>>3144785> I think some people here are too cynical.Very possible.
> Because of his casual composition it looks like you are looking through his eyes.I can see that. Doesn't make him a good photographer, though.
> As someone who never lived in America, especially in the past, I find his subjects appealing.And I can certainly understand enjoying them on that level, but there's a difference between "This is an interesting historical record of the rural South of the 1960s" and "He is a good photographer".
> Maybe many other amateurs took photographs like these but who knows? I know--my mother is a painter, and one of the things she likes doing for her paintings is to buy bunches of old family slides on eBay. Pic related. They're super interesting to look through and really cool from a historical perspective, but... they're not great photography. They're clearly snapshots with not a heck of a lot of thought put into them. Just as Eggleston's are.
Similarly, just look at any talentless beginner amateur photographer of today, and imagine their photos transported fifty years into the future for that retro feel. It's the same sort of stuff.
>I suggest to just look at art for what it is without trying to find out if the artist deserves his fame or notI can understand that way of thinking, but to that end, I feel like it's important to actually determine what the art actually *is*. With Eggleston, there is no discernible artistic skill to his photography. The only artistic skill came from Szarkowski as an art curator--THAT'S the guy who should be held up as a genius, not Eggleston.
The only useful artistic lesson we can glean from Eggleston's work is: Take photos of boring shit and then sit on it for fifty years and it'll look really awesome and retro.
> If you see some art you don't like just move on.I like arguing about shit, though.
