Funny; I was having a discussion about this with someone yesterday.
You see it at all levels. I was bemoaning the entries to a local show where many otherwise decent photos were ruined (in my opinion) by over-saturation, over-sharpening, high-HDR effects. We seem to live in an age where subtlety is obsolete. Shock value is revered.
But shock value is fleeting. What's shocking one day becomes commonplace later.
Of course, we are probably rehashing the same arguments made by the realists about the expressionists.
Was Weegee graphic, extreme or just visually very truthful?
"Extreme" is being used in two different senses in the posts in this thread. Several are using "extreme" to define "extreme over-processing," meaning over-saturation, HDR, and a variety of other options made possible by Photoshop. Certainly that appeals to some who are looking for "decorative art." But the OP, based on the work on his site, is talking about "extreme subject matter," such as some of the work of Maplethorpe who is mentioned in one post, possibly Weegee, and a lot of Mortensen. Again, photographs dealing primarily with sex or violence also have their market, but it is quite a separate market. Based on the gallery shows I have attended, a lot of work sells which falls into neither of those two camps, so I would argue that photos do not need to be "extreme" to sell nowadays.
Loud noises attract audiences. Whether it's an intelligent audience is another matter, and how long anyone puts up with that kind of thing is an open question too.
Gimmicky stuff gets tiresome really fast, and digi apps certainly tempt it.
Bookmarks