William Eggleston
Vložit
- čas přidán 15. 12. 2013
- theartofphotography.tv/episode...
/ tedforbes
/ tedforbes
William Eggleston represents one of the most pivotal photographers in the 20th century in that it was his color work that changed the acceptance of color photography in the fine art world. He was one of the first photographers ever to have a complete show at MoMA in New York City. He and photography director John Szarkowsky changed the fine art world of photography with this show.
“There is no particular reason to search for meaning.” - William Eggleston
Just feel the art.
You're saying that art is meaningless... interesting (although don't you think the history of art and all the practicians seem to to have contradicted that for centuries until today?!).
@@BrunoChalifour I’m not saying art is meaningless, I’m saying art doesn’t have to have meaning.
@@Cherokie89 Then how can you be moved by it if there is no content/meaning? If it does not mean anything to you? For me, then, this is not art anymore, just decoration. As far as we can go back in time hasn't art been a tool for the expression of feelings and ideas [content/meaning], an expression related to a sense of beauty (esthetics)? [PS: there might be a difference between the absence of meaning and the absence of "a reason to search for meaning"... in any case, that reason is up to the author (he/she is free not to look for meaning in their works) regarding his/her works or to the viewer regarding someone else's work. ;o)] ""Just" feel the art" by the very fact of the use of "just" seems to be reductive in terms of the experience of art anyway. Every one has a reason to look at art and whether they relate or not to it, whatever it might be. The problem with Eggleston's art might be then that there is not much beyond what one sees, and the author is aware of it (he made it)! ;o)
@@BrunoChalifour the work and or subject itself can be meaningful, it doesn't need to mean anything
@@jjjj5452 Then it is decoration (if we agree that esthetics have to be involved in decoration and art) but not art. Computers can produce decoration... not art.
Eggleston's work looks better the more you look at it. Not sure why, but it's true.
excellent as usual Ted...my favorite quote from him : " A picture is what it is,and I've never noticed that it helps to talk about them, or answer specific questions about them, much less volunteer information in words. It wouldn't make any sense to explain them. Kind of diminishes them. People always want to know when something was taken, where it was taken, and, God knows, why it was taken. It gets really ridiculous. I mean, they're right there, whatever they are." ....exactly!
I wanted to learn more about Eggleston and did a youtube search. Of course you did a video about him too. Your channel is by far the best and most versatile channel about photography here on youtube.
I love his old American car photos and old streets, his colour shots really pop
I'm gonna buy one of his books
You never cease to amaze me with how easily you do these episodes without any sort of script. You are a natural, and your depth and breadth of knowledge on the subjects you discuss is absolute. Thanks Ted! (from a paying member)
You have to see his pics blown up and framed to really appreciate them, the color is amazing!
Excellent work Mr. Forbes. I totally agree with you....much respect for Bill Eggleston.
I couple of points I would like to share. First off, I would have considered Eggleston and his upbringing far above "middle class". This man's family owned a cotton plantation in the Mississippi Delta....and to be honest, I'd never thought Eggleston ever worked a day in his life, other than on his photography. He was a major fixture in the mid-town Memphis scene of the time which produced the Memphis based band Big Star. Two of their three albums featured an Eggleston picture. : )
Thanks for offering us your perspective on Eggleston's work! I appreciate your efforts to help us get to know photographers who have made such an impact on our world.
Delighted you featured Eggleston. Another awesome show Ted.
Great show Ted! I like Eggleston for his minimal list approach, sense of color significance, and angles.
Thanks!
Love it!! No need to apologize for appreciating his work
Your reviews of artists, and their art, are truly impressive. In my opinion, this type of video is not only your best CZcams work, but your "The Art of Photography" videos are the best work anyone has done on the subject. Many times after a days work, I find myself re-watching these videos with a bourbon on the rocks. It is a bit like listening to a song you know and love. It is at the same time, familiar, peaceful and yet still inspirational. Your videos about art, truly are art in themselves. Big thumbs. I like these videos.
Cheers!
I love these videos! I get to learn a bit about the history of photography while looking at works of important photographers. Keep 'em coming!
One of my favorite photographers along with Daido Moriyama.
I don’t know why but the picture of the kids trike really speaks to me! Genius!
Thank you Ted for this great review of my favorite photographer!
I have just subscribed to your channel and with every video I watch I am more and more happy I have found your channel :)
This was wonderful, thank you. I would really enjoy you guiding us through an analysis of one of Eggleston's photographs.
