Do any of you care very much for William Eggleston's stuff. I have heard he is a big Leica man. If so, does anybody know what he uses? or not?

-- Hyatt Lee (shahmat@ms63.hinet.net), April 22, 2002

Answers

I could be wrong but I think Eggleston's work is shot with a Hasselblad. There was a book called Eggleston 2 1/4.

-- chris a williams (LeicaChris@worldnet.att.net), April 22, 2002.

He shoots with a wide variety of cameras depending on mood and subject. He recently shot some stuff with an Olympus Stylus point and shoot. How about that, Leicaphiles!

-- Christopher Goodwin (christopher.goodwin@gte.net), April 22, 2002.

Most of his most famous stuff was in fact shot with Leicas. The 2 1/4 book was earlier work.

-- Mark C (markci@yahoo.com), April 22, 2002.

Most of it with leicas. In the last page of one of his books he is shown holding one of those old leica Ms that people in this forum could distinguish 50m away, but I don't recognize. His 6x6 photographs with Hasselblad I think, but there are not many of them - one of his books is devoted to the saure format. Recently he went to Japan and used a Fuji 6x9 -the pictures could be seen in a very good retrospective exhibition in Paris just before Christmas.

-- miguel (miguel.jimenez@oecd.org), April 23, 2002.

Yes! I love his work. He is a genius! The term "genius" is thrown around way too often, but with Eggleston it is totally appropriate.

He did do a 2 1/4 book with a hassy. But, most of his work is 35mm. In a recent issue of Aperture (issue 165) he told the interviewer that he shot 1/3 with a Leica 1/3 with a Contax and 1/3 with a Pentax. In particular I think he was referring to a recent stack of prints on the table, but perhaps the statement generalizes.

There are some good photos of his available at masters-of- photography.com. Here's a link (I hope I don't botch it)

link

FYI, he's super cool. In addition to being a brilliant photographer, he composes, and designs speakers. How cool is that? And his interviews reveal and keen intellect. He rocks!

-Ramy

-- Ramy (rsadek@cs.oberlin.edu), April 23, 2002.

IMO he's freed himself of the conventions and traditions of photography - it's cliches and formulas of composition and subject matter - to produce a totaly unique body of work. He is, in his own words, "at war with the obvious" - and he's winning !

-- John Griffin (john.griffin@millerhare.com), April 23, 2002.

"He's at war with the obvious..."

And he's boring, boring, boring.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), April 23, 2002.

"And he's boring, boring, boring. " - most good works of creative endevour will to a large extent reflect the sensitivities and perceptions of the veiwer.

-- John Griffin (john.griffin@millerhare.com), April 23, 2002.

Eggleston is one of a rare breed of photographers that have a unique view of the world. In his latest book, a hardbound collection of many photographs from all his 'essays' (ISBN 0-500-97496-9)he says he mainly uses Contax G2, M6, M3, and R5, CanonVT and other rangefinders.Additionally a Pentax SLR, Olympus Stylus Epic, Mamiya 6x9, Fuji GW690, and a 'blad. He mostly uses a 50mm lens on the 35mm cameras, and 80-100 on the 6x9 format. I would recommend this book highly, but only if you are willing to have your photographic eye refreshed.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), April 23, 2002.

Whether "at war with the obvious" or boring is up to the individual. I'd say fans of Martin Parr would like his stuff judging from the (admittedly) small number I looked at.

-- Tim Franklin (tim_franklin@mac.com), April 23, 2002.

>> FYI, he's super cool. In addition to being a brilliant photographer, he composes, and designs speakers. How cool is that?

Ramy:

Are you sure about that? What's the name(s) of his speakers? I'd love to check them out.

Is it possible you are confusing Eggleston with Dr. Bruce Edgar's Edgarhorn speakers?

-- Kent Phelan (kent@phelan.org), April 23, 2002.

I read an interview with him, in which he talked about his SONS who design high-end stereo speakers.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 23, 2002.

