I don’t mean to be controversial, but I genuinely believe that without John Szarkowski, William Eggleston’s work might never have gained widespread recognition. Szarkowski was the definitive gatekeeper of fine art photography—his endorsement could elevate a photographer to near-legendary status. In Eggleston’s case, it was Szarkowski’s validation that transformed his work into something the art world felt compelled to take seriously. Without that anointing, I’m not sure Eggleston’s legacy would have endured.
I certainly wouldn’t understate John Szarkowski’s influence on photography in the mid to late 20th century. But the idea that Eggleston’s work might not be widely known without him might be giving Szarkowski too much credit. Eggleston had already received a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1974, and a National Endowment for the Arts fellowship in 1975, so it’s not like he was unknown before Szarkowski “anointed” him. In fact, a NEA grant helped make possible Eggleston’s famous Szarkowski curated 1976 MoMA exhibition, along with the publication of William Eggleston’s Guide according to the original press release. https://assets.moma.org/documents/moma_press-release_326994.pdf
I see Eggleston’s recognition as an inevitable part of a building critical mass with regard to color photography’s art world standing, which finally came to a head in the 70s. Take for instance, the parallel career of fellow color pioneer Stephen Shore, who had also received Guggenheim and NEA fellowships in ‘74 and ‘75 along with Eggleston. Shore also had a 1976 MoMA solo show (which opened directly after Eggleston’s), although unlike Eggleston, Shore’s exhibition wasn’t curated by Szarkowski, but rather an intern named Maria Morris. https://assets.moma.org/documents/moma_press-release_327022.pdf
Shore had already been the youngest artist and second living photographer to ever have a solo show at the MET. So even if you credit Szarkowski for green lighting Shore’s MoMA exhibition, you can hardly say he anointed him. That’s not to say that Szarkowski had no influence on Shore’s career. The story goes that Shore started shooting with a large format view camera after he showed Szarkowski his American Surface’s work. Even though Szarkowski bought some of his prints that day, Shore apparently took Szarkowski’s offhand question about how the viewfinder on his Rollei 35 worked as an admonition to put a greater formal emphasis on his compositions. (I know that’s slightly off topic digression, but I love this story and I can never pass up an opportunity to share it.)
My guess is that in an alternate universe where John Szarkowski didn’t exist, or at least hadn’t taken such an active interest in Eggleston’s work, Eggleston probably wouldn’t have gotten the (perhaps undue) credit assigned to MoMA’s first color photography exhibition and catalog. Publishing Eggleston’s Guide as a catalog was the only real first anyway, as his exhibition was actually the third solo show featuring color work at MoMA, after Eliot Porter and Ernst Haas in 1943 and 1962 respectively.
Even without Szarkowski and the ‘76 MoMA exhibition and publication of the Guide, Eggleston still would have likely found lasting recognition in the form a photobook by sometime in the the 80s, like his fellow color pioneers. Joel Meyerowitz’s Cape Light came out in 1979, Stephen Shore’s Uncommon Places came out in 1982, and Joel Sternfeld’s American Prospects came out in 1987. Although exhibitions are certainly important milestones, particularly in establishing art world credentials, I think that photobooks generally have a more lasting impression with a larger audience. Uncommon Places, for instance, is Aperture’s best selling title ever.
Although it contains quite a few classic images, I do definitely think Eggleston’s Guide is the weakest book out of those four I just mentioned. Perhaps if Eggleston hadn’t been the first one of that group to have a book in our theoretical Szarkowski-less world, his first book might have been something even stronger and more iconic than the Guide. Shore (or maybe even Meyerowitz) would have likely gotten more even more credit than he already does for helping popularize color photography in the art world. But I definitely do think that Eggleston’s work would have gained widespread recognition in due time.
Excellent points. I’ve always been a big fan of Stephen Shore. Maybe because of his versatility, both in subject matter and in his use of different photographic formats. I never felt the same respect for Eggleston’s approach to craft. It often feels like we’re expected to choose a side—Shore or Eggleston, Nirvana or Pearl Jam. That kind of tribal allegiance might matter a lot in my early twenties, but it seems less relevant now.
To me these photos have a lot in common with Robert Frank’s work, but in colour. So many shared themes. And then you can see that majority of contemporary American documentary photography follows up from these foundations set up by Eggleston, Shore et al., and continues exploring the same ideas.
I think that’s an excellent comparison between William Eggleston and Robert Frank Jakub! Their work does have similar themes, and they both have a slightly offhand, handheld compositional approach. Whereas Eggleston’s fellow color pioneer Stephen Shore’s work (large format work that is) has more in common with Walker Even’s formalized landscapes.