Never easy reviewing Eggleston, great job as always. Didn't know he did some short films, I need to check those out.
Love this type of videos. Thanks Ted!
Crazy how you guys are still making this! Cool video.
Love your work Ted!
Another fantastic and inspiring episode, thanks Ted!
I really enjoy your history lessons of all the photographers you talk about. I would like to say I would prefer seeing the picture full screen rather than with the pinterest framing. In the last two months I started film photography and your videos have been a huge help.
Eggleston's work definitely causes a strong reaction with most people, be it positive or negative. For me it's the latter, but love it or hate it (especially if you hate it, because we are quick to turn our backs to things we don't like), you should, in my opinion, learn to appreciate the fact that Eggleston's photographs got that reaction out of you. It's easier to appreciate art (I use the word "art" loosely) that you love than art that you hate, but the latter is (again, my opinion) just as important, or even slightly more important than the former. All aesthetic experiences do not have to be pleasant.
I first heard of Eggleston in High school the he allowed "Big Star" to use Red ceiling for their 2nd Album in 1974 and he played on the album as well.
These last three episodes have been thoroughly fascinating, thank you. It's easy to like Saul Leiter's work (for me, anyway), but Eggleston is a challenge. The anti-aestheticism often comes off as contrived, but you've helped me to appreciate the cleverness behind it, and the comparison to David Lynch seems very apt.
That green window is a super photograph by anybody's standards; the man sitting on the bed, too. Both new to me.
He is amazing for sure!! Great textures
I don't know why people would hate his work, altho I'm not a huge fan. His work fully reveals how he sees the world. You can tell from his photographs that he knows exactly what he's doing and what he's looking for. He has this crazy sense of color which really impresses me. I simply enjoy looking at his work altho his style is not my cup of tea.
Thanks Ted. I happen to like Eggleston's work. He definitely has a different vision.
I like Eggleston and his work and it has really helped me appreciate the beauty of 'the everyday things' but I wonder if the passing of time has anything to do with how much his work is appreciated. Of course, the fundamentals of photography and creative vision play a massive part but If someone goes out and photographs the ordinary today does it not become a bit more interesting in 30-50 years when it can create a memory that has a nostalgic emotion attached to it? I guess the same could be said for a lot of photography. Many 'greats' are discovered years later but only after the passing of time. We see the old hairstyles, locations, clothes, and even attitudes. Might make a good episode. I would be really interested in your thoughts on this.
Page 33 of Eggleston’s Guide does a great job at telling you the mastermind of his flow with photos. That photo isn’t the “best” or most interesting but it ties the images before/after it very well.
When I first watch this video I was a little bit unsure about William Eggleston. But as time has passed I returned again and again and have fallen in love with his work. Since you're so close to Tennessee any plans of possibly interviewing him?
I remember my exgf showed me his work when I started with photography, she said something like "everyone calls him a genius" and explaining the photo with the trike because I didn't understand why someone would make a photo that was to me so self-evident, almost childish, in order to create something that should be taken seriously as art. Now that I KNOW that was his point (art being this dull environment where everything needs to have meaning, symbolism, connotation, blablabla) he is indeed an absolute genius. I think that no one ever so successfully showed how dull and snobbish the art world can actually be except for Manet or Duchamp and his glorious Fountain. Taking his work for granted marks the genuine influence he has on how we look at the world.
have you seen the video of David Lynch talking about Eggleston?
David Lynch on William Eggleston
He has grown on me... Love it!
Seriously: Anyone who has a strong reaction against William Eggleston's photography--anyone who can't see a handful of his stuff that makes them appreciate it for the beauty is has--doesn't know what photography is, and thus doesn't know what art is. It's not a matter of 'pretense' or 'boring'; it's just great stuff.
BOBMAN1980 i hope you're differentiating between respecting his level of skill and creativity, and having a *subjective* personal admiration for his art. you can't show contempt for someone just not digging his style. of course he was extremely creative and had a solid style of his own and had a major influence on photograph,. but you cant say YOU HAVE TO LOVE HIM OR YOU'RE STUPID!! so you know I do like his work, but he's not my favourite.
he has some kf the best colours ever, and that's his best trait imo. but sometimes it is a little blah, like the tricycle photo i found just.. meh. but other shots of his are amazing. I like Fred Herzog's work more than Eggleston's.
