Communists

Well, you firstly need to consider things from a historical perspective. Even twenty years ago, getting the exposure right on a photo was challenging, never mind anything else. Doing it forty or fifty years ago was even more challenging. So, that's the first thing to consider. The second point is that Eggleston's photo's are banal by their very nature. But what he did was use colour itself as the subject of the photo's he made. This was something so rare at the time that in and of itself, it could be viewed as innovative. Tangible subject matter aside, the colour palette on some of his shots gives them a beauty that isn't as easy to convey as the viewer might think. All that being said, he isn't to everyone's taste, so if you don't like it then don't feel that your viewpoint is any less valid than that of someone who does like it. Apparently, he was asked to photograph someone's wedding and even though he told the bride and groom that he didn't do weddings, they insisted that they wanted him to photograph it. They weren't very happy when, upon asking for the photographs, he tossed a sheaf of photo's across the table at them...of nothing other than the blue sky. I guess that might lead one to believe that he was taking the proverbial piss out of the art establishment - but he is an interesting character for sure. Hopefully that goes some way to giving the response you were after but if not, please feel free to let me know and I'd be happy to discuss.

We look forward to greeting you personally when you visit.

Bonjour. Malheureusement, maintenant nous ne pouvons pas traduire notre vidéos en Francais. Merci pour les regarder.

or the presentation? I want to read through this and think about it in much more depth. Any chance?

Don't worry about studying others, and never look for style, shoot as you feel.

I think it's actually the best you can do. Looking at others especially when you DO or DON'T really like what they do fills your inner vocabulary. During the years you mix it to your style. There's Nothing in your mind what hasn't been in your senses before. Ask any great guitarist. Most of them will tell you they studied their heros before. I think there are close similarities.

Why learn everything from scratch and without any pointer? That would take a lot of time. Studying others' work makes it faster (or less slow). In the meantime you will develop your own style, it is unavoidable.

I've gone thru periods feeling like that. And it makes some sense; we all want to find our own style. But many artists study the Art of others...and in different areas, like painting, sculpture, etc. It amounts to learning; building a base of knowledge. Learning what's already been done, so you can push it further. Otherwise you're working in a vacuum, and art is about communication. My $0.02.

I think "studying the art of others because they are famous" and "studying the art of others because you like what you see and you're not able to achieve it" are two different things. Studying must have a practical tangible utility otherwise you are not adding anything to your style, you're just steering away from your style and you will likely do it again and again...

I had the same impression. For example, can somehow help me understand​ the value of the shots showed at 1:40:50?

I think I will never understand why people make self-righteous comments like this one. Also, it is based on a mishearing. David says, "but I like my German glass". Of course he knows that Leica is a German company.

+Nuno ribeiro better than u