from the different perspectives. It is what art is, just like mona lisa. The photo triggers different people to see it differently and give meaning to it in our own perspective.
I loved this photo from the first time I saw it. Still do. It changed me as a photographer as well.
To me, the problem in the art world in general is there a gate-keepers who arbitrate what is good and what is trash. Often these gate-keepers will demand a steaming pile of 'meaning' behind a work; whether it's a painting, photo, etc. when often there isn't a specific meaning behind the work. For me, most of my photos are either nature photos or 'street' photos showing life and maybe a joy of life and nature. But I never went out and took a specific photo with steaming pile of 'meaning'.
Yes, I had a theory (or mild thought more like) when I was young that if you could 'justify' anything, it became 'art'
There are gatekeepers. I'm not sure I'd agree that gatekeeping is a problem though. It might be the gatekeeping is done badly. But I think most people would agree there is good and bad art. And there's gotta be someone who decides which is which.
There are absolutely many bad faith gatekeepers and charlatans. but I do think we need experts and critics. I think of it this way. Art critics are people who spent a lot of time about viewing, comparing, thinking about many many artworks and explaining why he/she thinks a certain artwork is great. You can take it or toss it. It's just an opinion. But well formed and researched opinions of critics can enhance your experience of enjoying art more deeply and thoroughly. Also you can learn how to form your own opinion about the artwork by reading why critics thinks that way.
I agree 100% on the gate-keeper idea. I have seen my fair share of mediocre work that has been propped up and as a result made the artist famous and so many good artists that go unappreciated. It is easier to get exposure today but you still need an insider(s) to prop you up to become really known and reap some rewards.
Concept (the idea) is everything these days. I even argued with one if my Fine Art tutors that art is stuck in the 70/80s and we haven't moved on. He did ask me move on to what and I said anything that isn't like it is now! Sometimes absolute rubbish is championed as brilliant. I often feel its the case of the Emperor's New Clothes. Like a previous comment said that you need someone on the inside to promote you, then you'll make it whether your good or rubbish!
That photo at 16:27, the guy with the pipe... it's amazing!
Yeah, awesome photo in my opinion too!
this is such a smart video. something i've been struggling with is allowing myself to look for quiet images instead of looking for the once-in-a-month decisive moment on the street.
A couple of years ago, I had the absolute pleasure of listening to Carl De Keyzer, talking about his photographs from North Korea. The images seem serene and they look like he took his time making them. But all where a relative rush-job. No tripod, no flash or whatever. He was very aware of how the images come across and said that that was just the result of years of experience. With maybe a naughty Belgian look in his eye, but absolutely not arrogant or superior. Very matter-of-fact actually. He just knows how it works. It hit me that the great ones, try all to reach a level of simplicity. And the quality of the images lies somewhere beyond words.
When I first started photography I did not like his pictures, but over the last couple of years of study, I’ve come to embrace that willingness to photograph “the ugly”, things others just walk on by. Eggleston and Daido Moriyama’s approach is very freeing!
And people like ugly crap lol
You’re making an excellent point about photography; a point that’s actually very hard to make simple and clear. You’re doing it well. After 50 years of trying to find my understanding of photography, I’m just now beginning to understand the kind of photographs you’re showing. While an extreme example, the photography of the couple Bernd and Hilla Beecher demonstrates the purest form of quiet and objective photography. While not stylistically the same as the photography you’ve shown in your video, the idea of quiet objectivism is in the work of the Bechers. While I’m not suggesting that everyone’s style should follow what this couple did with their photography, (that would be boring) I think it can serve as a guide, along with the work of Vivian Meier away from the Kodak moment I suffered from for years to a photography that does take effort and time to master.
Sorry, Vivian Maier…
Being of a certain older age, these photos take me back to a time no longer with us. In my mind, I see them as documentary shots, as that was what most people took in those days, including myself. They also saw in colour but used black and white film, which was the norm then, colour being expensive, if you could get it. If these were in colour, and they had the processes available to us today, they may make a greater impact. Compared to what people take today, seeking the overblown WOW factor, I find them extremely interesting and quieter, and thankful that those photographers took the time to record what they saw, in their time and day. Thanks, Alex, a very interesting and thought provoking video. I’m now sorry I threw out a lot of my BW images from late 1950s onwards.
