MatrixBlackRock wrote in post #18426098
That's more of a snapshot then great photography.
Eggleston is one of the extremely few photographers to have an exquisite control and understanding of color.
I’m actually not partial to this particular photo (something to do with my dislike of children I assume), but I understand the context of its importance, and moreover, its place within Eggleston’s broader body of work, which is markedly unique.
Visually elevating the banal is no easy task, but Eggleston succeeded consistently with images that used clever composition and, again, exceptional command of color to create atmospheric, if not darkly wry, commentary, pushing his photos far beyond snapshots.
And to preemptively note, in the past, I’ve come across photos where I thought, gosh, I really like this; it looks like an Eggleston. And sure enough, as I subsequently discovered, it was an Eggleston, underscoring that a) it’s not just Eggleston’s “name” that carries his photos, as I’ve liked his photos without initially knowing he was the photographer, and b) he has managed to establish a unique, signature style, something that the vast majority of photographers will never accomplish.
Edit: And of course, no one is obligated to like anyone's photographs---different strokes and all---but I do think it's worthwhile to review why certain photographers are considered highly influential, especially those photographers who one does NOT like.