And he's boring...

Well, maybe his books aren't 500 photos of Rock City barns, but he's not the father of color photography for nothing.

-- mark ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), April 23, 2002.

I'm a lover of Eggleston's work, and I'm surprised to see so many other guys who like him, too. I understand those who find his stuff banal. He's not looking to make every shot a perfect interpretation of a grand subject, which I guess is what some folks think photography is for. When I saw the cover of Democratic Forest, I thought, 'there's a kindred spirit.' It got me taking pictures again after tens years of neglect. Now, rather than trying not to immitate Harry Callahan, I try not to immitate Eggleston.

Thanks for the news of a new book - gotta find it.

The speakers in question are called Eggleston Works (http://www.egglestonworks.com/). Very highly regarded, very expensive, but I haven't heard one (review: http://www.stereophile.com/fullarchives.cgi?237). I think the company was the project of his sons, but I heard something about business problems and the company may not belong to them any more. (Hope I'm wrong.) Mr. E himself is an audiophile of the old school, from the era when achieving the best sound required building or modifing the stuff yourself.

At the back of Democratic Forest is a picture of him holding a Leica III? with what looks like a 50mm f/2 on it. He said that early on he used a 35mm mostly, but gradually moved to the 50mm. Not surprising, since he likes to use a range of different cameras. Origionally, all the exhibition printing was done via dye transfer, from what look like chromes. Later, he's used color neg and often likes the softness on standard c prints. He apparently shoots an incredible volume of film, and has it run at a minilab!

Hope the above is on track - recalled from book essays and that good article in the recent issue of Aperture. Anyway, what a cool guy. Would love to go to Memphis and have a beer with him.

-- Carl Pultz (cpultz@earthlink.net), April 23, 2002.

Thank you for your kind remark, John. My opinion of Eggleston's work is the same as those held by such great color photographers as Ernst Haas and Burt Glinn, who described Eggleston's work as "crap" and "banal."

My guess is that you won't even know who those people are.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), April 23, 2002.

"My guess is that you won't even know who those people are" - you guessed wrong - Glinn and Hass belong to the very fine and long tradition of documentary photography - Eggleston plays a different game in a different ball park - not better(or worse)just different. If Hass and Glinn did indeed refer to Egglestones work in such terms it reflects a very narrow view of the photographic world on their part.

-- John Griffin (john.griffin@millerhare.com), April 23, 2002.

"...but he's not the father of color photography for nothing."

That was the opinion of John Zarkowski of MOMA, who gave Eggleston his first major exhibition, and was received with widespread unbelief in the photographic community. With one stroke, Szarkowski dismissed as nothing the work of the many, many *genuinely* good color photographers before Eggleston. To call him the "father of color photography" is ludicrous on its face.

If you like Eggleston's work, enjoy. He has a very specific philosophic viewpoint -- that the world is a banal place -- which he articulates in his photographs very well. But when post-modernism is replaced by the next wave of philosophy, whatever it may be, Eggleston and his pictures will be buried by history like Salieri.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), April 23, 2002.

John, Haas was documentary only in his early work. He was a pioneer of the interpretive, poetic use of color photography. (See his bull-fight essay in "Life" in the 50s, or his book "The Creation," which may still be in print.)

It was work such as this that Szarkowski dissmissed as nothing when he labeled Eggleston "the father of color photography."

If you think Haas and Glinn were narrow in their view of Eggleston's work, please understand that it was the view of almost the entire photographic community. The poor, benighted souls were hooked on the idea that photography ought to mean something.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), April 23, 2002.

Art is so subjective... what some call banal, others call brilliant. Couple that with tastes that change over time and there really is no accounting for it.... I personally, love Eggleston, Diane Arbus, and the like. People who see beauty in the mundane fascinate me.

-- Bob (bobflores@attbi.com), April 23, 2002.

