Fiction writer and off-and-on art critic Jim Lewis has an essay on William Eggleston's photography on Slate. The essay's informative but contains some theoretical bugs; there's also a whiff of art world mythmaking hanging over everything that I wish wasn't. I annotated the article with some annoyed comments in boldface here. The following is a sample paragraph (my apologies to Lewis, if he ever reads this, for the pissed off tone; I just reacted and don't feel like doing heavy revision):
In a way, Eggleston did for color photography what the Dutch Masters of genre did for painting in the 16th and 17th centuries: He took it out of the hands of the wealthy institutions that had sponsored it (fashion magazines and advertising agencies in the one case, the church in the other) and turned it into an expression of the everyday. [Oh, come on! As if every American didn't own a color camera in 1976. The problem was that curators thought color was too everyday--a point Lewis makes earlier in the essay. What's with this "wealthy institutions" stuff? This is a strained art historical metaphor.] It is not so far, after all, from the vulgar to the vernacular: Eggleston bridged the gap, and in doing so delivered color back into the hands of art. [Surely Eastman Kodak, if anyone, took color from wealthy institutions and put it into the hands of ordinary people. What Eggleston did, supposedly, was then legitimize that banal enterprise as capital-A art. Except he didn't really--his printing, scale, and attention to detail made it a different level of activity than snapshots dropped off at the drugstore. Also, "bridging the gap between the vulgar and the vernacular" is about as meaningful a pursuit as "bridging the gap between the naked and the nude."]
At my last place of employment, an abstract silkscreen print by "William Eggleston" from the early '70s hung in a hallway--a series of vertical stripes a la Morris Louis. I'm pretty sure it was the same William Eggleston--I remember hearing that he did that type of work at one point--but I can't find any info about this phase of the artist's career on google. Can anyone post or send me a link, or other data about this?
sorry, off topic, but i thought for sure if you were talking about yesterdays slate and serious horse manure you were thinking of tim noahs droppings. anybody that a) thought hussein didnt have wmd and b) was swayed by powell is a liar or an idiot.
It's even worse than that. His argument is: "Bush drew a line in the dirt. It would have been better if he'd kept evidence that Saddam crossed the line secret, but now that it's out (in Powell's speech to the UN), we have to go forward or lose credibility." I'm sure there's a name for the logical fallacy employed here. To get back on topic (sort of) by using the vulgar/vernacular, "What a dipshit."
his opinions are colored and his conclusions are so blantantly black and white. the riddle is - how is it that hes read all over?
|
Fiction writer and off-and-on art critic Jim Lewis has an essay on William Eggleston's photography on Slate. The essay's informative but contains some theoretical bugs; there's also a whiff of art world mythmaking hanging over everything that I wish wasn't. I annotated the article with some annoyed comments in boldface here. The following is a sample paragraph (my apologies to Lewis, if he ever reads this, for the pissed off tone; I just reacted and don't feel like doing heavy revision): At my last place of employment, an abstract silkscreen print by "William Eggleston" from the early '70s hung in a hallway--a series of vertical stripes a la Morris Louis. I'm pretty sure it was the same William Eggleston--I remember hearing that he did that type of work at one point--but I can't find any info about this phase of the artist's career on google. Can anyone post or send me a link, or other data about this?
- tom moody 2-12-2003 12:48 am
sorry, off topic, but i thought for sure if you were talking about yesterdays slate and serious horse manure you were thinking of tim noahs droppings. anybody that a) thought hussein didnt have wmd and b) was swayed by powell is a liar or an idiot.
- dave 2-12-2003 1:16 am
It's even worse than that. His argument is: "Bush drew a line in the dirt. It would have been better if he'd kept evidence that Saddam crossed the line secret, but now that it's out (in Powell's speech to the UN), we have to go forward or lose credibility." I'm sure there's a name for the logical fallacy employed here. To get back on topic (sort of) by using the vulgar/vernacular, "What a dipshit."
- tom moody 2-12-2003 1:29 am
his opinions are colored and his conclusions are so blantantly black and white. the riddle is - how is it that hes read all over?
- dave 2-12-2003 1:58 am