Imagine - BBC One - 23:05

bullpost

Interesting looking documentary tonight.

Imagine - BBC One - 23:05

Reviled by the critical community in the 1970s, the work of American photographer William Eggleston is now commonly regarded as an influence on many film-makers.

Anouilh

A real treat in store.

http://www.aaronschuman.com/egglestondemocratic.html

dazftw

watching it now.....

melekalikimaka

ditto

melekalikimaka

tis very good

dazftw

Enjoyed that now.. I want to be able to do what he does.. I was so happy when he said what he photographs! life!

Its harder than you think..

melekalikimaka

dazftw wrote: »

Enjoyed that now.. I want to be able to do what he does.. I was so happy when he said what he photographs! life!

Its harder than you think..

very hard, thats why its so impressive

32finn

damn it, missed it, she was hoggin the tv. dont suppose if anyone knows if it will be repeated?

dazftw

melekalikimaka wrote: »

very hard, thats why its so impressive

Its strange I dont know if anyone would feel the same but you can capture life unless its on film..

Looked up that book as well he was showing "The Decisive Moment"... 1 on ebay for just over €1000 :eek:

The man is such an inspiration I feel very inspired by it all!

dazftw

32finn wrote: »

damn it, missed it, she was hoggin the tv. dont suppose if anyone knows if it will be repeated?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00lrls8

Its not working atm? ah only works in the uk

32finn

ill have to keep my eyes open for it again, cheers anyway

trishw78

Fell asleep... pfft... I'll keep an eye out on BBC3 or BBC4 for it

bullpost

Fascinating documentary. I've seen his photos before but they didn't connect with me. After watching the program I can see his unique vision.
Very interesting character - southern gentleman but very bohemian and friends with the weird and characters on the edge of society.

I think in the far future his photos will convey a real sense of what it was like to be human in the present time.

thebaz

excellent program - nothing like abstract wedding photos :-)

Anouilh

It seemed to me that Eggleston would have preferred to have remained silent when asked about his work. "Life today", his answer did not seem to be adequate to him, and I felt he was just being nice.

The remarkable part of the documentary was the repetition that he photographs "nothing". "Just the sky", in relation to one photo was very puzzling. Photographers are given an ever changing, 24 hour present canvas and practising photographing it is my first exercise when trying to work out how to engage with the day's imagery.

No wonder Mr Eggleston slept through his first exhibition at MOMA. So many strange questions...

http://www.flickr.com/groups/william_eggleston/discuss/

outspann

Absolutely superb photos, embarrassingly so (as in, did you see how long he held the camera to his eye to take some of them - about two seconds! Even being as good as he is, he must be shooting a huge number of images). Yet for all his talent, can you imagine being married to him?

I have to admit to having a little laugh as he described the scenario of when he took the "red ceiling" image:

"well, I was talking to JC and his wife, lying on their bed, and I just looked up...."

Lying on their bed indeed!

Have to love iplayer.. I'll watch it tonight.

bullpost

When I was looking at his photos I wondered whether you could produce a similar set as good anywhere in the world (i.e here) or whether the iconic nature of the American landscape is part of the appeal?

Anouilh

outspann wrote: »

Absolutely superb photos, embarrassingly so (as in, did you see how long he held the camera to his eye to take some of them - about two seconds!

What is usual? It seems horribly fast to me.

outspann

I agree!

I'm presuming he hadn't speeded up just because he was being filmed, but he seemed to spend no time composing the shot. And he must have the aperture wide open, because I didn't see a whole lot of focussing going on either.

Even if you disregard how little time he had the camera to his eye and assume that he did all his composing in his mind before even raising the camera, well, that doesn't make sense either. He just seemed to stroll through random areas and intermittently (erratically?) take shots. It's even more remarkable when you consider his rule of thumb to only take one photo of any particular scene.

I'm not surprised when it was mentioned that it took a good curator to recognise which were the great shots - Eggleston seems to photograph purely on instinct without dwelling on any one subject. Maybe he doesn't like to second-guess himself. Or maybe he like to keep it fresh. Or maybe thats what six years in Art College without any pressure to actually graduate does for you. If only I was independently wealthy.....

As for the shot of the two women in the diner; the colours; the feeling: I could also smell the coffee and hear the gossip...

eas

outspann wrote: »

his rule of thumb to only take one photo of any particular scene.

for me this was the most interesting reveal in the documentary.