One of the things I love about contemporary landscape and documentary photography is that the language they operate in is part of a long, ongoing tradition going back to nearly the beginning of photography history. There’s images from around the time of the civil war that would feel remarkably home at within contemporary practice. I feel like you could build one of those evidence boards with the string (that obsessively detectives are always depicted making) showing all of the ways different photographers work are interconnected with each other.
Ha ha that’s a totally understandable reaction Leah! Part of it is the color cast, but there’s always something a bit brutal looking in Eggleston and Shore’s images with food in them. I wonder if it’s a valid indicator of the general quality of 70s meals.
My goal was to try and build a more active and engaged community around the work I’m sharing. Which will also give me more opportunities to get in photography related discussions.
But I’m curious as to why it would be a bad thing for someone to try to get more exposure for their project?
I am happy for you. Don’t get me wrong, I was simply trying to figure out why? Exchange is great. Discussion even better. I thrive on it, as I am sure you do. Hearts are a validation, of sorts. Offering prizes for hearts, dunno. But, I respect your energy and initiative!
I used my cameras for years, but still don't know what good photography is supposed to be and struggling with developing my own style/taste. When I look at Eggleston's work, It made me think of what photography means to me. Thank you for sharing it here Subjectively, Objective.
I think that’s a common reaction a lot of people have when seeing Eggleston’s work for the first time Donna. Your story perfectly illustrates the value of spending time looking at other photographers work. Even if you hadn’t come to appreciate Eggleston’s work as an honest and sincere view of the world as it really is, you’d still have saw that other types of work existed, and broadened your perspective of what photography could be. Glad that sharing it could serve as a nice little reminder for you.
I don’t mean to be controversial, but I genuinely believe that without John Szarkowski, William Eggleston’s work might never have gained widespread recognition. Szarkowski was the definitive gatekeeper of fine art photography—his endorsement could elevate a photographer to near-legendary status. In Eggleston’s case, it was Szarkowski’s validation that transformed his work into something the art world felt compelled to take seriously. Without that anointing, I’m not sure Eggleston’s legacy would have endured.
I certainly wouldn’t understate John Szarkowski’s influence on photography in the mid to late 20th century. But the idea that Eggleston’s work might not be widely known without him might be giving Szarkowski too much credit. Eggleston had already received a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1974, and a National Endowment for the Arts fellowship in 1975, so it’s not like he was unknown before Szarkowski “anointed” him. In fact, a NEA grant helped make possible Eggleston’s famous Szarkowski curated 1976 MoMA exhibition, along with the publication of William Eggleston’s Guide according to the original press release. https://assets.moma.org/documents/moma_press-release_326994.pdf
I see Eggleston’s recognition as an inevitable part of a building critical mass with regard to color photography’s art world standing, which finally came to a head in the 70s. Take for instance, the parallel career of fellow color pioneer Stephen Shore, who had also received Guggenheim and NEA fellowships in ‘74 and ‘75 along with Eggleston. Shore also had a 1976 MoMA solo show (which opened directly after Eggleston’s), although unlike Eggleston, Shore’s exhibition wasn’t curated by Szarkowski, but rather an intern named Maria Morris. https://assets.moma.org/documents/moma_press-release_327022.pdf
Shore had already been the youngest artist and second living photographer to ever have a solo show at the MET. So even if you credit Szarkowski for green lighting Shore’s MoMA exhibition, you can hardly say he anointed him. That’s not to say that Szarkowski had no influence on Shore’s career. The story goes that Shore started shooting with a large format view camera after he showed Szarkowski his American Surface’s work. Even though Szarkowski bought some of his prints that day, Shore apparently took Szarkowski’s offhand question about how the viewfinder on his Rollei 35 worked as an admonition to put a greater formal emphasis on his compositions. (I know that’s slightly off topic digression, but I love this story and I can never pass up an opportunity to share it.)
My guess is that in an alternate universe where John Szarkowski didn’t exist, or at least hadn’t taken such an active interest in Eggleston’s work, Eggleston probably wouldn’t have gotten the (perhaps undue) credit assigned to MoMA’s first color photography exhibition and catalog. Publishing Eggleston’s Guide as a catalog was the only real first anyway, as his exhibition was actually the third solo show featuring color work at MoMA, after Eliot Porter and Ernst Haas in 1943 and 1962 respectively.
