>>3145022(ctd)
If he can't tell, between two pictures he took of a given scene, which one is better, that means that he can't tell, when taking a picture, what composition will work better. That tells you he doesn't understand composition. He doesn't understand line, he doesn't understand shape, and he doesn't understand color, because he can't tell, given two photographs of the same scene, which have better use of line, shape, and color.
This is not speculation based on his work. This is by his own admission. He doesn't know what a good photograph looks like. He thinks all of his photographs are good, because people tell him he's a photographic master, so he makes prints of every photograph he takes and assumes that they're all good.
He took a blurry picture of a dog and thought that was portfolio-worthy photography. He put that in the same portfolio as a picture of a gas station, a pile of garbage, the inside of a freezer, and some puddles, because he thought they were thematically related.
And I'm not alone in these thoughts. Most of the critics of his first exhibition at MOMA thought the same thing. Prominent photographers of the day thought the same thing. It's only after years of people implying that people who don't "get it" don't understand art that have given him the cachet he has. People think he's supposed to be a genius, so they stare at his photos until they come up with some convoluted explanation for how there's hidden genius in every one of them so they can be part of the cool kids who "get" Eggleston.
The emperor's dick looks like it's swinging in the breeze, and nobody's been able to offer even a token description of what his clothes supposedly look like, so Occam's Razor is telling me the emperor has no fucking clothes here.
