DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Tips, Tricks, and Q&A >> Analysis Request 01
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 46 of 46, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 09/10/2002 03:50:15 PM · #26
I have continued to look... This photo doesn't speak to me. I don't like the lignting, the colors, the composition, or anything about it.

Please enlighten us on this one...
 09/10/2002 03:55:23 PM · #27
the shape of the bright area on the back wall appears to be the reflection of the water in the tub, which looks to be almost full - the light at the top of the frame is aimed down into the tub

to me, the picture says "I'm old and lonely"

I don't clean up the place like I did when my spouse was still alive, or when friends would come over. One of the fews joys I have left is relaxing in the tub.
 09/10/2002 06:12:55 PM · #28
man, i sure didn't mean to kill off this thread ...
 09/10/2002 06:24:45 PM · #29
So what was the thinking...or the idea behind this shot? IMHO this is not good 'art'. I don't like anything I'm seeing. However......!! I'm willing to learn if I'm that far out of the LOOP.

find what if anything the photographer is trying to tell the viewer, or what the photographer has conveyed to you {I'm lost} Justine


* This message has been edited by the author on 9/10/2002 6:23:48 PM.
 09/11/2002 12:24:38 AM · #30
Thanks to the people who responded. I understand that this photograph can be hard to interpret. Partly because at the time it was taken no art photography was done in color (color photography was strictly a commercial enterprise at the time), so mearly having an artistic color photo was a huge departure from the norm. In addition the photographer took photos of the ordinary, raising them to the artistic another departure from the prevailing norm of the time (1970s) although some photographers had been shooting the ordinary in b&w.


Personally I have trouble approaching this photo as well, I don't feel terribly qualified to render judgement on it but I'll give my admittedly amatur and personal views. Its also hard for me to separate the interpretation of this photo from the other work by the photographer which I enjoy as well, but I'll give it a shot.

Color is central to the photo. There's no way to miss the bold and vibrant expression of GREEN everywhere in the frame (even the untiled area have a slight green cast to them). Its a wonderful study in green, all shades and saturations. In addition the composition of the photo seems carefully chosen with pleasant divisions of the space of the photo.


Additionally on the interpretation side I agree with aelith's first instinct that it is a private place exposed to the lens. It is also an ordinary place exposed. It is not a place like Adam's wide western ranges or mountains, but similar to places we experience everyday but a carefully chosen version decided upon by the photographer.

I also see how its confining because of the large dark areas on either side of the photo pushing the view back to the center.

I also immediately thought of a triptych because of the bright arched center wall. This of course was followed by thinking of any religious overtones the photo might have. The three bright highlights on the back wall as well as the three shadowy areas on the greenish-white wall above suggest the trinity. The reflection of the light off of the side walls forms the wonderful shadow pattern on the rear wall which suggests an opening gate. These things are just suggested to me mostly from my initial impression of the composition as a triptych. Of course the shower may just be a shower (ie cigar = cigar) but thats the impression I get from it.

Here are some links to some descriptions of Eggleston's large body of work, which was a very important turning point to push color photography as an artistic medium named by many because of this as the Father of color photography.

Hayward Gallery Exhibition

A Salon Article on Eggleston

A review of the Hayward Exhibition

The Getty Collection of his work (where I linked the image from)

His "Masters of Photography" page

Finally I'll let him speak of his own work though one of his quotes:

"I am afraid that there are more people than I can imagine who can go no further than appreciating a picture that is a rectangle with an object in the middle of it, which they can identify. They don't care what is around the object as long as nothing interferes with the object itself, right in the centre. Even after the lessons of Winogrand and Friedlander, they don't get it . . . They want something obvious. The blindness is always apparent when someone lets slip the word `snapshot.' Ignorance can always be covered by `snapshot.' The word has never had any meaning. I am at war with the obvious."--William Eggleston
 09/11/2002 05:16:59 AM · #31
It is obvious puppet that you have an art history project due and need some input or are just plain bored. I gotta agree with Zeiss here... the picture is real yucky. It would look great hung in say, a closet or something. so who wins anyway?
 09/11/2002 05:49:15 AM · #32
Originally posted by inspzil:
It is obvious puppet that you have an art history project due and need some input or are just plain bored. I gotta agree with Zeiss here... the picture is real yucky. It would look great hung in say, a closet or something. so who wins anyway?