Sometimes I have to watch your videos a couple of times before what you're saying sinks in. This is one of those times. Thank you.
The photos capture a moment and a place in time. Simple as that. They capture life, what’s around us.
It is a slowing down, and appreciating the moment. A child's trike is momentary because childhood is momentary. There can also be whistful or even melancholy meaning to it. A picture of the Grand Canyon is awe inspiring, but does it have an interpersonal connection? That's what i like with street or urban photos
No, or maybe yeah . What is the history of the grand canyon ? Why is a giant hole there ? Gotta think deeper . To bad if u can't cuz u ain't wired that way!!!
Do some urban /street give connection too ?
Join me for a live online deep dive into finding and using natural light - click here: www.thephotographiceye.info/joinus
Thank you for stating my thoughts and feelings better than I could!
Eggleston's work has another appeal for me: nostalgia. The world he photographed is gone. I had a tricycle just like the one he photographed. I lived in a house similar to the one he photographed. My childhood was captured on similar film. A lot of his photos invoke that feeling in me.
I just discovered your channel while I sit on the sofa, post operatively speaking. I've been glued to it, now, for over two hours. When I can turn the rear dial on my camera with my right thumb, again, I shall press your ideas into practice, thank you so very much!
There seems to be an emotional distance in his photographs that is difficult to reproduce. And thanks for relieving me of the need to like all of his photographs.
Very well put as usual, I love your approach of the subject, you make me think while entertaining me, for that I'm very grateful.
William Eggleston images are often very well composed views of very mundane objects. I confess that most of his images does not speak to me but some do and make my mind wander inventing stories. I think his work makes more sens when viewed as a whole in a book or an exhibition, then you discover that there is a meaning to this puzzling obsession with non subject matter.
I like Eggleston’s quiet photographs-is the tricycle just a tricycle or something more? Was William Carlos William’s red wheelbarrow just a red wheelbarrow or something more-there’s a poetry to Eggleston’s photo that I really like. Great video Alex.❤
Okay, I take a pic of a bicycle, was there something more ???
The genius of Eggleston's (and similar artists work) was their ability to capture iconic images of a time while immersed in that time. We all can make a few of those images but the ability to capture images that speak of a time and place again and again is a form of genius that separates Eggleston et al from those of us who aspire to create art with a camera. I cannot open a book of images of Eggleston without an emotional response. I know those people and remember those stories.
Very interesting take
Cuz they had connections. Simple as that . They created a new thing of the time. Everyone can replicate ... nothing would happen lol
If everyone could "go out and take that picture", we'd be out doing it. My problem is looking at those photographs and saying, " Why can't I take shots like that?". They ARE amazing.
Good piece Alex. Thanks. Personally, I like these types of photos in that they represent a never to seen again slice of time and offer up so many questions. Yes, all photos are a slice of time but even today a skilled photographer can head to Yosemite and sorta-kinda recreate some of Adam's photos. To me, arguing over what style of photography is or isn't art is about as important as whether you say I-S-O or eye-so. We're very fortunate to have so many viewing options to pick from.
I really like this video, even though it's kinda about exactly what I do and I disagree with most of it. I find that there is an art world and there is a photography world. The two are very different and they have very different expectations. A lot of photographers, especially on social media, for example, love to hate on my photography. And then I take the same photos into an art gallery and they go ga-ga crazy about them. That's the different experiences in action.
To get acceptance from the art world, you really need to know about art. And that means knowing about more than photography. It means taking the time to learn about art history and to study the works of those who came before. I say this to photographers and they get mad at me for it. But it is true.
Knowing art history helps to make something of prior art work as well, including photography. For me, for example, I look at Eggleston's tricycle and I see a still life. If you spend time looking at other still lives perhaps you can see it too. Does that mean my interpretation is the only right one? No. But it does help get something out of it.