As good as his work is, its all in the eye of the beholder, right? I love Eggleston but I wouldn't say that people who cant see the beauty in his work don't know what photography/art is. Thats probably a bit unfair lol.
Then Cartier-Bresson did not know anything either about photography or art, who said to Eggleston that the work was BS (maybe photographing for the dying Spanish republic in the 1930s, for the French resistance in the mid 1940s, being there at Ghandi's death and in China when Mao took over may have tempered his enthusiasm toward ketchup bottles, red ceilings, men sitting on a bed with a gun, woman on the street (one foot of whom is cropped off) and open ovens... who knows. ;o)
Hush hush now. Go take a nap.
Ted - thanks for highlighting two of my favorite photogs from the mid-to-late-20th century. Great work. I can only aspire to this level of result. Did you see the original prints at PDNB gallery a couple of months ago?
Thx Ted.
For me (not that anyone gives a crap) this is art.
HI Ted,
I have a copy of William Egglestones Guide. Amazing and a complete juxtapose to Robert Frank. William Egglestones work is often challenging and hard to penetrate, unlike the directness and great sequencing of Robert Frank. I love both photographers but I am still trying to get a real grip on William Egglestone's work.
His work was ordinary then and it is ordinary now. He would probably like that description if you know anything about him.
Very good photographer!!!😁😁😁
Will you come down to colorado area anytime?
I'm trying hard to like Eggleston, but I can't seem to understand the greatness of these pictures, if there is any. I think he gets a lot of credit just from the fact that he was one of the earliest colorists. Do you honestly believe these shots could be picked out from a bunch of mediocre ones by regular, unacclaimed amateurs if you knew nothing about any of the photographers? I think you can find a lot of value and mystery in almost any picture, and perhaps more so if it's a "bad" picture that breaks the rules and has some abstract qualities that welcomes the viewer to make up his own explanations. As long as you sit down and read a picture closely enough, you will always find unanswered questions. I'm sure this was very new and exiting in the 60s, and credit to him for being a pioneer and in that sense earning his place in the history of photography, but I don't see his work standing the test of time by merit of artistic quality. To me these shots seems like someone who's just got his hands on a new kind of film, that's just firing away at everything he sees to test it out. I have nothing against anyone finding value in any kind of art, but personally I don't see Eggleston in the same league as any of the others greats in this series. I will keep trying though, as my curiosity brings me back to him from time to time.
Stian I agree totally. Eggleston was just a 'snapper' who got lucky? occasionally and mainly through his editor which he admits in some doco. The way people like Mr. Forbes gush over 'photographer's like Eggleston says a lot more about themselves than the person they are talking about.
@@Neil-Aspinall No, I would disagree, he spent to much time with the medium to be such a snapper. Even if a lot of his subjects are deadpan, right in the center of the frame, sometimes not quite framed (see woman whose foot has been cropped off with tons of useless empty sky above her head), he definitely had an eye for solitude, the banal and color. Maybe not always the best one but there is definitely a coherence in his work.
Three more facts in complement to the video: 1-Eggleston's economical/social background is not exactly "middle-class", his family owned a cotton plantation that produced enough wealth for him to not really work (beside his "fine-art" photography of course) all his life; 2- he never actually "taught" at Harvard but, in 1974, gave a lecture at the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts, the art gallery of Harvard College (part of Harvard University) open to both students and the general public as is the case in many American universities. More importantly, and that probably generated his lecturing, he was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1974 and a National Endowment for the Arts grant in 1975 for his work (and probably through his acquaintances at MoMA in New York and the Corcoran gallery in Washington D.C.).
What I like about Eggleston is his approach to photos. He takes them and if you don't like them, then so what. They're his photos and that's all there is to it. Don't read any existentialist nonsense into them because it ain't there. If it's a pic of a road sign and some rundown old building, then that's what it is. Oh, and it's in colour, too boot!! You like old school and I'm not. Take it or leave it. That's how photography should be. Not trying to conform to or searching for kudos off the establishment and/or the popular. Just do your own thing and be happy with what you do.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts about Bill C. He was my foundation instructor at the Corcoran School in the fall of 1970. At this time he was showing paintings and shared his "drug store" prints with us. I believe he was in touch with Walker Evans at this time. I learned photograpy from my father who was and architect/architectural photographer. Bill was a great teacher.
