Contemporary Photography
I was reading a post by Chantal Stone entitled Brent Clark. In her post she said:
I find myself both strongly attracted to it, yet annoyed by it at the same time. I enjoy the random feel of it, even the often times sterility of it. But what annoys me most is its commonness now. It seems every other up and coming fine art photographer shoots the same sort of static photograph. There’s a certain lack of emotion, which I suppose is purposeful, but it’s opposite of what I like to shoot.
I would have to agree with her sentiment at a nearly 100% level, except that I found myself mostly annoyed and not at all attracted to it. I followed a good number of the 36 links listed in a referenced post. Most of the pictures that I found were banal, uninspired. They seemed to lack originality and were, for the most part, snapshots in my judgment.
Now, how dare I say this as I just talked about critiques the other day! Well, I just didn’t like what I saw. I’m sure that the artists had some type of message, but I just wasn’t getting it and the subjects didn’t appeal to me. That is not to say that they should change it to suit me, it’s just to say that I didn’t like it. Nothing more. It didn’t work for me.
This is just my opinion and opinions are worth what you paid for them!
I did, however, find a few photographers that I did like:
Rania Matar
Joseph Holmes
Amy Burchenal
It seems as though most of the photographers just decided to go against the grain with regards to composition and getting a ‘pleasing’ (to whom?) photographic composition, just to be contemporary, contrarian, or perhaps antiestablishment. Whatever it is, it ain’t workin’ for me!
I don’t know. It didn’t seem as if many of the photographs had any message, meaning, feeling, or direction. Perhaps, as I say, I’m missing something. Am I missing something? Am I alone in this?
The quality seemed to vary so much between the photographers. Perhaps quality isn’t the right word, but the presentation, or portrayal, or perhaps the subject matter. Some of them were total chaos, seeming random photographs, while others where full of meaning.
It was an interesting juxtaposition of portfolios. It reminded me of the time that I visited the Dallas Museum of Art. There were beautiful paintings, statues, pottery, and manner of works of art all around. In the center of the artwork display was a work of art whose name eludes me. This work of art was a collection of ripped, king sized sheets splattered with motor oil. Contemporary art. Again, I just didn’t get it. I just thought that the sheets needed a good washing.
Maybe I’m just old school! Maybe I just want more of a story … more appreciation.
Paul…
Here’s a link to my post:
http://chantalstone.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/brent-clark/
Here’s a link to Alec Soth’s post that I was referring to (with a list of the portfolios):
http://alecsoth.com/blog/2007/06/18/portfolio-review-2/
The good thing about all of the photographers on the list is that there are so many, you’re bound to find at least one or tow you’ll like.
I have to admit, that although annoyed by its frequency, I am fascinated by contemporary photography, mostly because for a long time I just didn’t get it. What I realized though, was that, at least for me, ‘getting it’ was beside the point. I have since learned to appreciate much of it, even if only for being able to view an alternate voice or vision.
Chantal, you are much more open minded than I. Contemporary photography, at least if the genre is represented by what I saw on most of those sites, is an acquired taste, I guess. However, if I taste something and I don’t like it the first time, it’s not likely that I’m going to be tasting it again for many years to come.
There was a time when I didn’t like broccoli, but now I love it. There was a time when I didn’t like liver or spinach, and I still don’t!
Things can change, but sometimes they don’t. I don’t think that this is one of those times for me. I don’t know if I can appreciate it just because it’s different. For me to appreciate it, it needs to have some meaning to me. I have to ‘get it’, even if what I ‘get’ isn’t what they were trying to portray. I have to ‘get’ something. Most of what I saw left me with nothing.
Well — sometimes you gotta call a “spade” a “spade”. The stuff some of these wannabees are producing is so hollow and without merit that it deserves to be viewed and ignored.
I think it’s also an age thing — lots of new photographers are quite young and I have a problem with that at times because I think they still have no experience — they haven’t been around long enough (or paid any dues) to have us give their stuff the time of day…. They can wait awhile until they’ve got something to say that’s worth our while listening to. Or until they can produce something that is pleasing enough to our eyes to make them linger.
Some of the new stuff is so imitative that you can’t tell one author from the other — it could all have been taken by robot. So why should we waste time looking for meaning?
There certainly are other things to do — like the washing, the dishes, food shopping …
I like simple shots….
Interesting conversation! I think first impressions are lasting. That doesn’t mean I can’t learn to appreciate the effort that goes into someone’s art, but I certainly don’t have to like it. Kind of reminds me of an old Seinfeld show, in which Ellen visits an art museum–remember that? She comes upon a small display in the shape of a pillar, and atop its little “shelf” sits a black purse. She doesn’t want to look like a newcomer to the world of art, so she concentrates and squints and makes all kinds of strained expressions to appear artsy. Then a woman sweeps into the picture and squeals when she finds the purse she’d accidentally left behind. It wasn’t a display at all.
My first glance at a photo or painting either draws me in or cancels my interest. It’s not that I can’t appreciate an artist’s effort; I just like something that impacts me emotionally.
I agree Paul; their stuff doesn’t do much (or anything) for me. It almost seems to be “anti-photography,” designed to expressly go against the grain of conventional photography (whatever that is).
Perhaps in 40 or 50 years people will look at the work of these photographers in the same way that we look at the “masters” of b&w photography from the 30′s and 40′s. I think one of the reasons we relish those works is that they represent a much simpler time long gone by. Maybe in the future the current crop of contemporary photographers will be viewed in the same light.
Ahh, great post Paul. Personally, I think it is important to have an open mind. Take in everything around you and focus on what does appeal to you. Even though I agree with the current thoughts on cont. photo, to ignore something may only sell yourself short in the long run, no matter what it is you do. There is some stuff out there that I find boring, revolting, horrifying, but I do tend to go back and check it out once in a while. I have been surprised at some of the places that I can dig up a little inspiration. Of course this is only my opinion.
Hey, have a great weekend!
I love contemporary photography!!!!! Some of them are very very thought provoking!!!!
I saw only half of the photographer’s works from that list … and didnt much like any of them …
But comtemporary photography is much much bigger than that …
I’ve been to Museum of Contemporary Art [MCA] and also Museum of Contemporary photography [MOCP] here in Chicago … I love the displays there …
two things:
#1: I think every NEW form of art is criticized…. Impressionists were were laughed at …. for their innovative style, their quotidian subject matter and their layers of paints, considered “Unfinished” … it stood the test of time and reformed paintings forever …
#2: I think Contemporary photography is like impressionism … It free photography from tradionalism and opens way for new vistas … But that doest mean that i connect with every image claimed to be or labelled as a comtemporary photograph … But some of them are very thought provoking and indeed mindblowing!!!!
mike, thats the dumbest comment i’ve ever seen on a photoblog, congrats.
Shane, thanks for commenting; however, if you disagree with a position, it would be nice to elaborate as to why, instead of calling it ‘dumb’.
It’s been a while since I’ve been online. I see you have some fantastic shots. One of these days I have to sit down and read all the things you’ve written
I think pretentiousness is an issue at any age. I do find I rarely connect with the type of photography your describing but like all art I suspect it has to do with MY connectors. Having not felt alienated or lost or exestentially challenged for quite some time the minimalist or ‘anti’ photographs you are describing don’t resonate with me and I’ll bet some of my flower macros would make some of those photographers physically ill