Anouilh

bullpost wrote: »

When I was looking at his photos I wondered whether you could produce a similar set as good anywhere in the world (i.e here) or whether the iconic nature of the American landscape is part of the appeal?

Landscapes become iconic when associated with artistic revelation, perhaps? Tasmania lacked a recognizable iconography on the World stage until photographers like Peter Dombrovskis created one.

I have to admit that usually Memphis triggers little in my mind apart from Graceland. It was remarkably absent in the amount I saw of the documentary, but may be in there somewhere.

Anouilh

eas wrote: »

for me this was the most interesting reveal in the documentary.

Yes, but one subject said the portrait of him was "good... blurry ,.. but good".

It was a very humourous documentary.

(I misquoted. In fact it was "out of focus" which is not the same thing.)

eas

Anouilh wrote: »

Yes, but one subject said the portrait of him was "good... blurry ,.. but good".

It was a very humourous documentary.

yes, out of focus can be good too.

That was David Lynch who said that. The two of them did / do exhibitions together apparently.

The reason I found it interesting is not from a "must take a few shots of this to make sure I get a good one" type thing. I think his "self discipline" of only taking one shot of each subject show that to him, the subjects are somewhat insignificant to his process. They can be anything, and be found anywhere. It's more the representation of the item, then the item itself. Could be a big leap - but that's my interpretation.

Anouilh

eas wrote: »

yes, out of focus can be good too.

That was David Lynch who said that. The two of them did / do exhibitions together apparently.

The reason I found it interesting is not from a "must take a few shots of this to make sure I get a good one" type thing. I think his "self discipline" of only taking one shot of each subject show that to him, the subjects are somewhat insignificant to his process. They can be anything, and be found anywhere. It's more the representation of the item, then the item itself. Could be a big leap - but that's my interpretation.

If you search

eggleston memphis photo graceland

there is a very good page by Lynne Warren (third on the list)
which details his work methodology.

It's very topical, as sky photos are going to be fashionable with the sunsets coloured by volcanic eruption dust coming our way.

The discipline of not snapping at everything is learned though using a film camera. The instantaneous nature of digital means you can erase mistakes. So much of what he was doing seemed just common sense.
When I started using a digital camera I decided to pretend I had very limited storage so that I would force myself to take photos that were the best possible.

You have some very good insights there.

eas

thanks I'll have a look.

Anouilh wrote: »

The discipline of not snapping at everything is learned though using a film camera. The instantaneous nature of digital means you can erase mistakes. So much of what he was doing seemed just common sense.

Although I agree with the base of that statement, I don't think that's the reason he only takes one shot of each subject. By watching the documentary last night i think it's obvious that saving film is not on his lsit of priorities.

BTW - I'd take 2-3 rolls of one subject if it struck me before digital was an option.

Anouilh

eas wrote: »

thanks I'll have a look.



Although I agree with the base of that statement, I don't think that's the reason he only takes one shot of each subject. By watching the documentary last night i think it's obvious that saving film is not on his lsit of priorities.

BTW - I'd take 2-3 rolls of one subject if it struck me before digital was an option.

I think I explained myself unclearly. There is nothing as horrible as getting back a roll of poor photos.

I certainly fit into the thrifty category, but Ecclestons has taken an astonishing number of photos and still makes sure to not fail in his endeavour. I'm sure there are plenty of unsuccessful photos there too.

Zxc

I didn't realise this programme was being shown. I caught the first few minutes and didn't get to see the rest of it.
Based on what I saw, and now the comments in this thread, I am disappointed not to have seen it all.
Someone mentioned BBC iPlayer but I thought that doesn't allow viewers from Ireland. Am I wrong?
Does anyone else know where else the documentary can be viewed?

Anouilh

Zxc wrote: »

I didn't realise this programme was being shown. I caught the first few minutes and didn't get to see the rest of it.
Based on what I saw, and now the comments in this thread, I am disappointed not to have seen it all.
Someone mentioned BBC iPlayer but I thought that doesn't allow viewers from Ireland. Am I wrong?
Does anyone else know where else the documentary can be viewed?

