Assignment 3 - Critical Review

Spent the last week drawing together all the information I had gathered on William Eggleston, the subject of my critical review for Assignment 3 of the Course and writing the review itself. I learnt a lot about Eggleston who it is claimed was responsible for making colour photography respectable in the art world. I have found the whole process time consuming and of questionable value. Can I say with any certainty that I am a better photographer for the experience? The answer in short is 'No' but equally I cannot know with any certainty that something has stuck that will make me see photography in a different light.

Eggleston's approach to photography largely denies the value of the 'rules' that so beset the photographic world. He is not overly concerned about formal composition, verticals and horizontals, thirds and the edges of images. His 'cropping' allows for things half in and half out of the image. I was left with the impression that many of his photographs would score low in many competitions in Camera Clubs and many would not be accepted for exhibition unless they were known to be one of his works.

It is, as I have always believed, a case of not the content of the image but where it is seen (Eggleston's work was first exhibited in 1976 in the Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) in New York.) The most important things in photography, as with much of art is ,where it is shown and how much somebody has been willing to pay for it. The cynical part of my nature suggests that the best way to become 'famous' is to get a rich relative to buy one of my works for several hundreds of thousands of pounds  and sit back as the the scramble begins to own a work by Cedric Sherwood which must be good because someone paid half-a-million for one of his photographs.

Back to reality. As I have wondered in previous blogs - is there any value in getting someone who wants to be a photographer to write a 3000 word essay. It is a given in Academic circles but has anyone sat down and examined whether there is any value in such an exercise. Is it the case that photographers, and there are many, who never had the benefits of a formal education in photography produce work that is in some way worse than those who have enjoyed the benefits. It may be the case that being untrammelled by the demands of correctness and rules they are better photographers e.g Eggleston.