I enjoyed this video. And I love Eggleston's work. I think a lot of it is truly brilliant. But one of the things I like about it is that a lot of it is terrible. Unredeemably bad. Yet he still puts it out there. Sometimes I wonder if he is an artist AND marketing genius like Dali and Picasso or if, as he suggests, he truly doesn't care one way or other. What I find suspicious is not his willingness to put out bad or mediocre work but those who gush over every one of his snapshots as if they are all masterpieces of even good. But it is not his fault if someone treats his work like an expensive fad. After all, it took some rich highbrow rubes to make Jackson Pollock famous, right?

@developingtank

2 ай бұрын

This is a very good take and I agree with everything you’re saying here. Those bad photos are kind of what intrigued me about him in the first place. He is clearly capable of taking excellent shots as well, but I think more than anything his photos speak to the process of making photos. It’s more interesting to me to see a full body of work that showcases the good and bad instead of only the best of the best. The fact that some of the bad photos are held in such high regard or are over analyzed speaks to so many things right, wrong, weird, stupid, intelligent, hilarious, and ridiculous about the photography and art world as a whole. Do you think his work would be held in high regard if it was found posthumously like many other well known artists or would it be disregarded entirely?

@bencompson

2 ай бұрын

@@developingtank I think his photography would stand the test of time. To me the good stuff is immediately revelatory. It hooks me right away and even after years of admiring his work his good photos still draw me in. And since his methods and gear are so simple it can be tempting to say "anyone could do that" but other than some really good copy cats not many people have. I've tried. Failed. It isn't easy. I think trailblazers like Eggleston can run the risk of appearing common after years of other people being inspired and doing similar work. But that's the risk of all great trailblazers in art. If you know a little about the history of photographic art, which you talked about in this video, he really was a trailblazer in almost all aspects of his work. I think, though, that even if he wasn't such an iconoclast his images would still capture the imagination. Thanks again for the great video.

I am so glad I found this channel. I love how you are showcasing these photographers. You are spending my money on new photo books 😎

@developingtank

8 күн бұрын

Glad to hear you’re enjoying them

"The only pictures I like are the ones I've taken" -- That's humbleness in a nutshell. In my case, I do appreciate other people's work but I don't like my own photos. The same applies when I cook, haha.

@developingtank

Күн бұрын

Two areas I’m trying to change myself

Interesting fact: He had a long term relationship with Viva, one of Warhol's superstars. She lived in the Chelsea Hotel so he was a regular there. For all his highbrow, southern gemtlemanly ways, he dabbled in downtown, off-beat social circles, too.

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

I came across that a bit in my research, but different accounts made different claims about how much involvement he had with that crew, so I didn’t cover it. Do you know much about Viva? Reading about her for this was the first time I came across her at all.

One of the best insights on Eggleston I have seen. I like hearing his motivations for doing what he did. While mainly a B&W shooter myself I am always drawn to the saturated photos of Eggleston.

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

Thank you! I also shoot a lot of b&w and I’m similarly drawn to his photos.

As someone who knows Eggleston's work and has met him I can say that this is an excellent, plain-language backgrounder for his published work. Should be "Start Here" for anyone interested in exploring him further. There have been mountains of bullshit heaped around him. This gets the newbie on an accurate starting course.

@developingtank

5 ай бұрын

I appreciate that. Especially considering that is the vantage point I came from when doing the research to make it. There are too many “hot takes” on art these days. I just want to gain a better understanding of it.

Thank you. Your channel is without doubt one of the more well produced, enlightening and entertaining in the photography genre. Much appreciate your efforts to deliver this material. Slainte!

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

Thanks for the kind words. I’m putting a lot of effort in all of those categories and always glad to see someone enjoying it. 🙏

This was really good. Nicely put together and well researched. I initially did not care for Eggleston's work. Maybe I've evolved more as a photographer but whatever has happened, I now love his photos even to the point of buying some of his books.