Even without Szarkowski and the ‘76 MoMA exhibition and publication of the Guide, Eggleston still would have likely found lasting recognition in the form a photobook by sometime in the the 80s, like his fellow color pioneers. Joel Meyerowitz’s Cape Light came out in 1979, Stephen Shore’s Uncommon Places came out in 1982, and Joel Sternfeld’s American Prospects came out in 1987. Although exhibitions are certainly important milestones, particularly in establishing art world credentials, I think that photobooks generally have a more lasting impression with a larger audience. Uncommon Places, for instance, is Aperture’s best selling title ever.
Although it contains quite a few classic images, I do definitely think Eggleston’s Guide is the weakest book out of those four I just mentioned. Perhaps if Eggleston hadn’t been the first one of that group to have a book in our theoretical Szarkowski-less world, his first book might have been something even stronger and more iconic than the Guide. Shore (or maybe even Meyerowitz) would have likely gotten more even more credit than he already does for helping popularize color photography in the art world. But I definitely do think that Eggleston’s work would have gained widespread recognition in due time.
Excellent points. I’ve always been a big fan of Stephen Shore. Maybe because of his versatility, both in subject matter and in his use of different photographic formats. I never felt the same respect for Eggleston’s approach to craft. It often feels like we’re expected to choose a side—Shore or Eggleston, Nirvana or Pearl Jam. That kind of tribal allegiance might matter a lot in my early twenties, but it seems less relevant now.
Remove the author, and see what the critics will say.
Interesting thought Tommy, see my reply to Garon above.
Love his work! I also think it’s so critical how sequences and pairs are created and I would love more insight into your process on this.
Some of my favorite images of his here. Thanks!
Glad you enjoyed the feature Chris! There’s definitely some absolute classics in the Guide.
To me these photos have a lot in common with Robert Frank’s work, but in colour. So many shared themes. And then you can see that majority of contemporary American documentary photography follows up from these foundations set up by Eggleston, Shore et al., and continues exploring the same ideas.
I think that’s an excellent comparison between William Eggleston and Robert Frank Jakub! Their work does have similar themes, and they both have a slightly offhand, handheld compositional approach. Whereas Eggleston’s fellow color pioneer Stephen Shore’s work (large format work that is) has more in common with Walker Even’s formalized landscapes.
One of the things I love about contemporary landscape and documentary photography is that the language they operate in is part of a long, ongoing tradition going back to nearly the beginning of photography history. There’s images from around the time of the civil war that would feel remarkably home at within contemporary practice. I feel like you could build one of those evidence boards with the string (that obsessively detectives are always depicted making) showing all of the ways different photographers work are interconnected with each other.
Still the master!
For sure!
The color of that meat on the table has always haunted me!
Ha ha that’s a totally understandable reaction Leah! Part of it is the color cast, but there’s always something a bit brutal looking in Eggleston and Shore’s images with food in them. I wonder if it’s a valid indicator of the general quality of 70s meals.
Feels like a perfect slice of Americana in every aspect.
That’s Eggleston for you. Glad you enjoyed the feature Mason.
Lovely
Glad you enjoyed seeing some classic work.
I am curious, to what end are you running this competition....? Surely not just to get likes and climb the rankings?
My goal was to try and build a more active and engaged community around the work I’m sharing. Which will also give me more opportunities to get in photography related discussions.
But I’m curious as to why it would be a bad thing for someone to try to get more exposure for their project?
I am happy for you. Don’t get me wrong, I was simply trying to figure out why? Exchange is great. Discussion even better. I thrive on it, as I am sure you do. Hearts are a validation, of sorts. Offering prizes for hearts, dunno. But, I respect your energy and initiative!
❤️❤️
Thanks Clayton!
Hell yeah.
Glad you enjoyed the Eggleston Justin!
One of the greats
Absolutely Liam.
Cool work, a classic
Glad you enjoyed seeing some classic work Lorenzo!
I used my cameras for years, but still don't know what good photography is supposed to be and struggling with developing my own style/taste. When I look at Eggleston's work, It made me think of what photography means to me. Thank you for sharing it here Subjectively, Objective.
My pleasure Nara! Looking at other artists work is one of the best ways grow your own work. Eggleston is certainly worth studying.
I think that’s a common reaction a lot of people have when seeing Eggleston’s work for the first time Donna. Your story perfectly illustrates the value of spending time looking at other photographers work. Even if you hadn’t come to appreciate Eggleston’s work as an honest and sincere view of the world as it really is, you’d still have saw that other types of work existed, and broadened your perspective of what photography could be. Glad that sharing it could serve as a nice little reminder for you.