Re: [Leica] Eggleston: art photography

[John Collier <jbcollier@home.com>]

Why indeed. It is a very good question that is difficult to answer. Your
work that you have shown us is very socially driven with strong emotionally
charged meanings. You cloak your subjects, even though you are trying to
illustrate their potential need, with dignity and humanity. I connect to the
message because I think you are picturing me, my son , my daughter, or my
life I guess. This type of work is at polar opposites to the work that you
are having trouble seeing value in. It reminds me of the "relief" or "field"
* style of painting that so enrages the public when museums purchase these
historically important pieces for millions of dollars. A framed field of
blue is not that difficult to bang off in a lazy afternoon with lots of time
to spare for catching the early show as well. That, however, is not how they
were made. They were made to make statements that can only be interpreted
though the filter of that time (which of course is also why it lasted only a
short time) and created a sensation when they first came out. I look forward
to the time, probably not soon, when your work will be looked at with
puzzled expressions as poverty will be unknown and incomprehensible. One can
hope. Why not go to your local library and take out a few books on art
history and the history of photography, it is very interesting and helps one
to at least understand photographers like Eggleston if not appreciate them.

John Collier

*Please note I am not an art historian and my have some of my terms mixed
up.

> From: Tina Manley <images@InfoAve.Net>
> Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 10:37:45 -0500
> Subject: Re: [Leica] Eggleston
> 
> At 09:34 AM 2/15/00 +0000, you wrote:
>> Hi
>> 
>> Tina, I am shocked. You do realise that this is William Eggleston we are
>> talking about, don't you? I have just pulled the catalogue of Ancient and
>> Modern, his exhibit at the Barbican some years ago, and your comments are, I
>> hope, about someone else. These are quite simply wonderful pictures. On the
>> wall they were nothing short of staggering; even in the book they are pure
>> dead brilliant.
> 
> Hi, Rod:
> 
> I was not referring to Eggleston in particular, but to all of those
> photographs that I see in galleries and ask "Why?"
> But since you mention Eggleston, go to this site:
> http://www.masters-of-photography.com/E/eggleston/eggleston_greenville.html
> And explain to me why he even bothered to print this.  I guess it is almost
> scary to me that if I were editing my photos and came across one like this,
> I would file it in the round file!