>>3342008>He's not seen any more, because he's not cool anymore. His aesthetic is way out of vogue. They're not big. There's not social commentary. He's not a woman or person of color. There's nothing to sell about him anymore.First off, weirdly political.
Secondly, that would be a response to if I had asked "Why doesn't Eggleston's new work get more acclaim?". That's not what I asked. What I asked was, why doesn't he show any of his more recent work? If the issue were that his stuff had fallen out of vogue, it would still be *around*, it just wouldn't be as celebrated. Looking at his web site, you will not find a single photo that appears to have been taken this century.
Also:
> Everyone with a camera is a photographer. You've drawn arbitrary lines so you can separate yourself from the "rabble". It's absurd to judge people as photographers or "not-photographers." You should be judging the photographs.Oh, come on. You know what I mean. Yes, anyone who presses a shutter button is a photographer. If you put some words to paper, you're a writer. If you slap paint on something, you're a painter. You know there are different skill levels and intent and you know damn well what I meant by "non-photographer", there's just not really a better word to describe it other than "Someone who doesn't really take pictures qua pictures but maybe occasionally takes a shot or two with their cameraphone just to remember the moment and with no pretense towards art or even really intention to take a 'good' picture, although obviously they will sometimes get lucky and take something pretty good or even great". And that's a lot to type. So maybe just admit that you damn well understood what I meant when I said "non-photographer" and don't assume I'm some pretentious asshole who tries to keep the hoi polloi out of photography to make myself feel like my penis is bigger.
