william it was really nothing

http://christianpatterson.com/blog/2004_09_01_archive.html

On Sept 6 (rest of the blog is worth checking out) is a photo of william eggleston eating bbq near memphis with jurgen teller. think of them, think of the photos they take--the portratis that are so casual and intimate they depend on the polite fiction that the voyuer is not there, this young upstart intern takes a photo of them together, and they ignore him--continuing that polite fiction of course. (the exception is the famous eggleston of the woman lin the blue dress, sitting on the yellow curb with the newspaper, seductive that one is)

other things
maybe im a snob, but i cannot imagine that eaggleston eats where he shots (or lives where he shits), the colour, the ephermality seems almost too much for eggleston, too perfect an allusion---hunting in the blog archives, we see an invite for pattasons big brooklyn show, pinking up the red room that made william famous.

Pattason is really interesting because he is so much a son to eggleston--in the sense that he interned with him, that photography is much more of a craft (or was much more of a craft), then other art forms, the workshop, with the assitants working for free, until they devolp a practice of their own is still in play (and is in play for some painters--koons and murakami are the most immediate to mind). Eggleston and his followers have an isolation, darkness, almost meloncholy that Patterson doesnt have.

ive been reading the second volume of wyhoming stories by annie prolux (worth it/77) and her sense of place is so imbuded, that the people are real, even if the stories arent, and looking at pattasons photos of Casper, and thinking, they are like the photos everyone takes of things on the prarie, they are PRESENT, they are filed with the brightness of the land, the glaring and opressive weaher that cannot be escaped from.

the other great thing, that is different from eggleston--is that thru blogging, and thru his connections to vice magazine, etc--he is v, much on the vangarde of an updating of the eggleston, (if we include shore as a son, then thsi is 3rd generation (are shore and eggleston the same generation?, what about tilliman who is v. much later--maybe it goes E/S/T/McGinley or does it go ES/TM?), where the presence i was taking about has a very explicit versmilitude, they see the eggleston and the shore as stage(s/d)

so we have people looking at the camera, then away from the camera, then back at the camera, the looking is what matters, the lack of self awareness--the struggle of sorting what it is, domeunctation, art, craft. all of those, none of those?