Last conversation of the evening.
A couple interesting things about writing a blog for a number of years:
- You are likely to repeat yourself, perhaps, by visiting a topic again.
- You are likely to contradict yourself
About two and half years ago, I wrote this post: Contemporary Photography. In it, I wrote that the photography that I viewed, that had been labeled as contemporary, I found banal and uninspired. During that time there was an entirely different group of people who commented. Looking back at the comments, none of my current, regular posters are listed, so this should be interesting. People come. People go. People bring different ideas.
Over the past 30 months, my ideas of things have changed greatly; however, I still stand in awe that anyone could like contemporary or postmodern photography. I still find it banal, uninspired, and generally lacking. It seems, to me, to be an exercise in intellectual self-gratification.
I came back around to this topic because of a number of posts that I read over the past few days:
- George Barr’s post: Is Crap Still Crap, Even When it’s Important
- George DeWolfe – Deconstructing Postmodernism
Passing emotions I read a very short post by Paul Butzi the other day about his comment pol ...
I was reading a post by Chantal Stone entitled Brent Clark. In her post she said: I fi ...
'tude! Mike, over at T.O.P. had an interesting post called The Tenset. Here, stated very di ...
To give you a flavor of George Barr’s post, here is how it starts:
I have had the dubious privilege of looking at some thousands of bad images as I work to select images for “Why Photographs Work”. I had a look at Review Santa Fe as you can go to their website and look at previous accepted photographers – I was horrified at the quality of the images. (Behind The Lens – Is Crap Still Crap, Even When it’s Important, January 2010)
After reading his post, I went immediately to Review Santa Fe, clicked on the Photographer’s Listing and went through ALL of them. Out of the whole bunch, and there were quite a few, I found one, exactly one, that I thought had anything worth viewing. The rest were, you got it, banal, uninteresting, and …well, you get the idea. I won’t even mention the one that I liked. I’m curious about your take on them, should you decide to take the time to have a gander. I was able to speed through them because they were so uninteresting as to require only a very short view of each.
Continuing on with the other post, George DeWolfe’s – Deconstructing Postmodernism:
There are so many quotable passages in this post, which he says that he’s been writing over the course of several years. You can tell. It’s very well thought out and I shall have to visit it again to absorb a bit more. It’s not easy reading.
Without Form to add relationship and structure to an image Postmoderism reveals all chaos without connection. Without Form there is no “visual” message in the picture. Form holds the Content together. (Deconstructing Post Modernism – George’s Holler – January 2010)
I think that the above quote crystallizes what I feel when I view such works, nothing but chaos, noise. There’s little about the vision, all about the context, ideas, and the photographer’s opinion about what is important. The photos are so weakly structured as to not be able to stand on their own, crippled.
I wanted to keep this short. I’ve added lots of links, so you’ve got lots of reading to do, if you want. I guess that over the past 30 months, my opinion has not really changed, but I know now more of why I don’t care for this type of photography.
Of course, as always, I’d love to hear your opinions about what I’ve said, the articles that I’ve referenced, and your own opinions. And, of course, none of what I have said is to be construed as truth, just one man’s opinion. 
Related Posts :
21 Responses to “Contemporary Photography: I still don’t get it.”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I like this. Some interesting, and humorous mentions here. I totally understand what you mean. I was recently alerted to a body of work that had just won a certain prize. I looked at the work three times and for the life of me could not understand how. I’ve been working as a photographer for 20 years, I collect books, prints, etc, and the majority of my friends are photographers. I asked a few of them to take a look and they couldn’t figure it out either.
I think when you look at the art world/photo-art world, etc, you have to imagine this as a game, a game anyone can play, but a game that very few know the rules.
I think you have to throw logic out the window, and look far beyond the actual images. In fact, I think in many cases, the images are the least important part of the puzzle. Who is the artist? Who do they know? Who is on their mailing list? Where have they worked? Who are they copying and why? Who is backing them? Again, the images are further down the question list.
