Contemporary vs. traditional

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Traditional: Things done "then" or done using "then" methods. Easier to say "this is good because..." or "this is bad because..." as there is an extensive body of prior art with which to compare the item in question. Value relative defense of criticism is difficult.

Contermporary: Things done "now" using "now" methods. Harder to say "this is good" or "this is bad" as the body of prior art is not very extensive. Value relative defense of criticism is easier ("that's just your opinion" as a defense of criticism carries greater weight).

Avant Guarde: Things done "now" using completely new methods newly discovered. Statements of "this is good" or "this is bad" are impossible as there is no previous body of work with which to compare the item in question. Value relative defense of criticism trumps everything as no opinion can possibly carry any more weight than any other.

There are, of course, squishy areas inbetween (using old methods in completely new ways for instance) but this is pretty much the outlines.

===========

Only time determines worth.

George

Could you name 3 photographers who you feel are Avant Guarde so I can see an example of what you're talking about? The line is certainly blurred between AG and Contemporary.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Could you name 3 photographers who you feel are Avant Guarde so I can see an example of what you're talking about? The line is certainly blurred between AG and Contemporary.

Let me give you a for instance:

Bruce Barnbaum, while extremely well-known and well-respected by many, is a traditional photographer.

Would you consider Alec Soth or Muzi Quawson to be contemporary or AG?

[gbogatko]

I don't travel in the Art world, so don't know the people you are talking about.

The thoughts that led to the definitions were from my music background, having gone thru the 70's and 80's in that dismal game. I've tried to keep them generic as a starting point. Thus Barnbaum is 'traditional' because he uses tools and methods that have a long tradition of use to produce a body of work that can be compared with much that has gone before.

Sally Mann of "Deep South" is certainly in the squishy part. She uses traditional equipment to produce an AV result. The earlier parts of the book are suseptable to criticisms of sloppyness when viewed from the purely traditional viewpoint, and from that viewpoint, a value relative defense would carry less weight. The latter parts of the book are more in the AV realm because there's not a large body of work to compare them with, so one must wait and see

If the latter parts are compared with the early pictorialists, they're at worst sloppy but mostly just ordinary. Compared with more recent painted expressionism, they're less sloppy. Compared with her own previous efforts, I think they fail -- but "that's my opinion" and is thus squarely in the value relative realm -- but again, one must wait and see. Fail because given the first part of the book, they don't seem to belong.

George

[gbogatko]

>> Would you consider Alec Soth or Muzi Quawson to be contemporary or AG?

As I previously posted, I don't know them. However you can answer your own question by asking yourself if their body of work is "recent" in tone, but still within a wider genre, i.e. their work is generally similar within a popular current genre.

gb

[gbogatko]

>> Would you consider Alec Soth or Muzi Quawson to be contemporary or AG?

I went and looked. Contemporary. It's the "thing" now to do what Walter Evans was doing earlier, but now in color.

If you want something more AV, look at Emil Schmitt, for example here:

http://www.emilschildt.com/POLYMER%20-%20SILLE2.htm

(new things with new techniques), or John Wallst here:

http://www.artlimited.net/image/?id=40157&lg=en

Again, new things with new techniques.

[Gordon Moat]

Avante Garde:

http://www.lorettalux.de/

http://www.thomasdemand.de/

Many more, though these are a good way to not be contemporary. I suppose Cindy Sherman might fit that, though she has been around long enough to have contemporaries doing similar work.

Maybe that's a definition: Avant Garde: work not be emulated by many others.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

[gbogatko]

Consider the following:

"Mr. X, the well known avant guarde Y"

and

"Mr. X, the well known contemporary Y"

Which one sounds like an oxymoron, or advertising fluff.

gb

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Avante Garde:

http://www.lorettalux.de/

http://www.thomasdemand.de/

Many more, though these are a good way to not be contemporary. I suppose Cindy Sherman might fit that, though she has been around long enough to have contemporaries doing similar work.

Maybe that's a definition: Avant Garde: work not be emulated by many others.

Ciao!

Gordon Moat Photography

I'm a *HUGE* fan of Loretta Lux. I remember seeing her show at the Yossi Milo Gallery in New York back in 2006. I don't, however, consider her AG. Only because she's been around for a while and her style, while contemporary, isn't new. Same thing for Thomas and Cindy.

[gbogatko]

>> Maybe that's a definition: Avant Garde: work not be emulated by many others.

AG: work not well known enough to be emulated, but will be once it's discovered. Then it becomes contemporary.

gb

[sun of sand]

The writer that gets to fill pages with stuff that exists but doesn't mean much
The artist looking for a way to align themselves
A buyer looking for a short-term investment

Who else cares about these terms

I don't define them
They really don't exist in my vocabulary