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

Thank you. I feel similar about his work. To me, appreciating Eggleston’s work is something that can only come with tons of exposure to photography.

I love the statement about not understanding digital cameras. Having a great understanding of the equipment you use is better than the next best new thing.

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

Agreed. I like that he doesn’t have a highbrow bs view for using film.

To me the appeal of Eggleston comes from the collective aspect of nostalgia. A box of snap shots. Many photos are nothing on their own, and some photos are by themselves distinguished by subject matter and by photographic fundamentals like composition. The tricycle photo for one. People fall into two categories. "oh remember those? they don't make those anymore." (along with knowing why) Or, "what is that? When was that a thing to have?" (along with wondering why it's no longer a thing) Add in the way the tricycle is shot, you get the mundane made into the Americana icon. Most of his other stuff is pieces of nostalgia of how things were. Changes in how cars look, how people dress, knowing the photo is old and thinking about how people lived. If you gave a group of kids their first camera, they'll go and take pictures of anything. None of them will be considered more than snapshots at the time. Collect them and hold on to them until everyday design elements change drastically, you get your art.

@developingtank

2 ай бұрын

The aging of street photos is something I consider when taking my own for this reason. A lot of cherished street work is loved because of the nostalgia factor.

It seems the trick to me is knowing what is mundane and what is mundane that can be art. Not everything mundane can be art.

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

Agree to disagree.

@AlFirous

6 ай бұрын

Art is subjective, what you call art may not be art for other people, and vice versa.

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

Exactly

Great video. Eggleston's a weird one for me - I find that I appreciate his intention and process more than the results. "Guide" was the first photo book I purchased where I was kinda disappointed at the end. But somehow I'm still a fan?

@developingtank

6 күн бұрын

I’m pretty much where you’re at with his work, but I appreciate the photos in the context of the time and place they’re taken.

Thanks a lot. Reminds me to by a book from him.

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

So many choices

I love your video! I hope for more Eggleston content like this ! Cheers man!

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

Another different Eggleston based video is coming soon. Thanks for checking it out!

Great insights! Love how you put this together. Nice presentation and really informational 🙌

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

Thanks so much!

Great, information dense video here. And interesting/thought-provoking info too. I've never really made up my mind about William Eggleston. I really like balanced photos like HCB's, and often think that Eggleston was aiming for that but didn't really have an eye for composition. Many of his pics look way off to me eg the pic at 7:06 and the one after. Also, the way the colour of the film emulsions is rendered adds a lot to the photos. If many of his shots were taken on a smartphone, I wonder if they'd still have any charm/mystery/atmosphere? I really enjoyed the video, anyway, and can see that you must have put a lot of work into it. Well done. Subbed.

@developingtank

5 ай бұрын

Thanks a lot for the detailed comment. I often wonder if the greats would be held in such high regard if they were taking photos with modern technology. I find that there are a lot of street photographers these days who make technically excellent work, but that it doesn’t have a lot of that same charm for whatever reason. Definitely a topic we could speculate on forever without coming to a solid resolution. Thanks for the sub and kind words 🙏

@m.s.g1890

5 ай бұрын

Yes, absolutely agree. Martin Parr's work has never had the same feel since he quit the colour film with flash combo. Highly saturated film with it's own colour characteristics + flash is really like adding special effects to each photo. Thanks for the reply, and keep it up, friend!@@developingtank

@developingtank

5 ай бұрын

Sorry, didn't see this until now. I haven't seen Martin Parr's work outside of his more iconic stuff with his signature style. Going to look into it now. @@m.s.g1890

Great episode.

@developingtank

5 ай бұрын

Appreciate it 🫡

Excellent video. Subscribed!

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

Thank you 🫡

Most people nowadays only want the lastest New Camera coming out and they forget about old cameras that can take Insane Outstanding pictures. They think New Cameras it's always the Best. I never Understand these People mentality.

@developingtank

5 ай бұрын

I see a lot of camera talk without seeing a lot of photos. I don’t understand these people either.

