Some honest feedback
Blake remarked a little while back that it is rare to read negative criticism online, and my observations tend to agree. Imagine my delight, then, when I discovered this. They’re talking about me! And it’s wonderfully negative.
I decided that it would be fun to cut and paste the feedback here and offer a point-by-point response. After all, there’s some genuine food for thought in there and you usually have to pay someone for an honest opinion these days.
From the I Wanna Rock and Roll All Night and [PHOTO] Every Day – Artist’s Corner thread in the Penny Arcade Forums, page 46, retrieved on October 19, 2009:
erisian pope: Can a snapshot be beautiful? Sure! Can it be art? Of course! Can I even identify the differences in some examples that work for me versus those that don’t? Nope! (William Eggleston is a constant enigma to me, some of his work totally speaks to me, some doesn’t; more recently I have a confused relationship with Dalton Rooney).
Eggleston is an enigma to me, too. I think he’s probably an enigma to most people, which is part of the reason he’s so interesting. I find that I don’t like more of his work than I do like, but the ones I do like, I really, really like. And I, too, have a confused relationship with Dalton Rooney.
erisian pope:So what do you think about William Eggleston’s work? How about Dalton Rooney’s work? (Eggleston is commonly accepted as a great photographer, Rooney is contemporary and not widely recognized that I know of, but has some attention)
I am bewildered by a trend I see among contemporary photographers towards kitschiness, americana, documentaries of suburbia, and other ways that the mundane and often ugly gets showcased. Eggleston may be the inspiration for this trend, but regardless of its roots I find little appeal in it. (Lauren Greenfield mostly fits in this category in my mind). But can the trend be utterly devoid of merit and still have traction? I guess so.
You kind of lost me on a lot of this one. I feel like you’re trying to associate me with Eggleston somehow, which doesn’t really make sense to me. You are correct, however, when you say that I am not widely recognized. Are you sure you’re not thinking of someone else?
CommunistCow: I like maybe 1 out of every 20 or 30 photos from Eggleston and I don’t like anything from Dalton. Then again I judge older photos a bit differently than I do newer photos. The same way I judge older movies slightly differently than new ones because of the differing equipment, processing, and style of the time.
CommunistCow does make a good point, though. My new plan is to just stick everything in a shoebox and wait 40 years until I’m dead. Hopefully whoever finds it will know what to do with it.
erisian pope:So if you don’t like Rooney (and neither do I, frankly) do you have thoughts on why his and other similar mundane works are getting attention? Have you seen this trend that I’ve seen?
What is this attention you keep going on about? I’m almost positive you’ve got the wrong guy.
erisian pope: I asked my wife the same question and her take on Rooney’s work (the one example I coerced her into viewing) was that his work is extremely literal. He photos exactly what is there as opposed to people (like me) who look for the perfect subject or the perfect moment or people (like you) who create the perfect light, etc. His work is all about what is immediately there. I think she or I even used the term “unflinching eye.”
I think us seeing candor in his work and you seeing “bucking convention” probably are two pieces that combine in his work. I think you’re right about them going against the grain.
I just don’t understand who the audience is. Art focused on aesthetics makes sense to me. Art focused elsewhere always eludes me (with journalism as a slight one-off. but good journalism still has an eye towards aesthetics).
OK, now we’ve got a little something to work with. Even though I am writing this tongue-in-cheek, I am genuinely touched that someone has spent enough time looking at my work to form a real opinion, good or bad.
“His work is extremely literal”
This is true in the sense that I don’t manipulate or distort what I see with goofy angles or camera tricks. I do like to think that my photographs are open to interpretation, though. If I were to try to describe my style to someone, I would probably say that I try not to get in the way too much.
“He photos exactly what is there as opposed to people (like me) who look for the perfect subject or the perfect moment or people (like you) who create the perfect light, etc. His work is all about what is immediately there.”
Completely true, and I’m surprised to hear this used in a negative way. When I first became interested in photography, I was attracted to novelty: alt-processing, low angles, wide angles, perfect lighting, perfect moment. Until I realized just how completely boring and shallow all of that is. Anyone can learn how to operate a camera and decently light a subject, the rule of thirds isn’t any big secret, and anybody can wait ten days for the perfect sunrise over the Grand Canyon or whatever it is.
What’s the point in doing something that anyone else can do? If someone else might as well take the picture, then let them take it! Or, even better, go buy a postcard, it will probably be much better than any picture you or I can take.
“I think she or I even used the term ‘unflinching eye.’”
Again I can’t figure out how this could possibly be considered a negative thing, even though I think some of my work veers towards the romantic I suppose it’s all a matter of degree, and I’m going to choose to take this as a compliment, too.
“I think us seeing candor in his work and you seeing ‘bucking convention’ probably are two pieces that combine in his work. I think you’re right about them going against the grain.”
If by “going against the grain” you’re talking about the guys taking pictures of the Grand Canyon, then yes, they’re a bunch of idiots. But as a general rule I try not to think too much about what other people are doing when I’m taking pictures, because it really messes with my head.
I just don’t understand who the audience is.
a) Obviously. b) There is no audience. That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you. You’ve got the wrong guy.
October 19, 2009