>>3144980>Telling you that he is a master of colour, line and shape obviously isn't going to change your mind if you don't think he isSo? Support your argument. Give examples of his work and talk about how he uses color, line, and shape masterfully in them. Everyone just says "He's a master of color!" and gestures at the red ceiling pic like it's self-evident and not a one-off lucky shot he got one night when he was stoned off his tits in a friend's sex dungeon.
Like, how does this picture show mastery of color, line, or shape? How is it distinguishable from any other picture where some idiot goes out and takes a picture of trees? He thought that shot was good enough to put in one of his portfolios, so he must think it's one of his top photos.
I do have, I think, a pretty deep appreciation for color, line, and shape, and how they work together in art in general, and how they work together in photography in particular. I have looked at a lot of work from photographers who do the same "Take a picture of mundane things and make it interesting through your composition" schtick that Eggleston claims to be doing, and I *get them*. Like, I see the compositional work in the photos. I see how they're visually pleasing. I see how other compositions would be less visually pleasing. I am visually pleased by them.
I have also seen a shit-ton of photographs by non-photographers and people who just got their first camera who go "Huh, that thing looks neat, I'll take a photo of it". Eggleston's work displays all of the characteristics of the non-photographers, not the skilled photographers.
And you'd expect, if he was a skilled photographer and I just wasn't getting it, that there would be a lot of thoughtfulness and care that goes into each of his photographs. Like, you'd expect him to either try out a bunch of different compositions, or at least study the scene for a while to find the best framing. But, by his own admission, he doesn't do either of those things.