Art isn't something most people spend time on. But learn about art and you'll learn about art photography. And you'll also find yourself better equipped to gain acceptance as an art photographer. Art is just like anything else. If you want to excel and know about it, you've got to take the time to learn. Everything else in life is that way. I'm not sure why so many people seem to expect art to be different.
Most people in Instagram not even artist or photographer lol 😂 bunch of kids or ignorant that don't know shit about art or photography.
Thank you. I like your analysis. For me, retired from professional work, it's "does this interest me" - and often, I'm the only one who it interests, but I LOVE it. I spent 6 years with degraded vision due to cataracts and complications - now, almost every single thing I see has a bit of magic. :D
I just have to say, I like how you somehow find yourself getting on the "Soap Box". If a creative person can't talk about their specific field and end up on a soap box, I just wonder if they're not passionate enough about what they do. Love your videos.
As always, you say the things that many of us feel, but aren't quite brave enough, or don't quite know how, to articulate. And, as another commenter pointed out, the comments on this video are an encouraging reminder that we are not alone in feeling alienated by the endless stream of eye-watering imagery that makes up so much of social media now. And, at the same time, we are not alone in being able to appreciate these photoraphers whose work taken as a whole becomes a unique document of a time and place, without feeling like we therefore have to search for photographic jargon to justify why every image they've ever taken is brilliant lest we be accused of "just not getting it". Hearing you express these things, and then reading all the relevant and well-thought (and CIVIL!) comments makes me want to comment (which I generally never do) just because I want to feel a part of this great community you are helping to facilitate.
Eggleston was doing color when most were not, and did dye-transfer printing, which is an art on its own account. Shore was dragging around an 8x10. They also "spoke the language" of their time. I really like their photos, but we should also be aware they were both connected to Andy Warhol. That certainly didn't hurt their reputation as artists.
I know Shore was, but Eggleston?
Eggleston had printers print his v. expensive prints.
The trouble with sharing single images out of context it plays towards them being random 'snaps'. But the viewer really needs to see them in series in books or exhibitions for context. There is often a narrative too that accompanies them beyond a single capture. But ultimately every image invites you the viewer to draw their own conclusions towards what it means because of their unique societal programming and perceptions/ experiences. That is the power of art.
Yes, fully agree - Also why so few 'greats' are around today - you really need IMHO a body of work behind you stretching over decades.
Fantastic video, Alex. Thank you. As Eggleston said himself, “there is no particular reason to search for meaning”. Let’s just get on with it and each enjoy it.
I think when you come to the realization that there are no gatekeepers with respect to what defines a great photograph and that there are no rules, only recommendations based on one’s opinion with respect to time, space and composition. Then I feel you will have the freedom to create images that WOW you as the creator. Don’t worry about what others do or say as it is only an opinion, focus on what drives you to create images and have fun, who knows who may find your images a decade or so down the road, they just may inspire someone to create … just a thought.
Cheers, great video Alex.
This reminded me of Alec Soth ‘Mississippi ‘ the epitome of quiet images making a great thing when seen together
'seen together' - I think that's the key thing here with a lot of these photographers work. The single images often don't work at all, until seen in the context of their whole career
@@ThePhotographicEye just read Joel Meyerowitz ‘how I make photographs’ It was something he greatly encouraged you to do. Looking at his books like readheads or a question of color he clearly drinks his own medicine!
Love the tricycle. Love the Anonymous Project.
I think what you said after 12:00 is important: Not everybody has to like (all) the pictures of famous photographers! It doesn't take away from the quality of these photographers, it just means that someone doesn't like the shots. I would compare it to my "dislike" of Mozart: Great composer, marvelous melodies, great artistic skills - but I just don't like his music. And this is a great relief to me - I often thought "What are all these people talking about?" and wondered if it's me. But then I find images great that other people don't find anything great about. I think it goes both ways: Now I rather take a step back and try to see what others see, and sometimes I actually "get it", even when I would still not "like" it.
