Photography is a visual language that can communicate\u00a0a range from emotions to simple facts, but photography isn’t quite as\u00a0straightforward as it seems.\u00a0 Yes at its core is a representation of the reality in front of the camera, but what you frame and what you exclude determines how the image may be read.\u00a0 The key is ‘may be read’ because even\u00a0more than words photographs are open to the interpretation of the viewer.\u00a0 This fact was highlighted for me recently while reading some commentary on the internet\u00a0about a court case regarding the sale of an Eggleston print.\u00a0 Many people seemed unaware of Eggleston’s work and couldn’t\u00a0imagine why anyone would want a print of a tricycle let alone pay large sums of money for it.<\/p>\n
I think that some of the misunderstanding comes from a reading of the image from our moment in time and a failure to see it in the context of the time it was created.\u00a0 In this age of the cell phone image its hard to imagine the break from the past that was occurring when Eggleston and\u00a0 a few others embarked on an expansion of the photographic lexicon, bringing colour in.<\/p>\n
Thank you Mr. Eggleston, there is\u00a0some great further\u00a0reading\u00a0at the Eggleston Trust<\/a>.\u00a0 And now for some of my own banality taking with my Pentax K-7<\/p>\n\n\t\t