Los Alamos

[andym911]

I guess there are many out there who own this book from Eggelston.

After hearing quite a bit about it I bought it last week, very curious about what made it so famous.

To be honest I am underwhelmed.
To me it feels repetitive, same signs, same colors,same viewpoint.
There are exceptions of course, some images that tell a story,but many of the images leave me thinking, so what.

I accept that decades later the images may not have the same association they did back then, and I also acknowledge that this style may have been groundbreaking at the time.
I am constantly trying to learn and improve my eye, hence owning quite a few books and publications by known photographers.

THis one did not inspire me so for those of you out there who also own it, what is your take,am I missing something deeper than the printed pages?

Would welcome some insights opinions as to how you perceive it, and hopefully gain a better understanding of this 'iconic' photographer and period.

thanks

andy

[bill]

Hi Andy,

Let me begin by saying I don't own the book, and I would not set out to buy it Eggleston's work leaves me cold, and I have seen enough of it not to bother further. I know there are many who regard him as a genius, but I am not one of them.

Without getting into a "who's good, who's bad" debate, I'd like to address some of your points more generally. I too have bought books by various photographers over the years. If I examine my motivation, it has been a mix of enjoyment, inspiration and education, in that order. My favourite books are those in which there is sufficient text to help understand the contexts, motivations and cultural referents of the photographer, but not what I would regard as a "technical dissection" of each photo like some sort of "how-to" reference manual. I like to form my own views, and my own opinions, and sometimes spelling it out actually gets in the way rather than adding to the experience.

You make an interesting point about time - images taken out of time can lose some of their impact, because our frame of reference is no longer contemporary to that of the photographer when the image was taken. I would contend, however, that the strongest photos - those that "stand the test of time" - are truly "timeless" in that they speak as loudly to us today as they did when they were taken. Think of some of the work of Dorothea Lange, or Don McCullin, for instance.

Regards,

Bill

[stunsworth]

Bill, I'm guessing that most of the images that 'stand the test of time' for you are of people. The human condition remains a constant, only the clothes and accessories change. People have always felt joy, sorrow and a thousand emotions inbetween. There will always be war, famine and prosperity to photograph.

Rather like yourself what Eggleston I've seen leaves me cold. But in my case that may be because I haven't seen enough.

[bill]

Originally Posted by stunsworth

Bill, I'm guessing that most of the images that 'stand the test of time' for you are of people. The human condition remains a constant, only the clothes and accessories change. People have always felt joy, sorrow and a thousand emotions inbetween. There will always be war, famine and prosperity to photograph.

Rather like yourself what Eggleston I've seen leaves me cold. But in my case that may be because I haven't seen enough.

Fair point(s) Steve. The human condition will always throw up a worthwhile image, as long as there are people on the planet. It is the very randomness of the human animal that makes such images compelling and fresh.

As to your comment on Eggleston, I think that there is a selective process at work here, both conscious and unconscious. If I see/hear/experience something new, my reaction falls broadly into one of four camps:

- I have experienced enough to know I like it
- I think I like it but I want to experience more to be sure
- I don't think I like it but I want to experience more to be sure
- I have experienced enough to know I don't like it

Eggleston's work, for me, falls into the last category, alongside rap, celery, football and reality tv. I feel no need to put it in category 3, and I struggle with category 3 in general - it feels a bit too much like "I can't see what all the fuss is about, but perhaps others are right and I am wrong" I feel no pressure to persevere with Eggleston; I understand that others feel different, and I respect their right to do so, but viewing his work feels a bit too much like one's mother encouraging one to eat another sprout before one can enjoy pudding.

Regards,

Bill

[andym911]

Bill
I think I'm with you here on the purpose of buying such books.
The sprout an pudding analogy is excellent.

the main takeaway for me though is your comment
'I would contend, however, that the strongest photos - those that "stand the test of time" - are truly "timeless" in that they speak as loudly to us today as they did when they were taken. '

thanks for your opinion, and Steve, and I hope others will chip in.

cheers
andy

[bill]

Just want to bump this one. I'd like to hear others' opinions.

Regards.

Bill

[andym911]

Me too, I' m starting to take it personally

[j. white]

Art history was once described to me as a conversation, and the work that has a place in it is the work that adds something to that conversation. Work that stands as a milestone in history will always hold a place, even if and long after it ceases being engaging and relevant to new generations of audiences.