Sometime we don't "get it" lol but each their own
Thank you for making this; I watched it a few times already. If I taught art in high school, I'd show this in every one of my classes every year. Be open to taking in all kinds of art and then seeing how you're affected by it. Try to let it open a new perspective within yourself. But also realize you don't have like all of it, or even most of it. It's just fine if you say that you just don't get most art. If more of us understood what you're saying here, I honestly think we'd be better for it.
One last point for what it's worth. I came to appreciate photography as an art form when I was a teenager after seeing Ansel Adams' print, Monolith, The Face of Half Dome. But now, like you, I prefer Robert Adams' work. I'm with you all the way on that one.
I like Eggleston's photography... you make very valid points and I especially agree on the fact that we must try to escape as artists from predefined norms and the pleasant but mundane. Photography doesn't mean you got to always "serve" something commonly appealing...the more you groom your taste the more you search for other details that are not the easily evident. Sometimes photographers simply just try to impress even more and more and more in themes that are thoroughly worked upon such as landscape photography as trying the perfect sunset, or mountain scene: and of course this is fine. But the next level of satisfaction lies in the details, in the deeper review & meaning and if you have some experience under your belt you immediately recognize this quality. Such is Eggleston's work. For others this depth can be found in the following: symbolism, geometry, color rendition, social themes, colloquial settings, nostalgia, the familiar or the unusual and in visual poetry and lyricism amongst a few. And I think this is what also distinguishes an artist from a trophy hunter. Many photographers in our day and age have become trophy hunters. Chasing the high score of social media feedback rather than focusing on deeper feelings and visual communication.
I started listening/watching, (listening being more important) to your site and kept coming back because you introduced me not only to good ideas but to a plethora of images and photographers. I agree with Eggleston, it was a stupid question, I however have a different interpretation of what my images mean to me and hopefully someone can benefit.
I say this so you'll understand where I come from and where I've arrived at. We were poor, at the age of 11, I started work, by 14, I worked 40+ hours a week, by 19, I was leading a team. The entirety of my adult life I was mid-level to upper management then to business owner. At 65, I changed from my position of successful business owner to owner/hobbyist photographer, by 66 semi-retired amateur photographer. Now at 69, I enjoy my free time (it's not free I have already paid for it) but my images be they an old chicken coop or what ever represents a happy free moment.
No life and death decisions, no stressful leadership duties and I not only hope Egglestons images meant that to him but all photographers images can mean that to them.
Reading through the comments and listening to the commentary I am left wanting. First the photo's are technically excellent; detail in the shadows, formal compositions etc. What I have not read and did hear you mention is the bigger context of where Eggleston fits in the broader sense of photography. Eggleston is clearly following in Robert Franks foot steps. New photographers, in my opinion, if they want to improve would benefit from spending time learning about art history.
These are always very thoughtful discussions of photography, and I anticipate each new one. Love the coffee mug motif!
Exactly the talk I was needing - now to rewatch.
Balance and composition are often more important than the subject in the visual arts..
Eggleston's tricycle gives me feelings of sadness and fear. I don't understand why, but the fact that it evokes emotion, even if uncomfortable, makes it a good photograph for me.
When someone says, “I could have taken that photo”, I just say, “but you didn’t.”
Well yeah, of course we didn't take that photo, because in 2024, unless you're part of a money laundering scheme, no one is going to consider your snapshot of tomatoes on the sink in your dirty kitchen to be "art". (8:41)
Common term . People get famous by connection and rapport . Who they know , what they did that makes them easier to move the ladder ....
If u try to replicate nobody cares ...Tru story
And they might reply "No, I didn't bother."
This video helped me. In the future I’ll make time to look a little longer. To ponder what the shooter might have seen. Not every piece of art needs to be earth shattering. And if i give it a moment, something valuable is likely to emerge.