It should come round again. I set this handy program up on my shortsights blog, so whenever a program I like is about to be aired, it alerts me:

http://www.locatetv.com/

Also, a small consolation, perhaps?

http://smarthistory.org/william-eggleston.html

humberklog

I'd be an admirer of his for a while. But looking through his stuff again and looking at the programme and reading the interest on this thread, a thought struck me. If he was posting those pics now on boards on the Random Thread as a no namer like most of us; would his work be upheld as excellence?
My suspicion is that he would be unconsidered by those that not only learn their technique in camera clubs but also (and disappointingly more importantly) how they judge a photograph's merits. He breaks every 'rule' that technique books will endeavor to teach (thirds? me eye) and every acceptability of production the the clique of clubs entertain and foster.

I had much the same thoughts when The Bachelor Inn closed down. A lot of people were saying how sad it was that a proper boozer was shutting down. The same people never drank there. Ergo: pub shuts.
The pub has since re-opened and the same people have yet to darken its door.

Good programme on a lovely bloke that takes exceptional photos.

Zxc

Anouilh wrote: »

It should come round again. I set this handy program up on my shortsights blog, so whenever a program I like is about to be aired, it alerts me:

http://www.locatetv.com/

Also, a small consolation, perhaps?

http://smarthistory.org/william-eggleston.html

Thanks Anouilh.
I took a look at the smarthistory link. A small consolation indeed but a welcome one.
I've noticed from some of your other posts I've seen that your links are never less than interesting and usually well worth a look. You seem to find the most intriguing of sites.
As for the Imagine documentary on Eggleston, I'll just have to wait and hope a repeat is shown before too long.

Anouilh

outspann wrote: »

I'm not surprised when it was mentioned that it took a good curator to recognise which were the great shots - Eggleston seems to photograph purely on instinct without dwelling on any one subject. Maybe he doesn't like to second-guess himself. Or maybe he like to keep it fresh. Or maybe thats what six years in Art College without any pressure to actually graduate does for you. If only I was independently wealthy.....

As for the shot of the two women in the diner; the colours; the feeling: I could also smell the coffee and hear the gossip...

It's not uncommon for photographers to be so involved in making images that they need a good photo editor to get to work as a guide. This was the case with Annie Leibovits
http://www.theplugg.com/annie-leibovitz-a-rock-n%E2%80%99-roll-photographer/

and she spoke on a documentary about learning the skills of editing her own work.

My favourite story on this subject is the way Atget stock-piled his photos for years and never photographed his family and friends.

humberklog wrote: »

I'd be an admirer of his for a while. But looking through his stuff again and looking at the programme and reading the interest on this thread, a thought struck me. If he was posting those pics now on boards on the Random Thread as a no namer like most of us; would his work be upheld as excellence? ....


Good programme on a lovely bloke that takes exceptional photos.

It has been done with Cartier Bresson's work:

http://brooklynramblings.blogspot.com/2006/06/dumb-flickr-users-get-punkd.html

humberklog

Anouilh wrote: »

It has been done with Cartier Bresson's work:

http://www.urban-photography-art.com/eugene-atget.html

Not sure of the connection with my post and your link there Anouilh.

I generally as a rule never ever click educational information links that people post but for this once I thought to have a look, I don't see the connection.

I do of course click on competition links or for example Simplicius recent post on his being published thread, I just don't like to do my educational information reading on a computer.

Anouilh

humberklog wrote: »

Not sure of the connection with my post and your link there Anouilh.

I generally as a rule never ever click educational information links that people post but for this once I thought to have a look, I don't see the connection.

I do of course click on competition links or for example Simplicius recent post on his being published thread, I just don't like to do my educational information reading on a computer.

Not surprising that it was odd. I posted the wrong link.

Apologies.

http://brooklynramblings.blogspot.com/2006/06/dumb-flickr-users-get-punkd.html

humberklog

Read the 1st line or so on the new link Anouilh, eh that wasn't what I was saying though.
Funny as a story on its own but it's not related to my original post.

dakar

Not so much educational reading Humberklog, but this is a pisstake of the amateur 'expert' critique practiced widely on the net, though not so much here, thankfully.

Eggleston's iconic kid's trike photo gets the C&C treatment from the (I hope!) fictional George Spelvin a particularly obnoxious specimen of the breed.

I think that when an image is taken out of context, or at least out of the context of an individual photographer's oeuvre, it becomes very easy to dismiss as flawed/snapshot/whatever.