Add in the massive number of photographers trying to enter this world…and you see more clearly how the game works. What’s hot. How do I copy that?
I could go on and on about this. I love this topic, and enjoy watching the game.
Paul,
“Contemporary/Conceptual” just about anything: art, architecture, poetry, fiction, etc., is pretty much beyond my like/understanding. I find it…I don’t know, self-absorbed? Silly? I saw a handful of photos at the Santa Fe site that I liked (I looked through about 60% of the photogs). Most of it, I just don’t “get” (if there really is anything *to* get). I figure my pics are at least as technically good as most of the stuff I saw there. I’m in a bit of agreement with Daniel about knowing people. And then I think it becomes a cycle. The “artists” who are getting their stuff shown now, will become the “artists” who choose which new “artists” will get a chance to show their stuff in the future.
For me, anything that fits into the scope of the “humanities” are for humanity…as a whole. It seems much of the stuff I see/read/hear/etc. of contemporary/conceptual practitioners is for others of the same ilk. It’s not for the everyman: it’s for those specializing in whatever it is they’re pedaling. It becomes this cloistered little group that goes around winking and nodding as they pat each other on the back.
I though DeWolfe’s piece was great!
My $0.02
I’m not gonna comment too much on this, except to say that I think it starts in MFA programs where students strive to say something ‘important’ or meaningful. And, since they live in a world where there are SO MANY things being SAID and PHOTOGRAPHED every day, they get intimidated by the sheer volume and start to despair about being able to find that something.
I remember coming across the photography of a young woman (I found her work on line sometime in the last year). She had graduated with an MFA on photography from Yale sometime in the last few years. Her work was being exhibited at some gallery in NYC. This young woman was fairly overweight and dressed rather slovenly (at least in her images she did, and I know because her work was ALL self-portraits. Dozens and dozens of banal, boring images of herself in poses the emphasized a) how overweight she was/is, and b) how lousy and alone she felt because of her weight.
These were well-crafted images of her life, seemingly filled with sadness, one after another after another in an endless parade of futility.
I’m would speculate her MFA advisor applauded her bravery and her ability to capture the futility of a life un-lived, and how strong she was for portraying herself in such an emotionally naked way.
She had created a body of work that was important and meaningful, I guess.
But also unsalable and unwatchable. I remember thinking this young woman should have attended some place like Brooks, where, at least, her advisors would have guided her towards image choices that would perhaps help her towards a career that might pay off those huge honkin’ student loans.
And how interesting it is that after saying I wasn’t going to say too much, my post is longer than the other two. Harumph on me.
I laughed even before I saw this second post. I wondered about ‘what’ subject you were going to keep short.
I’m glad that you didn’t keep it short, though!
Age old discussion that has gone on from the beginning and is repeated over and over at the start of art school every year by entering students. By the end of 6 yrs of study the reasons become a little more clear even if the vision doesn’t.
The trick if you aren’t going to get a masters in art is to pick your experts carefully and to make sure they support your point of view. That said, I do agree with them on a lot of what they are saying but for different reasons.
To much to go into here but the old “I know what I like” argument won’t hold up, it to often ends up being the equivalent of velvet painting, or a repeat of something over a generation or two old. For everyone to ‘get it’ reduces it all to the lowest common denominator and that is hardly conducive to new truths or visions. The new is always in the process of flux and only time will sort out the important works.
Van Gogh never sold a painting while he was alive and heard all the same things that the Georges are saying.
Paul – all art is “an exercise in intellectual self-gratification” other wise it is commercial. The trick is to make it pay so you can keep making it. A hobbyist always has more freedom than the professional artist, but seldom advance or effect the art world in any way.
Ray, you and I will have to part ways in agreement here.
I would differ in saying that some art is visual and discovery oriented, not intellectual. The thought might come later, but not first and not just to have something clever to say, or to push some social or political view. Strongly disagree.