Hi Ted, can I ask, do you know for a fact that at 16 mins 50 secs it is two women at a cafe? Have you read about this image? I don't know myself, but looking at the hand of the person who has been obscured by the hairstyle, it appears to be quite a masculine way of holding the cigarette. What do you think? Enjoyed the talk, thank you.
I do admire and envy your enthusiasm, in general, and in particular about Eggleston, the laconic one. Good choice of images.
Are you sure of all your facts?
I have read that he "taught" at Harvard but I must say I have always been incredulous: visiting artist maybe, what could anyone like him teach there? I do not see him enjoying teaching? Has he ever taken care of anyone but himself, picked up any cause (education being one he had had qualms with). Do you know how long Eggleston actually taught there? Is it worth mentioning in light of what may have happened? Just wondering.
I am not sure that, while he was in college, "a friend gave him a Leica." I read that he definitely bought a new camera then, encourage by a friend, and that in fact (he said it) it was a Beauty Canter 35, a fixed-lens Japanese range-finder. As for when the dye transfer process was available, according to Kodak who manufactured it, it was from 1945 to 1990, so far before Eggleston either heard or used it. Eliot Porter was printing his own dye transfers as early as the late 1940s and for several decades.
I do not think that Eggleston met Szarkowski by chance with a suitcase of C-prints but rather that he went to meet him at MoMA as Szarkowski, at the time, had an open-door policy for photographers.
Now you describe the 1976 Eggleston show as extremely successful... probably... not exactly that "successful" at the time. It was in fact seriously panned (New York Times, AD Coleman, Cartier-Bresson...). Its resonance seems to have happened later, many years later in fact, a little like the 1975 New Topographics exhibition. There have been more shows organized around his work and books published about it in the past 20 years than in the preceding 20 years, and by far (starting with Steidl). [Both the original versions of the Democratic Forest and Faulkner's Mississippi that I own, I bought cheap as they had been remaindered]. So let us say that his rise from his ashes is rather a recent phenomenon, not without echoing and being echoed by Instagram and the tsunami of cell-phone pictures. As for color, Eliot Porter and Ernst Haas in the 1970s and 1980s had a far greater audience than Eggleston (a clue would possibly be to check how many copies of "In Wildness Is the Preservation of the World" and "The Creation" were printed). Eggleston also says that he got the idea of using color after seeing Joel Meyerowitz's transparencies in New York in the mid/late 1960s (Meyerowitz could be another interesting video of yours).
Finally, I am not really sure of the filiation between Eggleston and Crewdson, I have never read or heard Crewdson say anything of the kind-that he may like Eggleston's work is another story, but even that I do not know and in my eyes Crewdson's photography is definitely not the same type of approach, process, and results as Eggleston's. Crewdson has more to to with Hollywood than Memphis (budget, set-up, lighting, preparation, large format...). That said, thank you again for your enthusiasm and your work. [and by the way, and for the anecdote, if you can dig any information about Eggleston's at Harvard, please share it; so far anything I have found has been extremely vague and elusive. We know he spent some time in Cambridge, at Harvard and... that is it].
Are the objects in his photographs redder than they are in real life?
William Eggleston❣️😁
It has taken me well over 10 years to appreciate his work I'm so glad I have found the key to his imagery and mindset, I hated his work for so many years what was I thinking not much obviously I just never understood it... you try taking photos of the obvious...
His photographs are the most beautiful that I’ve ever seen. It’s like discovering the music of Bach for the first time.
Well I strongly suggest you look at a few more photographic books then B-R.
The fist time I encountered Eggleston, I saw a web jpg. of the tricycle. I didn't understand what all the fuss was about. Later I happened upon a print in a museum, I was totally blown away. The print made sense in a way that an online jpg. lacks. It was like I could almost taste the turquoise blue. I have a deeper appreciation now for him.
It helps that he was the first one to do it really, but despite the snapshot style his photos have, he does it with such skill that they are also so full of depth with amazing (sometimes unconventional) composition. It's like one of those very minimal paintings of a stripe on a background color, it looks simple but it's done with great mastery. Lots of people attempt this style but they just don't work, they don't have the skill set to pull it off
Try to photograph an "Eggleston". If you succeed, you are able to call his work "perfectly banal" and "boring".
Martin Parr!!!
So what is it about the composition in the photo of the woman on the curb? You say it may seem like it's not carefully composed, but it is. Why? What makes it special?