It's back to the whole art/not art debate again.

humberklog

Yeah that's what my point is though Dakar. It doesn't work on one single pic from a photographer in the past. That's just a trick, a laugh.
But if there was a regular poster here (only for e.g) that was regularly posting random shots on the Random thread that broke every rule and yet was good; would his work as a whole be recognised as excellence? I say probably not because Eggleston's work does break a lot of conformaties, if only in a subtle way, that would be learned trough camera clubs. These rules/formats that pervade a lot of work that comes from camera clubs and evening classes transcend the photographers own work and makes its way into their own critical analysis of other peoples work.
I think the Egglestons and Bressons of the present day would make a lecturer's or camera club hosts (I'm not up on the termanology) toe nails curl into the soles of their Birkenstocks.

To sum: if Eggleston was a young man now and doing his thing and posting up here would his work stand out? Or be considered outstanding? Or be dismissed as someone that doesn't know the rule of 3rds from his elbow (for e.g).

dakar

I think you're spot on about the 'establishment' view of those who do not conform (as in so many spheres).

The camera club/IPF system places a high value a certain type of photography, technically 'correct' with a nicely placed rock for foreground interest and conforming nicely to the rule of thirds. This is fine, I take lots of photos like this myself, they're generally pretty appealling i.e. they appeal to a lot of people a lot of the time. This pretty much explains why the rules are the rules, they're a template to producing images which will click with the hardwiring of most human brains.

Where it gets interesting is, of course, the stuff that happens on the margins of this and beyond. I don't know if there is a space in terms of discussion and/or appreciation of photography that falls between the 'technically correct' but maybe restrictive regime of the camera club type ideal, and highbrow 'art' type of stuff. (Apologies for the overuse of apostrophes, it annoys the hell out of me too).

By the nature of things, a lot of posters here will be inclined to like pretty but conventional images (but maybe a slightly higher proportion than in the general population will be willing to accept and appreciate more 'interesting' work too).

To answer your question, if William Eggleston (or any of the other subjects of the thread above) posted regularly here, would they be hailed as geniuses by the bulk of the populace here? Probably not. Would they be recognised as special by a few? I'd hope so.

Which raises the even more interesting question. Who are the special talents posting regularly here who's work lies on or beyond the borders of accepted clinically, technically 'good' photography?

[opens can of worms and runs away!]

Anouilh

humberklog wrote: »

Yeah that's what my point is though Dakar. It doesn't work on one single pic from a photographer in the past. That's just a trick, a laugh.
But if there was a regular poster here (only for e.g) that was regularly posting random shots on the Random thread that broke every rule and yet was good; would his work as a whole be recognised as excellence? I say probably not because Eggleston's work does break a lot of conformaties, if only in a subtle way, that would be learned trough camera clubs. These rules/formats that pervade a lot of work that comes from camera clubs and evening classes transcend the photographers own work and makes its way into their own critical analysis of other peoples work.
I think the Egglestons and Bressons of the present day would make a lecturer's or camera club hosts (I'm not up on the termanology) toe nails curl into the soles of their Birkenstocks.

To sum: if Eggleston was a young man now and doing his thing and posting up here would his work stand out? Or be considered outstanding? Or be dismissed as someone that doesn't know the rule of 3rds from his elbow (for e.g).

It depends on whether or not there was somebody whose recognition was
able to launch a career found the poster, perhaps.

We're all cutting edge here...

eas

we all know what you want to hear humberklog - and no one is going to say it.

I can't remember who said it in the documentary - about people overlooking the complexity of Eggleston's photography based on it's perceived simplicity. I believe on the most part that is what would happen here to your hypothetical poster.

To answer your question, if William Eggleston (or any of the other subjects of the thread above) posted regularly here, would they be hailed as geniuses by the bulk of the populace here? Probably not. Would they be recognised as special by a few? I'd hope so.

I think that about sums it up for me too.

bullpost

I think the person who springs to mind is thebaz. If you look back you'll see very trenchant criticism of him.
For me, without passing judgement on his work, what stands out is his vision.
I don't think I've seen anything similar from anyone else posting here regularily.
Its something thats missing from my photography and which makes the vast majority of it realistically mundane.

dakar wrote: »

Which raises the even more interesting question. Who are the special talents posting regularly here who's work lies on or beyond the borders of accepted clinically, technically 'good' photography?

[opens can of worms and runs away!]

humberklog

Good lord no, I wasn't looking for looking for present examples of those that push the medium towards an unexpected excellence. Really just pondering on how people are willing to except the rule breakers and geniusses if thery are told that what their looking at is the work of a master.

