I am not a fan of this. Some time ago I actually walked into an exhibition of his as part of a wider exhibition and left within 5 minutes. It does nothing for me. I am not 'proud' of that, but just dont get anything from his images - good or bad...no emotional repsonse at all.

This one has many of the 'qualities' (characteristics) some have mentioned, granted but I feel that many of these comments are made with certainty and confidence in the knowledge that his work is critically acclaimed for reasons not dissimilar. I do however wonder what the response would be to this image were it posted in the critique gallery. I suspect few views and a low probability of anything other than "next time you might want to think about...." type comments. I think a lot of the people commenting here just would not make the same comments were it from an unknown despite the fact that its more humble origins would in no way diminish its value as art....surely. I think work such as this is boosted enormously by the idea of what it is supposed to be. This added to what the photographer is supposed to be about results in an image dripping in significance far beyond its reality. I think it is more often about the artist and what he/she stands for than the work itself. Take away the Eggleston from this and what are you left with? A cr@ppy photo I suspect. Is the 'variety of tectures' or 'juxtaposition of this or that' really enough - who are we trying to kid? You could come up with the same comments for most badly conceived and executed images.

Just my opininated opinion