I do agree it is a miss, with one foot cropped off and a ton of sky above her head... that, in my opinion, does not add anything to the image.
I can't bear that Pinterest interface! They're so distracting and I have to concentrate extra hard just to keep the photos on focus.
Could you use just the photos next time you make videos like this? These videos are the best (aside from having to see that Pinterest website) and I can't wait for you to make more!
Do you remember Cibachrome prints?
Those are not all Leica's. but if you look closely you'll see that about 1/4 them are Canon range finders.
yes, definitely not his "camera bag" ;o)
I like his quirky approach
I am still surprised seeing that there is a controversy Eggleston. For me his tallent is so obvious. I like his anti aesthetic vision, anti heroic, without pathos, and nevertheless profoundly humanist because totally democratic.
Well it is controversial or at least people do not quite agree. As far as humanistic, that is a big leap of faith ;o)
like colours
I'll take a Leica as well if your friends want to hand out more. Haha.
👏👏👏👏👏👏👏
I like the bike photo, yea.. he was an experiment guy, now we see it boring and not really great, but see the first 3D animations form the 80's they look crude now. I see he was looking the colors in a world full of black&white pictures. nice video.
Die transfer was very expensive for Eggleston about 900 US back then
Very good job on the video! This video gives a lot of insight into Eggleston. But I will say that his strength was the use of color at a time when color was rarely used or even accepted. Eggleston’s work in my opinion is not of my taste. I honestly view his work as something that could be done by anyone with a camera. Again, this is just my opinion. There are many that appreciate his work, and that’s great. We all have favorites and this is what makes our hobby fun.
I was disinterested in photography. William Eggleston changed my mind. I wish he hadn’t because he drilled a nail in an already ruined life
I'm going to venture saying that Mr. Eggleston drew inspiration early on from Walker Evans vernacular photography but soon enough he diverted from the structured Evans approach dictated by the large format cameras. Despite the fact that even Mr. Evans used Polaroids, he was a planner of all aspects of his production!
Please check your facts: Kodak dye transfer dates back to the 1940s. Eliot Porter (who printed his own dye transfer since the early 1950s) and Ernst Haas who had a solo show at MoMA in 1962 (and two big portfolios of color photographs on New York City published in the mid-1950s in the New York Times) were the real precursors of fine art color photography in the US. The William Eggleston exhibition in 1976 was far from being a huge success in fact it was panned by most of the press reviewers as "perfectly banal and perfectly boring" New York Times). As for teaching at Harvard in 1974, Eggleston who, indeed, had won a Guggenheim that year (thanks to Hopps and Szarkowski) was a guest lecturer, nothing less but nothing more either. As for Christenberry photographing with a Kodak Brownie (obvious too fast a reading of the Wikipedia page dedicated to the photographer), really? He may have started (and did start at age 8) that way and kept the camera, (the way he was mostly a painter) but the 2x3 and 4x5 ratios of most of his later images and his use of Kodachrome betray a very different kind of cameras.
Now going back to Eggleston it is a fact that his vision is very idiosyncratic and he has been a dedicated photographer (what else did he do in his life other than drink, smoke and play the piano? ;o). So there is a certain coherence in his vision and his use of color, no doubt. The problem is what has been said or written about him that goes far beyond reality, or what he himself said. For instance regarding the notion of "snapshot" and snapshot aesthetics associated with him because of his sometimes easy if not loose compositions. The reference to "snapshot" may be due to the fact that many images have their nain subject right in the center and, unlike what is said in the video, the fact that he also used "the rule of third" as a reference for the organisation of his frame (in fact the first two BW images presented in the video are a perfect examples of that, and so are the "Green Window" or the two pink ladies smoking in a diner (both rule of third and center) and the "Dolls on a Cadillac". Let us listen to what Eggleston himself had to say about the subject (to Mark Holborn in 1990): "The blindness is apparent when someone lets slip the word ‘snapshot’. Ignorance can always be covered by ‘snapshot’. The word has never had any meaning. I am at war with the obvious." ...
I don't love that you are out of Focus
Really enjoy your videos and commentary however, showing photos in your video using Pinterest was, for me, a huge mistake. Looking at a Pinterst page is not the way to showcase photos in a video. I found it to be distracting and ultimately annoying. Having said that, love your videos.
just snapshots, no?
Basically yes they are snap shots at best.
