>>3246711I’ve heard that argument a lot and I’ve tried looking through his pics with that in mind and I still just don’t see it. Unless the story is just “hey, the rural south is a little dingy”, which, okay, yes, but I already knew that and it’s a boring story.
But even that, they don’t really tell any story as a set. Like, look at the subset of his “Troubled Waters” portfolio on Eggleston trust. The first few in there might be painting a picture of the rural south... then there’s a random snapshot of a neat dog he saw, and a picture of his freezer, and a shot of his living room, and it kind of just dawns on you that if you’re seeing any coherent pattern to the set, you’re meeting him way more than halfway. He’s literally just taking snapshots and throwing them together with no rhyme or reason.
As far as I know, he’s never claimed that he’s taking his pictures as coherent sets. As far as I’ve seen, he’s said several times that his process is just “oh, that looks interesting *click*”. Other people have made that lofty artistic claim about him, but he just seems vaguely oblivious.