What on earth made you say that? This is a photo by a well known artist, who is included among the "masters of photography". It has no doubt been exhibited in many art galleries, and belongs in private collections. Puppet was just continuing along the same lines as jmsetzler and I have done in discussing works of art in the forums.

The fact that this is by a recognised artist doesn't mean you have to like it or you're somehow in error, but something I'd like people to realise is that art is not just about pretty things. It's about exploring the human condition, trying out new ideas, sometimes provoking people (as Eggleston seems to have done for many years).


* This message has been edited by the author on 9/11/2002 5:53:29 AM.
 09/11/2002 05:59:51 AM · #33
Actually, this has been a really cool discussion. Eggleston took a photo of a bathroom because he liked to exhibit images of everyday things and surroundings. If you look at the reactions to it, you see some people who wonder why on earth you would want to look at a photo of something so mundane, while others took the opportunity to think about what bathrooms mean to us and what roles they play in our lives, and others looked at the light and shapes of the ordinary things in this photo and found something interesting and new (the reflections, the composition, etc.).

Art is about reactions like these. There's no right or wrong.
 09/11/2002 09:54:27 AM · #34
To me this is still a snapshot no matter who took it. Anybody with a camera could take this picture. Just because this guy was an established "artist" does not art it make, imo. The art world for years has been more about notoriety and controversy than actual talent, imo. You don't really have to have any talent to be an artist you just have to have the (excuse me) balls to submit a piece of crap and call it art. I looked at some other images by this guy and I am not at all impressed. Everything I saw looked like snapshots and vacation photos. I understand that maybe this was his intention. The only thing that impresses me about this guy is that he had the guts to try to present this stuff as art. If he had some obvious mastering of the craft of photography and this was just a style he was pursuing, I might be able to understand this more, although I doubt it. I hope I am not offending anyone with my opinions. Thats all they are are my opinions. They don't mean much in the whole scheme of things.
 09/11/2002 09:58:06 AM · #35
I agree Lisae that this is a cool discussion. I like discussions like this and even looking at photos that I might not find appealing..I might even find the image pisses me off BUT that means something too.

But William Eggleston sorta made me laugh when he was quoted "He was at war with the obvious". The obvious to whom? He was at war with the "popular opinion of the time" like many artists are. The obvious is dependent on your perspective. Him railing against the word "snapshot" is also interesting. It strikes me as an artist who felt trapped by current trends but wanted acknowledgement of his work by those same people.

He'd fit right in here >:-D

* This message has been edited by the author on 9/11/2002 9:56:53 AM.
 09/11/2002 10:53:31 AM · #36
Originally posted by puppet10:
Finally I'll let him speak of his own work though one of his quotes...

Puppet,

Well composed thoughts. I wonder if you any any info on the artist's thoughts on this particular shot though, rather than on his work as a whole?

Dawn
 09/11/2002 11:17:33 AM · #37
Originally posted by goodtimecharlee:
To me this is still a snapshot no matter who took it. Anybody with a camera could take this picture. Just because this guy was an established "artist" does not art it make, imo. The art world for years has been more about notoriety and controversy than actual talent, imo. You don't really have to have any talent to be an artist you just have to have the (excuse me) balls to submit a piece of crap and call it art. I looked at some other images by this guy and I am not at all impressed. Everything I saw looked like snapshots and vacation photos. I understand that maybe this was his intention. The only thing that impresses me about this guy is that he had the guts to try to present this stuff as art. If he had some obvious mastering of the craft of photography and this was just a style he was pursuing, I might be able to understand this more, although I doubt it. I hope I am not offending anyone with my opinions. Thats all they are are my opinions. They don't mean much in the whole scheme of things.

Actually when he took this and many of his other shots he was not an established artist at all. This and the photographs like it in his early work werent really seen until his exhibition at MoMA. He's the antithesis of most modern artists, he doesn't try to explain his work - he wants the viewer to approach it for him/herself. His notoriety derives almost entirely from others praising his work, not self agrandisement.