Photography appeals to the techies much more than the other arts I believe because it involves tech to make the image. However most photography is reactive and involves recognizing the aesthetic or message and recording (with tweaks) instead of taking from the experience and creating art from the idea. Visual discovery isn’t creative it is just recognition and what is more self-gratifying that know you recognized or saw something others didn’t.
The movement of the background to the front of the canvas that began with the expressionists culminated with the conceptualist movement by moving clear off the wall. The current crop of photo artist that I looked at on the website you cited seem to me to be trying to reconcile that conceptual art ideal with the real world. If I looked at the works from a social art view point I find a lot of it to be a real reflection of the current times, somewhat bland and lacking in definition or excitement, everything blended to not offend. Generic.
I can see a long discussion that my end up finding we are talking about pretty close to the same thing only with different definitions. I had a mentor in the early 70s that kept saying all art is political or social, I didn’t agree with him and it led to a lot of late nite discussions. After study of art history aligned with history and the look back of years of experience with artists and gallery/museums I am more inclined to agree with him than I was in my 20s. Pretty pictures sometimes are just that, but hardly significant in the history of the media.
Bring this up when we get together it will make a great evening of talk and ideas.
I should have added as well that it all matters very little in the end. If you created the experience or told the story you wanted to the work was successful. Your audience experience or your own satisfaction will determine the worth or success of any given creative endeavor not someone with a pocket full of rules and big words.
I stopped thinking of myself as an artist years ago and started thinking like a storyteller, it was liberating to say the least.
Ray said:
“Photography appeals to the techies much more than the other arts I believe because it involves tech to make the image.”
OMG, I have stories to tell you. I live in the video game world, where so many people think they create art and all they too often create are intellectual mind games. It’s like one big contest to see who is the cleverest. It makes me very sad.”
Perhaps the blandness of contemporary photography is merely a reflection of how some people see their world. It wouldn’t be surprising that in this day of special effects, CGI, high-tech devices, augmented reality (that term so makes me laugh), people see their lives as boring and mundane. And this gets reflected in their images. Or perhaps the people who judge these images as being “superior” are the same people who select Nobel Peace Prize winners. In any case I am certain I would not be capable of predicting which of today’s photographers will become the greats of tomorrow and I don’t think anyone else can either. The ones who will be credited for doing so probably predicted dozens or hundreds of other photographers who end up nowhere but no one will bother to highlight this. I need to point out though that I am not discerning when it comes to photography. I will look at any photograph, from snapshots to fine-art, from polaroids to “phoneography”. I like to see how others see. I like to see what thoughts emerge. I like to see what these images say about the photographer (which of course is subjective) and what they say about me. I like to see what it is that I find likeable and what I don’t. In other words I’d be the wrong person to ask to judge a photo contest, I’d forget what I was there for.
DeWolfe’s post was interesting but he lost me when he said “… the fact that photography’s prime mission is to depict reality…”. Really? I never thought of photography as having a mission. People have missions but photography? And to “depict reality”, that is one heck of an open-ended statement. Anyway I’m probably just over-thinking it now. Thanks for all the links Paul, most enjoyable post.
Interesting discussion.
There are those that keep trying to pin down photography–the two articles linked to seem to say that photography should “reflect reality”, but be pleasing in tone, form, composition, etc. I used to think that way, but these days I pretty much recognize that it’s simply a medium, like paint and a canvas, or a chunk of clay. Just because someone throws a perfect plate on a potter’s wheel doesn’t make it art; it might be, it might not.
There are many very good photographs out there that are not “art”. Whether a photograph presented as art is good..well, that’s highly subjective. Like Cedric, I can enjoy a lot of different types of photography, including the “vernacular”, which a lot of this so-called postmodern work is. With the disclaimer that I haven’t looked at very much of the Review Santa Fe site yet, I like a lot of what I see so far…
With some of these images, I really wish there was an explanation because clearly some photographs DO NOT speak for themselves.