Thanks for expanding my view. Well done sir. 🙏
Good video. And like all your good ones, it made me reflect . What I see in that Eggleston photo is a parade of ghosts in a ghastly history. It is an ankle view of a row of middle-class midcentury ranch houses under a southern mid-winter sky. All is seen through the architectural screen of a toddler’s trike, as though it were harbinger of a childhood with a bright and shining future. But I am a southerner from Birmingham, Alabama, born at mid-century, so I see also the new, segregated white subdivision, the early frosty morn just over. Football season just over. Baseball season not yet come. That picture could be Birmingham. It could be Montgomery, or Selma, or Philadelphia, Mississippi. But it is Memphis, where in less than a decade Dr. King will be shot dead. And I can almost hear that dread music wheezing way way down low, “Look away, look away, look away, dixieland.” I believe that any picture that can take me on such a trip is worth the time spent with it. And that’s why I keep coming back to your place. Thanks.
Thank you for your personal insight and a great illustration of how personal experiences colour our interpretation of images
I think we have to separate 'liking' certain images (or styles/genres) from 'appreciating' them. Pictorial work, impactful images, fine art images all appeal to beauty, shock, or a currently relevant aesthetics, and people generally like most of them and appreciate what they represent. Go outside this, and they become more of an acquired taste, a bit like sprouts. Then the question comes to the fore of the effort to understand them, i.e. acquire the taste, versus the reward of consuming them going forward. For many it's a lot of work to appreciate that type work with an uncertain reward. If wider photography is your thing perhaps you give it more time & effort and the rewards potentially become huge. This video does a great job of touching on many of the relevant aspects as an intro to 'art photography'. Nice one!
Really enjoyed the video! I must admit I was underwhelmed the first time I looked through Robert Frank's the Americans. So many people reference it a major influence but it took me some time to appreciate it fully. I think maybe being Australian and seeing the book for the first time in 2020 there was a lot I didn’t understand surrounding that time in America.
That is the one wonderful thing about art. It is objective and subject. And it's not supposed to mean the same to everyone.
People don't understand philosophy of a image being photograph
I love banal and mundane photography because of the understatement it provides. The "nice" photography that people expect to be a "photograph", such as golden hour sunsets, are ok, if that is what you like. It is different horses, for different courses. Your metaphor with music is the perfect way of understanding the art of photography. Sample everything, it allows you to greater appreciate what you like.
Eggleston was my gateway drug. I also had the amazing luck to spend an evening with the man after a visit to the Foundation (my ex grew up with his children.) It was everything you would want it to be. It ended with a 5-10(?) minute improvisation on his gorgeous grand piano.
I received a photography book that was pictures of objects that were left or washed up on the beach. I was unimpressed at first. Like you said, I was thinking I could take the same pictures. The more I looked at it, the more I started to appreciate them. I'm not sure what it was that changed my mind.
The Greatest thing about art is it's subjective. I work in a photo environment where there will be a few or many photographers. Not one of us take the same photo. The audiences will like what they like. I just try to be me and do what I like.
recently I was a Berlin and took a photograph of a teal moped at night. It was boring. Then I lowered the camera, got closer and took an Egglestone-angle image. Much better. The moped now looks large. It is an usual depiction of a mundane thing. That is the meaning.
Another fascinating proposal. Thank you. Like the bit about everything having to "shout" today.😊
I agree with you about the gatekeepers of "Art" and their power: Eggleston benefitted enormously when Swarkowski promoted him, exhibited his work at MoMA and wrote the long foreword to _William Eggleston's Guide,_ the book that trike photo is the cover shot for and a really dull book it is. To me, Eggleston's work is almost entirely about colour within the frame; the figures, objects and surroundings are almost immaterial to the pictures. As such, he bores me stiff. He has made a very few images I can admire, but his ratio of interesting to crashingly dull is at least as high as my own keeper to dross ratio. Another photographer who made truly pioneering use of colour - and who exhibited at MoMA ten years before our Bill - was Ernst Haas: his work shows skill, wit and a sharp eye as well as intriguing colour and I could look at his work for ages.