Eggleston doesn't believe the world is a banal place. He showed the 99% of the world other photographer ignore in their search for subjects that are conventionally photogenic and let people draw their own conclusions. If you think the day-to-day world is ugly or banal, that's on you.

-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), April 23, 2002.

Don't put it off on me, Mark. I don't think the world is a banal place, and my photographs show that. But Eggleston's photographs show the world as a banal place.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), April 23, 2002.

Nope, they just show it as it is.

-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), April 23, 2002.

I don't think we're going to be able to reach any kind of agreement on this one, Mark.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), April 23, 2002.

As a colour snapper myself, I'm very intrigued by Eggleston. What he does is very hard to do and very hard to pigeonhole. Sometimes it works and often it doesn't, IMO.

Szarkowski was often right (or at least fruitfully wrong) in his ex catedra judgements, and I suspect that what he meant by calling Eggleston the FCP was that in his work (when it works) colour is the way the world presents itself immediately to our gaze. It isn't decorative, and it isn't an adjunct - it's something like the ding an sich made visible. I certainly have a higher regard for Eggles than Haas - I'm not very familiar with Burt Glinn, who I know is a head honcho.

On the other hand, I do think Eggles has a high failure rate. But that's natural and right for a visionary.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 23, 2002.

BTW - I would say that the Creation is one of the all time superficial photography books, only second to the Family of Man.

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 23, 2002.

As usual, we're at opposite ends of the spectrum, Rob. But I do like your photos, and regardless of what you say you think, they are much more in the tradition of the great color photographers so haughtily dissmissed by Szarkowski than in the Eggleston genre.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), April 23, 2002.

Yeah, I don't like it much, either. But, his flower pictures are stunning. Saw prints of them that looked three dimensional. He gave a talk and show at RIT just a few months before his death. I remember Haas as a no-nosense kinda guy.

-- Carl Pultz (cpultz@earthlink.net), April 23, 2002.

I think Eggleston's accolade as the Father of Color Photography stems mainly from his having been the FIRST color photographer to have a show at the Museum of Modern Art.

His show marked the art/critical world's "acceptance" of color as a viable endeavor in photography. Plenty of people shot color before him, some famously. But none got the notoriety for it that he did.

-- Preston Merchant (merchant@speakeasy.org), April 23, 2002.

Sheesh! That's "no nonsense."

-- Carl Pultz (cpultz@earthlink.net), April 23, 2002.

I generally agree with Dave Jenkins here - I'm sure I've seen better, more interesting shots than Eggleston's (say) Shoes under bed

And people call this "genius"?... :?Q

-- Andrew Nemeth (azn@nemeng.com), April 23, 2002.

"As usual, we're at opposite ends of the spectrum, Rob. But I do like your photos, and regardless of what you say you think, they are much more in the tradition of the great color photographers so haughtily dissmissed by Szarkowski than in the Eggleston genre."

Unfortunately, Dave, you're quite right. I don't have what Eggleston has.

I agree that shoes under bed is an appalling gobbling turkey of a shot!

-- rob (rob@robertappleby.com), April 23, 2002.

"Unfortunately, Dave, you're quite right. I don't have what Eggleston has."

It's easy, Rob. Just close your eyes, spin around three times, open your eyes and click on the first thing you see.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), April 23, 2002.

I love Egglestone's work. And I love also Martin Parr's work. cheers Michael

-- Michael Wildi (michaelwildi@yahoo.com), April 23, 2002.

"Just close your eyes, spin around three times, open your eyes and click on the first thing you see." -- Dave Jenkins

"A young photographer talked to me one day about his desire to liberate himself from his own sense of composition. I understood his problem as we all would love sometimes to be free from our own knowledge...I advised him to photograph with his eyes closed, just using his ears for direction." -- Ernst Haas

-- Mark Ciccarello (mark@ciccarello.com), April 23, 2002.

Touche' Mark. Hoist on my own pitard.

-- Dave Jenkins (djphoto@vol.com), April 23, 2002.