For my part, this argument has stood the test of time. However...

The process by which a given body of work is chosen to represent milestones and transitions in our understanding of any medium can be rightfully be considered suspect. As a point of illustration, even given his scholarly understanding, did Beaumont Newhall really have the authority to define the original photographic canon when he wrote The History of Photography? Further, in our post-modern world, can the museum curatorial system keep abreast of the best of what's currently happening? Is the canon defined by market forces and relationships between taste-makers at galleries, book publishers and museums? I have more questions than answers, but do think these things are worth consideration.

As a practitioner and fan, I find that for inspiration and appreciation I need to make my own choices, but I can only base them on what's available for viewing.

A curious paradox.

[andym911]

j.white

thanks for your response...I read and reread your post several times before it 'clicked', thats me not your writing

As you say lots of questions and interesting food for thought.

The fact that my post has not generated any interest from 99.9% of the forum is curious IMO.
I would have thought that due to the fact that Eggelston is so closely associated with docu/street as is Leica it would have generated more opinions and comments.

I'll draw my own conclusions from that , but thank you for the thought provoking contribution.

cheers
andy

[thomasl.se]

Hi Andy,

I didn't notice this thread until now. What say we at least compare notes on which Los Alamos pictures we do and don't like? Maybe I can think of something to say about them specifically or Eggleston in more general terms, but I might find it easier to talk about work I don't care for.
Sincere question: Do you wear glasses? Have you tried looking at some of it without them?

Handful of favourites (facing page #): 48; 60; 98; 102; 146.

Thomas

[Plaubel]

I think Eggleston is a genius. Emotionally intense photography. Often startling or unfamiliar, even nowadays. Great stuff. If it leaves you cold, you may ask yourself whether photography means just an avocation to you.

[andym911]

Originally Posted by leica will kill itself

I think Eggleston is a genius. Emotionally intense photography. Often startling or unfamiliar, even nowadays. Great stuff. If it leaves you cold, you may ask yourself whether photography means just an avocation to you.

Would you care to expand?

andy

[bill]

Originally Posted by leica will kill itself

If it leaves you cold, you may ask yourself whether photography means just an avocation to you.

Hardly.

Can you put into words why Eggleston's work moves you so? I am genuinely curious.

Regards,

Bill

[andym911]

Originally Posted by thomasl.se

Hi Andy,

I didn't notice this thread until now. What say we at least compare notes on which Los Alamos pictures we do and don't like? Maybe I can think of something to say about them specifically or Eggleston in more general terms, but I might find it easier to talk about work I don't care for.
Sincere question: Do you wear glasses? Have you tried looking at some of it without them?

Handful of favourites (facing page #): 48; 60; 98; 102; 146.

Thomas

thats a good offer...once I'm at home I will send you my 'goods and bads' and by the way i don't wear glasses.

thanks

andy

[Plaubel]

Originally Posted by bill

Hardly.

Can you put into words why Eggleston's work moves you so? I am genuinely curious.

Regards,

Bill

Ok, I'll try. Lets see: we take 'red ceiling' first. Exellent partition, intense, enormous colour (very straightforward), a banal subject aesthetisized. Most of all in all his pictures I admire the guts to exactly take them as they are. No intension to look out for something supposedly 'more important'. The latter point is often so much against expectations that it makes the pictures sensational. But with prolonged attention one realizes how precisely they are composed - the position of every subject/object in the frame is extremely well thought out. Lots of photographers have tried to copy on him - and failed. Try yourself and see whether you are indeed able to put so much 'meaning' into banal objects just by composition and colour. For example 'Untitled (Biloxi, Mississippi) (1974).', the young redhead at some retail shop- wow, he really appreciates the moment. The picture transmits the intensity of the precise moment. Celebrating the moment. The lemonade on the bonnet - what a stunning situation. Looking at Eggleston's pictures is feeling life more intensively.

Sorry, bad english (not my first tongue). Basically I think that it is visual art and it translates only badly into words - seeing it is the whole experience.

Best

[m4-2]

Yes! Perfect composition and very romantic. His `democratic pictures` changed the world.

jup.