Customer Reviews

Paris

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(0)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

I was a little worried about what to expect in a book on Paris by such an "American" photographer like William Eggleston, but I needn't have worried. This is just as good as his prime work from Guide and Los Alamos and makes you appreciate his work even more. The production value is high and the lovely satin finish covers are a nice touch. Highly recommended.

CONTENT: It's too obvious that the author spent only a 3 weeks in the city. The view seems superficial. Anyway Eggleston photography is always interesting, and it is a different view of the ever photographed Paris.

IMAGE QUALITY: It looks that the author moved to digital photography, which is not necessary bad, the problem is that seems he is using a cheap digital camera (or the scanner used it's a cheap one). Image quality is disappointing.

BOOK EDITION: It's a Steidl. So it's a well designed and constructed book. Bad image quality though.

CONCLUTION: I confess I've got disappointed, as I'm an Eggleston fan. Eggleston's Guide is a hundred times better.

(still) the master: william eggleston (his new book 'paris,' published by steidl & fondation cartier, is the best photo book i've seen in at least 10 years; it is equal to eggleston's best book: 'guide;' his drawings in the book are brilliant and offer a new vision from the man; the influence of urban graffiti on his new work is breathtaking: he has further elevated this vernacular art to high renaissance status; the sublime relevance of this new work pegs him more 'new generation' i.e. 'younger' than any recent art school graduates i've met recently)

Photographer Ralph Gibson remarked in an interview some years ago that no matter where he went in the world, he always took the same kind of pictures. William Eggleston has a history of making "Eggleston photographs" in other areas of the world--South Africa, Egypt, England, Germany and Japan come to mind. But he appears out of his element in this collection and his work suffers. Perhaps it was the requirements of the commission and time limitations but, whatever the reason, the Paris photos are weak.

I've been struggling with this book and these photographs. I've considered that it is my own limitations that prevent me from understanding and liking this work. And maybe that is the case. I admit to liking his American photos, especially his Southern photos, most of all. However, I have also found much to admire in his pictures done throughout the rest of the globe. I simply cannot find it in me to give this book more than a wishy-washy, three-star rating. In my opinion, the work is mediocre for William Eggleston.

Eggleston's previous photos have had a soothing quality about them. They were the works of someone familiar with and at peace with his subjects, as mundane as the subjects may have been and wherever he may have found them. He also seemed to respect the subjects he photographed. Overall, the Paris photographs appear to be not just at war with the obvious (as Eggleston has said of himself) but at war with the subject matter. The pictures are chaotic, more appropriate to William Klein than William Eggleston. There are photographs of people on the street that fail to convey any of the human dignity evident in Eggleston's other photos of people. Instead, the people of in the Paris photos appear as confused as the objects, scenes and colors around them. And, in regard to the colors, the pictures here are a departure from the Eggleston signature palette as well. His previous work was recognizable by the emphasis on primary colors, largely due to his early use of the dye transfer printing process. Although other processes have been used, the strong primary colors remained a signature. The colors of Paris are mostly pastel--but a jumble of pastels, incoherent. There are numerous drawings included in this book that were done by Eggleston. They are also chaotic and generally pastel in palette.

I wouldn't attempt to get into Eggleston's psyche. There are various explanations for this departure. Perhaps he felt confusion and chaos while fulfilling this commission and he portrayed these feelings in the photographs. Maybe he just did not like the city of Paris and wanted to convey his displeasure with what he saw. Either way and if so, he succeeded very well. But in that success, he failed to make "Eggleston photographs". And, speaking for myself as one who loves "Eggleston photographs", I'm feeling a bit let down and confused, finding these pictures to lack his usual insight and signature vision.

I love this book design and the sequence of drawings and photographs. I'm still trying to figure out how I feel about the drawings in general, but am excited that Billy E is still shaking things up and trying new approaches to his work. There are some great photos that made me fall in love with his colour all over again.

Frankly, I'm struggling with the photographs in this book. I feel that previous works like "William Eggleston's Guide" and "2 1/4" are superior to this offering. I have yet to order or view "Los Alamos" or "Democratic Camera". The photographs in this book seem to me a degeneration of Eggleston. Indeed, a casual observer looking at anything Eggleston has ever produced will immediately dismiss his work as mere snapshots. Now imagine having to look through "Paris". The composition of the photographs seem random and in quite a few cases I have to ask myself "What am I looking at?". I know Eggleston enough to know that this wasn't going to be a bunch of touristy photos of the Eiffel Tower and the Arc de Triomphe but even still, something should be communicated about the topic at hand. Photographing for color's sake is not enough anymore, there's plenty of that about. I think that a better book of Paris could be had by browsing Flickr, even avoiding the cliche images. Only a few of these images grab my eye and this book is supposedly the result of sifting through 1000s of images to give you the best. There is way better photography out there now but none of it will ever become noteworthy or nameworthy just because it doesn't have the Eggleston name attached to it. If it did, it would become instant 'art' and a 'masterpiece'.

I gave this book the stars it has mostly for Eggleston's drawings rather than the photography. Too bad a CD of his music couldn't be included.