I read your comment and thought, "Yes. I agree. Eggleston bores the pants off me, and Haas is brilliant." Then I thought about how I see Eggleston's work. It always reminds me of a long contemptuous look down someone's nose presented as ironic because that kind of cultural elitism is not welcome in late/post modernism. Then I punched "Eggleston anthropological" into Google and sure enough that's a dominant take. Like the old image of the white explorer in safari gear writing about the exoticisms of "the natives", Eggleston catalogues the highly unaesthetic downmarket America that not long ago was usually associated with Walmart. That and some obsession with particular color arrangements in the shot.
@@MichaelWilson-ee8zx a long contemptuous look down someone’s nose - I hadn’t thought about that aspect, but I do believe you’ve nailed it.
Have to agree with everything you said (which is a novelty with anyone for me).
Photography is the great democratic art - you don't need years of training ... which is why painters often felt threatened by it at the turn of the 19th/20th century. These days the advent of 'good' cameras on phones has made anyone walking around with a 2K camera feel defensive.
There are millions of masterpieces of photography that we will never see and all too many mediocre ones in exhibitions. Unfortunately we end up going back to 'how much is it worth ?" to define what is good art and what is just the mundane.
Summed it up, back in the 50s going on till the late 70s the world was buzzing everyone was part of the community. Todays era everyone is isolated, people are afraid to be out explore their city. So you don’t get those moments anymore.
I completely agree Alex, there also seems to be a lot of want for a word snobbery with photography club judges who like to pigeon hole pictures that don't seem to shout out loud and just because there not in vogue then they will pick them apart, I've had it happen to me.
I love the trike image! For me that image is about size, youth, form and proportion.
I have looked over William Eggleston’s work, and it can be hard work to understand! William Eggleston leaves his work to the viewer to interpret. I prefer Robert Frank generally! But maybe William Egglestone’s brilliance comes down to several aspects. The hierarchy of colour, life as it was at the time, and the way it challenges the simple and direct image. Also the limited colour palette. You need to view and digest the work and apply your own understanding. In the end, we like what we like and that is good enough for me! I have seen a framed print of the Trike image by Eggleston. Ticked off the Bucket List! Respect for everyone’s taste!
Great discussion with excellent points!
The Philosopher Photographer strikes again. Great video Alex, this puts into words things I've been feeling but could never articulate. Thanks for sharing!
Thanks, Alex! I love that trike photo. It really resonated with me in a heartbeat. I'd like to add my two cents to the concept of "Art" photography, which is similar to the discipline of architecture. Everyone likes to see a "Wow!" building but most people would choose to live in an ordinary house because it resonates to them more than just a matter of visual aesthetic taste.
People don't like to be challenged and have to think. People like to be told the whole story, no get questions thrown at them
I think that you got it on the nose. Most viewers of any art form are casual viewers and have no desire to invest the time it often takes to get to the "aha" moment. In my photography, I challenge the viewers to slow down and see if there is an aha moment for them. I don’t often spoon feed.
Eggleston's work has me scratching my head. Most of it looks like casual snapshots, but I also find them interesting. Perhaps for the nostalgia value of a time in 60's and 70's that are part of my distant memory. I participate at a weekly contest site that sometimes has challenge topics of "In the style of _________". Sometimes it is a member with a distinctive style, sometimes a well known photographer. The ones of a big name will often have a lesser known work of theirs inserted into the challenge that will frequently end up towards the bottom of the results. The shots with wow factor usually are at the top, whether or not they actually capture the feel of the photographer's work.
I love the photography of Ansel Adams and Edward Weston, but I also love some of the work of Robert Adams and Raymond Moore. The same goes for Hass, Egglesstone etc. At times I want the silence of the photograph to allow me to make my own mind up and othertimes I want the photograph to speak to me. After all it is art's business to raise the common to grace.
Raymond Moore, a sadly neglected photographer and a particular favourite of mine.
Thank you Alex, you have explained this to me now. I always wondered what those random images were about. 😊
Wow! What a great video essay.
