what style of photo is this?

its called "meme at the moma"

>>3022000
Retro-south central...I like it though

New Topographics

>>3022000
Not really sure what "style" it is but it's William eggleston, probably shot on Kodachrome (rip) and printed with dye transfer (rip)

>>3022000
>>3022111
street photography for rural plebs

>>3022184
I watched a documentary about the guy and I still don't really get it. I wish more experienced anons would explain this stuff for noobs like me

I like William klein, Ansel Adams, even Cartier-Bresson, at least at a basic level, why they're appreciated so much

But eggelston I don't get. Lots of his pics are boring. I get the whole "simple things" "photography of nothing" but it's like that picture of a black circle on white canvas that's considered art. The only explanation that makes sense to me is that he was the first to be famous doing it, so I guess he's famous for its novelty or smth...

Please if anyone gets it, tell me. I've been reading about all these guys trying to learn more

File: df_f.jpg (76KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 600x400px

>>3022630
For me it's about the colors.

>>3022630

There's no such thing as a picture of "nothing". It's always a picture of something, something that existed in a specific time and place, even if only for a brief instant. It might seem like "nothing" to you because you are so accustomed to seeing it that it has lost all meaning to you, but understand that as a record of the weird-ass 60's and 70's it's invaluable.

Also the colors are really nice, as others have noted. 99% of all the vsco whores out there (as well as Sofia Coppola, Wes Anderson, etc) are just aping the hell out of my man eggy.

>>3022755
>>3022651
I gotta admit that after going through some of his color photography the colors are indeed very pleasing

that's part of what I meant (but horribly worded) with "novelty"
maybe like you said it's because I take some things, that have always been there, for granted; now I'm realizing something about myself because of this guy
>shit...

File: js.jpg (349KB, 1200x951px) Image search: [Google]

349KB, 1200x951px

>>3022759

That's the beauty of good photography. It teaches you something about the world that's been right in front of your eyes this whole time.

Next, check out Joel Sternfeld.

>>3022630
>black circle on white canvas
wait r u srs ur joking right
I know you are
ok I see ur jokes haha this guy
thought you were about to talk shit on malevich

File: shore.jpg (674KB, 1024x811px) Image search: [Google]

674KB, 1024x811px

>>3022762

and after that, Stephen Shore.

>>3022630
He legitimized colour photography when people were still super dismissive of it as fine art or whatever. His subjects seem plain, but it's in light of his background and his outsider kind of status in the crumbling South that people find depth in his work.

It's not something anyone can really 'explain' to you, you have to do a bit of digging in to really get him.

File: election_eve_t.jpg (60KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 600x400px

>>3022630
Maybe I am wrong but it seems to me like a lot of famous photographers have filler photographs. Like you expect every photograph to be amazing but then there is something like this and you start wondering just what is supposed to be amazing about it.

Pic related is from Eggleston but it could really be from anyone and no one would notice it.

>>3022775

That's very true, but it's true of a lot of photography in general. It's best not to treat photography exactly like painting, wherein every work can usually stand on its own as a singular piece. Photography gains its strength from the construction of a set. Multiple images organized by a single narrative and aesthetic motif gain more strength as a group than any single photo would on its own.

There are exceptions to this rule of course, and some photographers do produce singular great works of art (Gursky, Ansel Adams, etc) without needing a set to justify their existence, but I would wager that the bulk of fine art photography is made in sets.

>>3022775
yea, but then again it's a combination of being in the right culture trend to do it

with painting as well, I figured some time ago but never made the connection to photography: it mattered quite a bit what everyone else was doing

in the documentary, a lot of people mentioned that it was borderline tacky back then to shoot in color, let alone shoot the banal in color

and in a sense he did almost make portraits of the simple things in his frame; it's pretty easy to figure out what he was taking a picture of (it sounds stupid) because the composition is fairly straight-forward in most of 'em

but yea, being first matters quite a bit I guess, especially if you're the first to go against the current

>>3022762
>>3022766
thanks for the suggestions m80

>>3022763
>this close to bringing up mondriaan

>>3022000
sick trips bro

>>3022766
>>3022762
ty for the recs

>>3022630
To me it's all about his composition. Pulling absolutely ordinary out in the way that he did, not by using long lenses or anything, but just through angles and positioning is absolutely magical.
Honestly the compositions, especially in some of his black and white photos, are beyond even what the greatest painters did.
And another thing, he only took 1 shot of each subject.