Claiming your photography is the only thing worth to look at when all you do is take mundane landscape shots is pretty bold 😅

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

lmao I thought the same thing

@adama4791

3 күн бұрын

TLDR: I think his statement is saying my work is worthwhile and I (eggleston) like it, not my work is the ONLY worthy work I think a more charitable reading of the exact quote isn’t quite so bold. “Half of what’s out there is worthless” implies half (or some decent portion has worth). Something can have worth but you still don’t like it. Therefore I feel like you can disconnect that statement from “the only work I like is my own”.

@developingtank

3 күн бұрын

This is the New York Times interview it’s taken from for context. It seems clear that he isn’t saying generously that half of all photography is good by saying half is worthless. It’s a statement that slacks off most photography… “I mention that for decades people have studied his compositions, the geometry of his images, which seem to grow more complex the more you look. But this sort of analysis of his work strikes Eggleston as “nonsense.” Photography is second nature to him - intuitive not analytical. “I know they’re there, the angles and compositions,” he says. “Every little minute thing works with every other one there. All of these images are composed. They’re little paintings to me.” But one wouldn’t call him a fan, exactly, of photography. “Oh, half of what’s out there is worthless,” he scoffs. “The only pictures I like are the ones I’ve taken.” In a way, somebody like Ansel Adams strikes me as the very antithesis of Eggleston, so I ask what he thinks of him. “We didn’t know each other,” he says, “but if we did, I’d tell him the same thing: ‘I hate your work.’ ” I had read, though, that he admired Henri Cartier-Bresson, the French photographer famed for his work capturing “the decisive moment,” who said one thing Eggleston recalls with fondness: “You know, William, color is bullshit.” I ask if the remark dented his confidence. “Oh, no. I just said, ‘Please excuse me,’ and left the table. I went to another table and partied.””

when one is famous, everything one shoot seem easily be regarded artistic or great.

@developingtank

4 күн бұрын

I guess that answers why they’re famous in the first place, aye?

How about the colour photography of Saul Leiter and Ernst Haas? As well as S.M. Prokhudin-Gorski and Autochrome.

@developingtank

8 күн бұрын

How about them? What’s your point?

@arneheeringa96

8 күн бұрын

@@developingtank it sounded like Eggleston was the first colour photographer, which he wasn't. I saw you have made films about Leiter and Haas, which I found through the search button. I didn't find films about Prokhudin-Gorski or the Autochrome Photographers (there was a project of documenting the world which photographs are now in a museum in Paris). Would this be interesting for you to make a film about?

@developingtank

8 күн бұрын

@arneheeringa96 ah, potentially. I’ll look into it. Usually it comes down to how difficult they’ll be to research.

@arneheeringa96

8 күн бұрын

@@developingtank That would be wonderful. Thorough research is always a problem. Do you know Daniel Minor's channel? He always stresses the importance to do thorough research.

@developingtank

8 күн бұрын

@arneheeringa96 I’m not familiar with

"I still use Film, I never use Digital. It's Not the waiting process of Film that I like. I have a lot of Digital Cameras but I never use them..." William Eggleston

@developingtank

5 ай бұрын

🖖

That Detroit flag, are you from the area?

@developingtank

8 күн бұрын

Originally, yes, but I haven’t lived there for nearly a decade

I’d argue Saul Leiter was the “father” of color photography

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

Watch my Saul Leiter video for the counter argument.

@kronkite1530

12 күн бұрын

I love Leiter’s work, as with Haas, Herzog and Gruyert, but Keld Helmer Peterson pre-dates all, publishing the fantastic “122 Color Photographs” made in the 1940s. Would be a great subject, given his long and very varied career.

😎📸👍🌟🌟🌟🌟🌟

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

🫡🫡🫡🫡

His work is great but man does he sound like a jerk.

@developingtank

6 ай бұрын

That’s how I felt doing the research for this video. There was one article that pointed out that he is always written that way, but is really charismatic. So, it’s kind of hard to really know either way.