His argument against calling a photo a snapshot was because by saying that about photos allows you to escape thinking about the image more deeply. By labeling an image a snapshot it categorizes it as something simple that anyone can do. Are you sure that anyone can take pictures of this caliber of ordinary scenes? Art can be in the ordinary, just because the object in the photo is an everyday object or scene doesn't mean that skill wasn't required to compose the image and thought wasn't put into the meaning the photographer wanted to convey.

The question I'll pose to you however is why do these photos seem nothing more than snapshots to you? Is it that the subject matter is ordinary? Can art be in an ordinary scene, or must it be something exraordinary?

I'm not offended by your opinion, only trying to question how it was formed.
 09/11/2002 11:22:42 AM · #38
My thoughts on why this photo could be considered a snapshot is because it doesn't seem to hold any creative effort or any 'wow' factor for me. The perspective is uninteresting... The lighting is standard camera flash... and the subject just doesn't interest me...

You mentioned 'of that caliber' in your comments... by that, I assume that you hold this photo in high regard... Tell us what it is about this photo that you find so fascinating? Is your appeal based in subject or technique or a combination of both?
 09/11/2002 11:24:46 AM · #39
Originally posted by hokie:
But William Eggleston sorta made me laugh when he was quoted "He was at war with the obvious".

I think this might have been tongue in cheek based on his nature and his subject matter.

Him railing against the word "snapshot" is also interesting. It strikes me as an artist who felt trapped by current trends but wanted acknowledgement of his work by those same people.

Perhaps I think it might have been more about people being dissmissive of the work because of the ordniary-ness of the subject matter than wanting acknowledgement. He had plenty of acknowledgement by critics and artists alike. I think it might have been more about people dismissing the image outright purely becasue of the subject matter and that it was in color.
 09/11/2002 11:27:18 AM · #40
Words are just that until they are manipulated to mean something.

The word snapshot to me can mean artsy in a very basic level or it can be used as a slight to quickly dismiss something you dont understand.

I think I used the word snapshot in my original post but as a way to describe a feeling..not the quality of the work.

Of course..back in Egglestons day snapshot was a slap...today..it can mean many things.

I think Eggelston epitomizes the snapshot ARTIST. He even says so in his own description of his work. He says he never looks for secondary angles or takes more than one photo of a subject. It is what it is. This defines snapshot to me. But..a snapshot, if looked at on its very basic meaning is just a brief grab of a moment in time...and I think Eggleston would agree with that assessment of his attack.

Anyway..this artist was railing against the "artsy" photography of his day that concentrated on black and white technical shots. Poloroids were becoming extremely popular and many serious artists saw color photography as common. Egglestons whole life was trying to go against the trends but yet he craved the art world attention it seems..by the way he initially went after the gallery owners....

Interesting man for sure :-)
 09/11/2002 11:49:38 AM · #41

Actually when he took this and many of his other shots he was not an established artist at all. This and the photographs like it in his early work werent really seen until his exhibition at MoMA. He's the antithesis of most modern artists, he doesn't try to explain his work - he wants the viewer to approach it for him/herself. His notoriety derives almost entirely from others praising his work, not self agrandisement.

His argument against calling a photo a snapshot was because by saying that about photos allows you to escape thinking about the image more deeply. By labeling an image a snapshot it categorizes it as something simple that anyone can do. Are you sure that anyone can take pictures of this caliber of ordinary scenes? Art can be in the ordinary, just because the object in the photo is an everyday object or scene doesn't mean that skill wasn't required to compose the image and thought wasn't put into the meaning the photographer wanted to convey.

The question I'll pose to you however is why do these photos seem nothing more than snapshots to you? Is it that the subject matter is ordinary? Can art be in an ordinary scene, or must it be something exraordinary?

I'm not offended by your opinion, only trying to question how it was formed.[/i]

text

Are you sure that anyone can take pictures of this caliber of ordinary scenes?
Pretty much. He clearly has not put much thought into the technical aspects of composing these photos. I think he would do pretty poorly in the dpchallenge. Everyweek we have a 150 more images that are more interesting than his.