I couldn’t make it through all of those links, but did note the work of Susan Bernstine and Angela Bacon-Kidwell.
i like contemporary photography – not universally but a great deal. I also went through the Sant Fe stuff (not all) and enjoyed the majority of what I saw. fine Art in the traditional, decorative manner it isn’t but that’s not really the point.
I enjoy looking at photography that challenges me visually or intellectually, something that invites me to ask the questions what? or why? I don’t find it banal. In many cases contemporary photography works better in collection than as single images. That seems to be the way that artists are going about expressing themselves these days.
And whoever said it had to be commercial to be good or likeable?
I’m more likely to find the sort of picture you posted here banal – i find it visually and intellectually rather one-dimensional. Barely worth a second glance on my part. As with all these things YMMV.
We are each entitled to our own opinion. I make not like your work; you may not like mine. What is important, though, is that we keep experiencing the world the way that we see fit or that moves us. My photography is not here to please you in the least. It’s for me. As for contemporary photography, it’s not wrong, or even ‘bad’, it’s just not my cup of tea.
really? Banal, uninteresting?
http://www.sfcp.org/programs.cfm?p=Review09WilsonS
http://www.sfcp.org/programs.cfm?p=Review09Burnstine – who handcrafts her own cameras to make these images
Or http://www.sfcp.org/programs.cfm?p=Review09Menjivar
I think the thing relevant to at least these 3, (who I happen to have either met the photographers, or seen the full body of images) is that there is quite a bit more to what’s going on than you can immediately see in a given image, on a website. The Center website certainly doesn’t provide any of that larger context either.
That might be a feature of a lot of good contemporary photography, it ends up being a bit more encompassing than a strictly pretty or easily read image.
another random one that I thought had some arresting images
http://www.sfcp.org/programs.cfm?p=Review09Elliott
Here’s the good thing about blogging. Someone can always call you on the carpet and you can learn something. After reviewing the links that you posted, I find that I liked 3 of the 4. The other one, You are what you eat, does nothing for me, photo wise, but it certainly is an interesting subject … I went and read the artist statement.
So much for my snap judgments. I’ve learned a bit of something and this to take it as a whole. It’s just a different genre with its own rules and understandings. More to think about. Thanks for point those out, Gordon.
I think on the ‘are what you eat’ collection, I have something of a personal and puerile interest. He’s local to the area and often shows the interiors of people I slightly know or have heard of. So there is an interesting element of voyeurism to it, for me. E.g., to see what the guy who owns the local running store actually eats, or if the governor is living up to his own healthy eating message and that sort of thing.
It’s easy to get into this kind of debate i think, mostly because we forget that within ‘photography’ as an umbrella there are so many subdivisions of stuff. And just because you’re pointing a camera at something, you might not be trying to do the same thing that the person beside you, pointing a camera at the same thing, is trying to do. And so it goes with being on the consumer end of photography – what you want to get out of looking at an image can vary wildly from person to person, and just because they are all photographs, doesn’t mean they are all trying to do the same thing.
Some people value visual aesthetics above all, some see this and produce work that purposely breaks those rules on purpose to make a point. Others are trying to communicate a message, and may or may not make the results ‘pretty’ for whatever reason. If you include commercial photography, well, mostly its purpose is to make a product look appealing so of course it’s going to be made to look as attractive as possible.
I think the thing to bear in mind when looking at any photography is that the purpose of it may not fall in line with your own preferences – it might open your mind to enjoying work that you might not want to hang on your wall, but you still get something from it.
Also, my favourite quote from these comments belongs to Ray K: “For everyone to ‘get it’ reduces it all to the lowest common denominator and that is hardly conducive to new truths or visions. “
Well said, Julie. We all have our own ways of viewing the world and expressing that view. You plucked out a great comment there, but then that’s not surprise, that Ray K is a sharp one.
Interesting post and thread. Some images reach out and grab me, pulling me in, and some don’t. Some music moves me and some doesn’t. The thing I’m learning about my photography is to shoot what I like today and tomorrow shoot what I like tomorrow. Having fun with it.