>Eggleston's pictures are in perhaps in part compelling because they >have so little representational content.
Which ones ? Because when you talk about his work in an
encompassing m,anner, you are covering a lot of ground. The
man has been unbelievably productive over a long time, and
whose work has covered a lot of conceptual ground.
>Even though they are ordinarily recognizable images of something, >and hence in that sense not abstract, what they depict is frequently >not very meaningful.
There's plenty of imagery that has clear documentarian
aspects, but it is difficult to accept his concept of the "democratic
eye". I suspect it is rooted in Eastern philosophy, and linked
to HCB's philosophy. He was also a good friend of Garry Winogrand's,
and Lee Friedlander, but he is not a mere fusion of these greats.
Instead, very much someone who developed in relative cultural
isolation who made trips to NY, etc., and established relationships
with major figures outside his baliwick (region), his own man,
and more of a synthesis, less derivative.
>You are left with something that is mainly about marks on a page.
It's all marks on a page, but I know what you mean.
>Essentially they are abstract, even though they look as if they ought >to be representational.
His work reminds me of Karl Blossfeldt's. It is very formal, but
IMO has definite content. It is definitely concerned with the
is-ness of things (a la Huxley).
>It's apparently hard for people to give up on meaning in this context. >I wonder if perhaps some of the loneliness and longing that John >refers to, and which I see , too, is really lack of meaning that looks >as if it were lack of emotional content?
There is no lack of emotional content in W.E."s work. It is
fairl well dripping with passion.
>I've noticed something similar in my own pictures and suspect that >(aside from the fact that I am unfeeling SOB!) it has some relation to >a peculiarity in my vision. I'm talking eyes here
W.E.'s genius is not due to optical problems. The man has
considered and studied art in depth, addressed many concerns,
and pushed the envelope relentlessly.
>Anyway, I have much less tendency than a lot of people to try to >evoke dimensionality in a photograph. I find I often tend to arrange >things in flat layers rather than spread out through the space. I also >find that I treat things as not real fairly easily, and often >unconsciously.
I find this the rule, not the exception, in most people's
compositional strategies (a way of imposing order),
and if you look at the history of painting/photography,
you will see this tendency is common, to get locked
into the plane of the surface of the canvas, or film plane.
Specially wih photography, where monocular vision tends
to be the rule, not the exception.
--- Luis