I agree art can be in the ordinary. That is actually my prefrence to shoot. I do believe you can document the ordinary and at the same time produce a quality image and present it in an interesting way.

Maybe he should just be considered an artist and not a photographer. Perhaps he has no great fondness for photography and he is just trying to capture a single moment and photography is the easiest way to do that. This could be backed up by the fact that he says he only takes one photo of any scene. I myself take several shots of any scene trying to find the best way to present it.

Artist? maybe. Master photographer? I dont think so. I think you have to have some kind of grasp on the craft of photography to be considered a master photographer not just a vision.

I hope I don't sound like a prude here. I really like photography that breaks the typical rules but I still have to see some creativity and something interesting. This guys images don't call me back to look at them again.
 09/11/2002 12:39:50 PM · #42
This has been a very interesting thread. I still feel this an ambitious and failed snapshot. Comparing this picture with that beautiful b&w picture of a toilet, taken by Weston ????? (please correct me if I'm wrong) and this picture doesn't fare well in the comparison.

At times it's very hard to define what's art or to accept what art critics perceive it. For instance, when you walk in a museum and you see an "installation" that consists of nothing more than a little heap of coal on the floor in a huge empty space, most people, including me, react with an "oh come, please, don't put rubbish like that in a museum". Recently I heard Jeff Koontz (sp?) described as one of the major artists of the 20th century; his work seems pure Kitsch to me.

This was fun, Puppet.
 09/11/2002 12:42:41 PM · #43
all avant gard artist can only be appreciated in their historical framework. Our expectations for color photography have so far outpaced Egglestons's that we can touch the moon. In his day he broke a mold. He called attention to new possibilities. He was just a master of the candid object. ;)

What was illuminating to me about the quote was They don't care what is around the object as long as nothing interferes with the object itself, right in the centre. There is next to nothing in the center of that picture compared to the richness of color shape texture space and values in the 'frame.' Several people supposed an arched window but I think that is just the way the cielling curved. Visualize instead a fully illuminated manuscript with it's text scrped off.

BTW, though I have analized this from every angle I still do not care for the picture. You don't have to like something (someone) before you can bother to try to undertand it (them). and that doesn't mean you have to like it when you are done.

aelith
 09/11/2002 12:45:53 PM · #44
Oh and thank you puppet 10 for this fascinating thread. A.
 09/11/2002 01:38:08 PM · #45
Originally posted by lisae:
Actually, this has been a really cool discussion. Eggleston took a photo of a bathroom because he liked to exhibit images of everyday things and surroundings. If you look at the reactions to it, you see some people who wonder why on earth you would want to look at a photo of something so mundane, while others took the opportunity to think about what bathrooms mean to us and what roles they play in our lives, and others looked at the light and shapes of the ordinary things in this photo and found something interesting and new (the reflections, the composition, etc.).

Art is about reactions like these. There's no right or wrong.


Okay, Okay, Okay.....
To me, it could be at a garage sale for $0.50 and I wouldn't buy it. Just because a photographer, well-known or like me, takes a picture doesn't mean it's some work of art, in everyone's eyes.


09/11/2002 03:02:07 PM · #46
Originally posted by inspzil:
Originally posted by lisae:
[i]Actually, this has been a really cool discussion. Eggleston took a photo of a bathroom because he liked to exhibit images of everyday things and surroundings. If you look at the reactions to it, you see some people who wonder why on earth you would want to look at a photo of something so mundane, while others took the opportunity to think about what bathrooms mean to us and what roles they play in our lives, and others looked at the light and shapes of the ordinary things in this photo and found something interesting and new (the reflections, the composition, etc.).

Art is about reactions like these. There's no right or wrong.


Okay, Okay, Okay.....
To me, it could be at a garage sale for $0.50 and I wouldn't buy it. Just because a photographer, well-known or like me, takes a picture doesn't mean it's some work of art, in everyone's eyes.


[/i]

46 Posts x Stautory Rate (2 cents) = $0.92

So we've already gotten a bargain! You don't have to consider any particular piece to have "artistic merit" in order to discuss it in an artistic context, or to practice your analytical and descriptive skills.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/19/2025 09:03:51 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/19/2025 09:03:51 AM EDT.