I currently follow *a lot* of YT photographic content creators. I'm in an absorption phase, I guess. One of the common threads I see, which parallels your thesis in this video, is that many of their images might be called "unremarkable". These are experienced photographers, many of them running a business as a professional photographer. They are capable of doing the work.
What I get from this is exactly what you talked about this morning. Many of the images you shared this morning (I love this aspect of your channel, BTW) were similar in that respect -- they might be termed "unremarkable". But, each of them was made because the maker found something interesting in the scene. As a viewer, my job is to determine if my interest aligns with that of the maker. Sometimes it does; sometimes it does not. And, sometimes (I think) I find something interesting that the maker did not.
I cannot know whether my interest aligns with the maker's (or not). But, I often find something in the image that *is* interesting and makes the image less "unremarkable".
Furthermore, there is something freeing in this realization because when I'm out and about (I always have a camera, even if just the iPhone) if I find something visually interesting, I make the capture. Sometimes I'll even stop and work the subject to see if there is a more interesting perspective or composition. But the point is that I saw something interesting and stopped to make the capture.
As a photographer, I'm just a hack. But, I make photographs of things that I find interesting. I share some of them on my weblog, along with a wall of text (Ha!). I know a few friends and family members stop by for a look and that is good enough. But I take time to post them to share. This is OK.
In each of the images you shared, the photographer saw something interesting. They stopped to make at least one photograph of that thing. Not all of us will connect with the image, but I found enough of them interesting enough to want to see more.
The Eddington capture of the trike was fun. I found it interesting. ;)
Keep up the good work, sir!
Thanks for this topic... I like the mid century stuff... Liked it then in magazines, Life etc and still like it now. (I'm 74 in 2024). If I try this style now, I get a few not my cup of tea, but who cares!
Well said!
I am reminded of a time, quite a few years ago now, that I was in the Corcoran Museum of Art in Washington, DC. There was a very stylish young woman giving an elderly gentleman a tour of the art. The stopped in front of a seven foot tall painting. Abstract art. She says to him, "Now, this one is cubist...but not cubist enough." I swear, it is enough to melt the brain. I, on the other hand once bought a post card of an Alexander Calder sculpture of a wire frame fish with bits and bobs hanging off of chicken wire. I sent it to a friend with a note that said I wouldn't have paid 50 cents for it at a yard sale. Then again, I could go to the East Wing gallery and spend my whole afternoon looking at the Calder mobile that hangs in the atrium and be just awestruck.
Last summer, I made repeated trips from the cool pine forest-covered mountains of northern Arizona to 115F Phoenix to get my truck serviced. (Never buy a Land Rover product.) It's a 2-hour drive and, because of the heat, I would leave my house at 5:15 AM to arrive at the garage when they opened for business. After dropping off the keys, I took a Lyft to breakfast and then walked from the restaurant to the Phoenix Art Museum. The museum opened at 10:00 AM.
I made this trip a handful of times and spent a handful of wonderful days at the museum. What made those days wonderful? I knew I had to kill at least five or six hours until the truck would be ready. I took my time with every exhibit, read every sign, sat & pondered the works. Sometimes, I would just sit or stand to be in the presence of a work. If my first reaction upon seeing something was, "What the #@$% is that?" I'd double down on spending time with it.
That time and effort didn't make me a fan of every work I saw. But it did help me to understand why I liked the pieces I liked and why I didn't connect with the others.
Photography is very much the same for me. I don't connect with Eggleston's work. I think I understand why it's so revered. American society worships the automobile and everything it represents: wealth, power, success, freedom, style, sexual prowess, etc. Eggleston turns his camera to a tricycle and says, "We teach our children to worship mechanized mobility from the time they're able to walk. Why toddle around the neighborhood when you can ride in style on this beauty? This is your God."
I get it but it doesn't resonate with me. It doesn't speak to me the way an Adams, Dykinga or Muench landscape does. The way Tom Mangelsen's wildlife photography does. An Avedon fashion photo, Man Ray, Sam Abell, Vivian Meier, and many others.
