if Eggleston's photos only lived on the web, on Flickr, or some other photosharing platform they would be wholly unremarkable. What sets his apart is that he prints them, turns them into books, thus exalting them and whatever you exalt, the world takes your word for it.
That's the magic of photographs they take on a greater meaning when they are sequenced. Book form is the ultimate delivery system for photography in my opinion. People think of photography as a singular image way too much.
Another over enthusiastic comment: 1-Eggleston never printed his dye-transfers, 2-color saturation is not that typical of dye-transfers either (carbo or Cibachrome / later, Ilfochrome prints gave far more color saturation), 3-as far as conservation is concerned dye-transfer do fade (next time please Alan Yentob, do some research before broadcasting inexactitudes; just check Dr Henry Wilhelm's research (Wilhelm Imaging Research) for instance, easily searchable on the net, the results of which he has been very gracefully sharing since the late 1970s). What is more, Eliot Porter, far before Eggleston, learnt how to print his dye-transfer prints (which he did), and he was not a "commercial" photographer working for the advertising world, in fact he was shown in art institutions (MoMA, Metropolitan Museum, George Eastman House, etc. ...) and published by the Sierra Club. Ignorance is definitely not bliss).
Another error here (Eggleston's) the dye-transfer process HE was using was not that old, just over 20 years (first commercialised by Kodak in 1946). Other photographers among whom Eliot Porter, Ernst Haas ans Syl Labrot in the 1950s, Mary Consindas in the 1960s had used the Kodak dye-transfer process for art purposes.
you can see his unique colour tones and all the shading and isolation of the subjects he sees. it's beautiful.
fabulous.
if Eggleston's photos only lived on the web, on Flickr, or some other photosharing platform they would be wholly unremarkable. What sets his apart is that he prints them, turns them into books, thus exalting them and whatever you exalt, the world takes your word for it.
Posting photos on the web is a joke, they are not photos until you print them
That's the magic of photographs they take on a greater meaning when they are sequenced. Book form is the ultimate delivery system for photography in my opinion. People think of photography as a singular image way too much.
1:05: Is it possible to photograph nothing?
hunter thompson?
Another over enthusiastic comment: 1-Eggleston never printed his dye-transfers, 2-color saturation is not that typical of dye-transfers either (carbo or Cibachrome / later, Ilfochrome prints gave far more color saturation), 3-as far as conservation is concerned dye-transfer do fade (next time please Alan Yentob, do some research before broadcasting inexactitudes; just check Dr Henry Wilhelm's research (Wilhelm Imaging Research) for instance, easily searchable on the net, the results of which he has been very gracefully sharing since the late 1970s). What is more, Eliot Porter, far before Eggleston, learnt how to print his dye-transfer prints (which he did), and he was not a "commercial" photographer working for the advertising world, in fact he was shown in art institutions (MoMA, Metropolitan Museum, George Eastman House, etc. ...) and published by the Sierra Club. Ignorance is definitely not bliss).
Another error here (Eggleston's) the dye-transfer process HE was using was not that old, just over 20 years (first commercialised by Kodak in 1946). Other photographers among whom Eliot Porter, Ernst Haas ans Syl Labrot in the 1950s, Mary Consindas in the 1960s had used the Kodak dye-transfer process for art purposes.
Easy there petey