I like Dakar's post a lot on it. It puts the question and resolve somewhere I'd agree with.
And asks a very good question.

Anouilh

The canon of live white males begins...

Very little has been posted about the video of Eggleston's friends at a party. Embedded there are the elements of his still photos. He seems to have a sort of dancing relationship with the world around him.

It would be interesting to know if he ever uses a digital camera. The documentary somehow seemed to be more contrived than Mr Yentob's usual style. I loved the Coke can behind Mr Eggleston's head in on interior's piece and the way cigarette smoke was integrated into the scene in the drawing room to create a sense of mystery. Great ideas for portraiture.

Anouilh

humberklog wrote: »

Good lord no, I wasn't looking for present examples of those that push the medium towards an unexpected excellence. .

Excellence is to be expected. We spend months here trying to improve.

My focus on the documentary was the shock that saturated colour brought to the art world at the time. Aniline dyes were being used for the first time. My memory of the time before that was of beige and brown interiors, so the introduction of colour was very welcome.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/nov/02/william-eggleston-in-focus/

http://www.vam.ac.uk/vastatic/microsites/photography/processframe.php?processid=pr001

dakar

humberklog wrote: »

Really just pondering on how people are willing to except the rule breakers and geniusses if thery are told that what their looking at is the work of a master.

A subtly but fudamentally different issue, I think, to the unrecognised genius phenomenon.

Personally, I like to think I have my own mind as regards what I like. I also like to think that I'm reasonably open to accepting something is other than what it seems at first glance, if a reasonable case can be made to persuade me. Like eas said above about the complexity of Eggleston's work (for example) being masked by apparent simplicity.

So does that make me an open-minded free thinking individual? Or gullible? Or just pandering to my own vanity that I'm clever enough to see beyond the surface veneer of things? I certainly haven't figured it out yet:D:P

EDIT:
I think if you unthinkingly swallow every line they're fed about the greatness of an artist in any field, then that's gullibility. You become a nodding dog.

If you can exercise your own critical faculties to decide to agree or disagree with the proposition, then you probably lie somewhere between the other two options above.

dakar

Anouilh wrote: »

Excellence is to be expected. We spend months here trying to improve.

Hmm, depends on where you draw the line between excellence and competence.

I think I'm a competent photographer who occasionally produces excellent photographs, but I certainly don't consider myself an excellent photographer............yet!:D

Anouilh

dakar wrote: »

Hmm, depends on where you draw the line between excellence and competence.

I think I'm a competent photographer who occasionally produces excellent photographs, but I certainly don't consider myself an excellent photographer............yet!:D

Evidently, this is the moment for a curator.

Anouilh

It's worth mentioning that the dye transfer used for Eggleston's prints was a remarkable breakthrough at the time. Photography in the past was a messy business, exacting and needing years of training:

http://photo-repair.com/ctein_bio.htm

There are now sites giving tips on how to reproduce the dye transfer technique digitally:

http://www.hybridphoto.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3341

It would be difficult to explain to anybody who had not spent years in a brown and buff toned colour universe the influence that analine dyes had on fashion and new photo techniques on how we came to see the World.

Colour is taken for granted now, in the 1960's it was often even shocking.


Also, at last, a reference to Graceland in Eggleston's work:

http://www.artknowledgenews.com/William_Eggleston.html

The documentary was quite strange in many ways.

Anouilh

dakar wrote: »

It's back to the whole art/not art debate again.

The topic of what is Fine Art photography comes up from time to time. The high quality of Eggleston's work is based on many factors, not just the capturing of an image. There is a good discussion on the Flickr group devoted to pastiches of William Eggleston. He mostly used Kodachrome and has never worked with a digital camera.

Anouilh

humberklog wrote: »

...

To sum: if Eggleston was a young man now and doing his thing and posting up here would his work stand out? Or be considered outstanding? Or be dismissed as someone that doesn't know the rule of 3rds from his elbow (for e.g).

Having thought about your question for some time, I think that innovators are always recognised because there is a quality of consciousness in their work that shines through.

It is impossible to recreate the circumstances in which Eggleston developed his style, because black and white photography was the norm in the 1960's and colour was debated in the same way as digital technology was when it first confronted the official uses of film cameras.

This is particularly useful:

http://www.egglestontrust.com/guide_intro.html

The whole question of camera club aesthetics is a bit lost on me, I have to admit. There are probably different types of groups and a lot depends on the individual members.