But most important, the experience of looking at, analyzing, loving, hating, or meh'ing another photographer's work can't replace the joy, satisfaction or fulfillment I feel when I'm out documenting the world in my own way with a camera. My photos may never find an audience beyond myself and the folks who love me enough to hit the like button. That's OK. Whatever future my photography does or does not have, in the moment I'm making it, it's giving me a feeling of accomplishment; of doing something that is worthy of my time and effort.
That's enough for me. I think it's enough for the artists who achieve world acclaim, too. They aren't artists because of the fame or fortune. They're artists because they can't not be artists. They just happen to have grabbed onto the brass ring.
That's part of why I come to your channel, Alex. Great works are celebrated as great but the mundane works of schlubs like me aren't kept outside in the cold & dark. We're all photographers. We all do it because it's in our blood. You give us a home and an opportunity to find inspiration in the works of others.
Landscape can be beautiful of nature . Okay and ? How that speaks to you ? Just a landscape .
12:05 + 15:50 I think about this a lot. People need to be told what to like. Reminds me of this 9th Wonder quote: "Outside of the tastemakers, people don't listen to music. They watch, and they need qualifiers"
Photos do not always have to have meaning but rather a sense of wonderment not expressed by words and they should never be pretentious lest they alienate themselves from the viewer. Photoing everyday things in a candid sort of way can bring to life to the ordinary and when done in a way that is draws the eye to it,then it is a successful image. Photography is about capturing light and shadows to convey a message to the eye so that brain can interpret the captured image and then have an emotional response to it. I try to have my camera see what I see so as to convey some sort of response,nothing more,nothing less.
Love this premiere.. so glad i happened to get the timing right and join in.
Great stuff Alex, you highlighted one of my pet hates in art ever since my teenage years.
Some great examples of images as a viewer we either feel something or we don't.
What's not to get about a giant tricycle that dominates the background scene, a somewhat obvious way of seeing things differently.
A much over used word, possibly banned, juxtaposition.
Much more interesting than an overly processed digital image.
The name of Zzyzx would make me want to photograph it.
Glad you enjoyed the video, thanks for watching!
Great episode. Loved seeing some Goldblatt too in amongst all the other classics.
Eggleston has great colour in his pictures. His prints were dye transfers which helps.
It is quite possible and valid to recognise that something is objectively good, important, infulential etc and yet still not like it on a subjective level. The opposite also applies, it is ok to like something that is objectivly poorly made, un-infulential etc. It is in that rare space where the objective and subjective align that art can change your life.
Very good and useful discussion. Please yourself first.
I was wondering what you were talking about for half your video. The images you showed have ALL raised an immediate meaning in me. Each of them. They are not random. The trike has to be seen in relation to the background. Then it makes sense. Maybe most are instinctively captured by the photographer. But I suspect that there is a chunk of dull ones, and the art consists of selecting the ones that resonate. And the ones in this video are far from random.
Hey Alex, great discussion and lots of very valid points. To me some of these photos like the trike are all about feeling. A feeling that takes you to a different place and/or time. Could I have taken the photo? Yes...Did I? No...
That's where the artist proves himself over and over. Through a body of work. Not necessarily from one photo.
To draw a parallel to the painting world, please check the painting Nighthawks by Edward Hopper. Most decent painters can replicate it. But it is a masterpiece nonetheless, regardless of personal opinions, mainly because of the feeling that it invokes. Not necessarily about the technical skill to create the work.
Kind regards and thank you as always.
Agree. And, thank you.
Yeah, nail on the head. Disliking something doesn’t mean it’s rubbish. The opposite is also true.
Thanks - I love it when people agree with me :D
When I was a teenager, my uncle who is a painter and sculptor, told me that the prevailing thought at that time was that art had to have meaning. He said that you had to be able to make up some backstory or meaning to your art in order to get it accepted as such. He was chuckling at the seeming absurdity of that practice. I didn’t get it back then but after watching this video, I think I understand what he meant and why it was laughable to him.