Contemporary vs. traditional

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

In reading an interview with curators Bill Hunt and Sarah Hasted of the Hasted Hunt Gallery in New York City, I read a great deal of discussion about the contemporary photography market today. When I looked at many examples of that contemporary work, I found it completely different than what you see in several other magazines and even many of your websites.

How would you define a photograph as being "traditional" and how would you define a photograph as being "contemporary?" From what I'm seeing contemporary not only has to do with the time period work was created in, but also the style of the work...

[QT Luong]

A photograph is deemed "contemporary" if it fits into the current norm,trend or sensibility for what photographic art is. This has all to do with the style, and doesn't have much to do with the date. Some of the work done by photographers such as Eggleston in the 70s is being published for the first time now, and fits right in. An excellent survey of the many current trends is provided in the book by Charlotte Cotton, The Photograph as contemporary art.

As the publisher of a magazine dedicated to photographic art, why don't you tell us your opinion first ? Is the interview on-line ? This would help orient the discussion.

[Paul Kierstead]

You should check out things like dance, where you have "contemporary dance" and "modern dance". One might think from a semantic point of view they are the same thing, but not at all. Quite different, in fact.

*I* associate contemporary photography at least somewhat with the move away from photography as expression of beauty (in the art world, not photojournalism of course). But I have no formal or structured knowledge or opinion of the photographic art world. Mostly I enjoy taking pictures; I'm not even in any particular rush to see the results. Is that not an anti-contemporary view or what?

[Maris Rusis]

The world of photography is constituted into two parts and Johannes Faber, dealer in Vienna specialising in classic Modern photographs, has put it as well as anyone: “Collectors of classic modern photography are a different group. They focus on the image, quality, and surface of the print (sic), whereas the contemporary market is about content and size.”
The Art Newspaper, Issue 3, The Year in Review 2004

In general the driving energy for contemporary photography comes from curators, gallerists, dealers, and artists on the make. Of course there are exceptions but most of this cohort are not knowledgeable about photography and could not be considered friends of the medium. Their agenda is more about career advancement, job security, and pecuniary gain.

These custodians of contemporary photography tend to be oblivious of the conundrum posed by the number of curatorially lionised photographer who have no active contact with the photographic medium? The conceptual element of the picture is the quality stressed rather than the actual execution. Again when the putative artist is not the actual maker an unasked question remains. If the “photographer” is merely the commissioner of the work of an anonymous artist down at the processing laboratory then who is the real creator, the actual thinker?

The contemporary genre seems to embrace a trend, uncritical, uncaring, or ignorant, to declare any picture originating from any camera-work a photograph. This includes such diverse species as a press print, ink-jet print, or a monitor display. And it doesn't seem to matter how far downstream the picture is in the chain of production. If there is a camera at the front end then everything down from there is a photograph.

Sometimes not even a camera is relevant. I recall a conversation with a very "contemporary" senior curator of photography at the Australian National Gallery. I asked "What is a photograph?". And the reply came without any perception of irony or doubt "A photography is whatever I say is a photograph".

As predictable as clockwork the avant garde of contemporary photography seems to speak only one visual language: large size colour pictures displayed as if they were paintings. Maybe this trope has particular appeal to hopeful collectors who do not have much money but can afford a big one if not a good one.

The virtually universal preoccupation with big colour, I believe, hints at a coarsened aesthetic. Robert Hughes, the famous arts writer put it this way "In colour photography nothing is easier to feign than the marks of intense emotional or intellectual experience".

The picture making arts have many pretenders to authorship particularly under the banner of "photography". These "photographers" tend to be supported by an industry, both commercial and academic, that remains allergic to genuine scholarship. Again I recall an opinion from a senior curator, "Jeff Koons is acknowledged as an important contemporary photographer. I'm not going to question that. My department is going to run on world's best practice."

Jeff Koons may or may not be a photographer but his status as such might garner more credibility via critical assessment than through uncritical acceptance. I am cynical enough to opine that contemporary photography is often a circus where pretenders to photography are acclaimed by pretenders to scholarship.

It may not be clear what “Contemporary Photography” really is but it appears to have the characteristics of a self healing belief system that is unaffected by criticism or objective analysis.

If you have read this far you will know which side I am on. Classic modern photography, by way of contrast with the contemporary stuff, is close to what fine photography has always been. It offers a rich experience for people who love rarity, singularity, fully realized handcraft, fine materials, archival durability, coherent scholarship, and interesting content. It remains worth looking at.

[David Spivak-Focus Magazine]

Thank you, Maris Rusis. A very well thought out post... I would love to hear from someone who who is a fan of contemporary photography... such as Alec Soth.

[Hector.Navarro]

Bravo Maris!

[Merg Ross]

Eloquent, Maris! Beautifully written and to the point. I could not agree more with your conclusions.

Thank you,

Merg


http://mergross.com/

[jhogan]

>>>"A photograph is whatever I say is a photograph".<<<

Substitute the word "art" for photograph. Substitute the word "intention." Substitute the word "meaning." Substitute the word "perception."

Maybe you're trying to define something that can't be so easily defined.

When it comes to "art," what do words mean, anyway? In my language, or yours, or one neither of us understands?

[MIke Sherck]

Most lucid thing I've read today. It won't make you popular in some circles but I'm glad you wrote it!

Mike

[Jim Galli]

Bravo Maris! Thank you.