I‘ll say it: Looking at Eggleston’s thrilling hues and compositions without even sensing a design or a mere idea is just as ignorant as questioning the moon landings. Even today world class photographers like Genitempo are building upon his groundbreaking work. You don‘t have to like it, you may suspect mannerism - but it is impossible to not see it. Eggleston’s work poses no greater challenges than any impressionist painter. You might just as well despise Monet. Or Jazz music. Or art in general.
So basically in you flower of words your telling people they are ignorant if they don’t like his work. I was a music major and people make these comments all the time yes I can respect the history of it but I don’t have to like it simply because he’s been an influence why can’t I like it or not just because of what it is
Doesn't speak to me. Though I did use to shoot a lot of Kodachrome, his color did not do a thing for me.
Might be my ignorance, but was colour _really_ that profound on Kodachrome?
Eggleston wads a great but the late colour work of Norman Parkinson was better
I have to say that I don't think Eggleston is a fine art photographer. I think he is documentary photographer who decided to use color. His shots a a bit to snapshot for me (although I have no objections to snapshots as they document). But like everything visual or aural these are personal judgements. I can tell you that I don't think paintings of campbell soup cans are fine art either even if people are stupid enough to pay thousands for them. Investment potential doesn't equate to fine art. Having said this I find that in many of his snaps Eggleston does a really beautiful job using color and placing colors in juxtaposition to one another. That I do find to be fine art but don't need objects for that as the abstractionists have demonstrated.
Más de la mitad del vídeo está la cara en primer plano! moviendo los ojos y haciendo caras. No podría poner las fotos y hablar en off?
Eggleston's first MOMA show was critically panned, wasn't it? I don't think it was successful.
+mf1932 and MOMA determines what is good and what is not good?
+Tony Walton I'm the biggest Eggleston fan you can imagine so I brought it up for historical accuracy, not because I agreed with them. His first big show at MOMA was loathed, and then he had the last laugh.
mf1932 this is very interesting. Is this information available online?
mf1932 it's always fascinating to see how an artist's career went
@@katedemenok8340 Yes see Hilton Kramer's review in the New York Times.
Saul Leiter beat him to it by some time (although this work didn't really come to light until some time later, but it is remarkable how much resistance their still was in the 'fine art photography' world even 20 years later when Eggleston was creating his magic.
If any of my friends gave me leica in this day and age lol today’s comparison is someone giving you a Yashica t4
Really?
William Eggleston has not more panache than Richard Prince... Most every "lomographer" nowadays produce consistently more interesting and intelligent work than Mr Eggleston.
I believe it does boil down to what the public wants to see in his photography, hailing from his disrepute towards technical ability or his unpretensious snapshot photography (mannerisms, in its own right).
Rather like a punk rock band, Eggleston survives from the questioning of the statu quo, but not much beyond that...
Ahh piss off.
Whenever I watch one of your videos, I'm consistently frustrated by the fact that 85% percent of what you're saying seems to be completely off topic. Most of the time, 4-5 minutes pass and I close the video because I've unconsciously stopped paying attention. Jesus Christ, 8 minutes of talking before getting to the actual point of this one. Which is a shame because it makes a very tiresome approach for an otherwise interesting show.
I don't like Eggleston. They seem mostly like careless snapshots.
Saul Leiter understood colour in composition.
Go and try and shoot in his style, then you'll appreciate the difficulty and skill behind his 'careless snapshots'.
Largely I agree ITMP. Sometimes I think a bit of credit must be given to Artists who actually take the time to do such things though. It was obviously important to him.
Said the man with the typical dark n moody portrait. Eggleston’s work was metaphoric and more abstract than Saul Leiter’s (albeit Saul is also one of my favorites). I think Eggleston’s work is actually more careful planned and executed than Leiter’s. The tricycle for instance in front of the house everything about that image is representational on scale and angle. Its not a snap but then again what do i know.
I believe his compositional sloppiness was intended. It is to prevent the framing techniques from distracting the viewers from his subjects. What are his subjects? Well, this is a guy who made history by bringing out all the colors in the ordinary that don't come across people's mind when they think of color. He's one of those guys who see a piece of cheese not as a piece of cheese but as the color yellow.
When we see the work of someone such as HCB, we tend to get carried away by analyzing all the compositional elements he put in his pictures. Eggleston studied HCB. He understood composition very well and he also understood the impact it has on the viewers. Hence he purposefully didn't include it in his pictures. When it comes to Eggleston, the color is the composition.
Crap.