what is "contemporary photography"? ive seen that

>>2839034
what the fuck are you talking about

>>2839034
I'd assume they use the term "contemporary" to mean "now", because in the art world "modern" and "modernism" already have specific meanings and relate to periods other than right now, i.e. contemporary.

>>2839038
important stuff.

>>2839040
>they use the term "contemporary" to mean "now"

already explained thats not the case. a millennial teen aping cartier bresson wont be considered "contemporary", even if his ass was born post 00's.

>>2839034

photography is only 140 years old bruv

it's hard to separate it into periods without getting super into the details of the technology and societal contexts of the time

I think in the future the line may be drawn at when the switch went from mostly film to mostly digital but seeing as how that happened 10 or less years ago it's hard to separate "periods" since we're barely into a possible new one

>>2839046
I'm not sure I'm following you then! Could you explain more specifically what you mean?

u cant really define the current artistic movement, that shit happens when its over

i definitely agree theres a pattern, particulary with composition, that pic is a great example

>>2839034
contemporary photography is a synonym for bad photography; those who call themselves contemporaries are often as vain as you can get: either technicists or conceptualists, often both.

>>2839034
>what is "contemporary photography"
It's nothing more than a label made up by gallery owners and critics in order to keep the work of photographers in neat tidy piles and to provide them with deep and meaningful sounding buzzwords to employ when selling it

contemporary refers to the 'present' but in art jargon its present photography that fits a certain mold

if you photographed really nice landscapes today, that would be present but not 'contemporary photography'

I think the basis of it is rooting the purpose behind the pictures in an idea, where the idea or concept and purpose behind taking the picture is the main aspect, and the actual visuals of the image are not important, or at least very much less so

ideas in art are very very rarely anything that is well thought out, its mostly bullshit, so theres this big mass of bullshit pictures labeled 'contemporary photography' where you can literally say something like a picture of a plastic bag on the ground is used to illustrate this idea of something...since its so very subjective these days, it doesn't have to make any sense because theres no scrutiny or legitimate critique based in simple common sense. Stuff like that is shunned because its been framed as 'unintellectual' and artists love to perceive themselves as being 'smart' more than anything. I think it has to do with a bit of hurt ego they are not 'smart' in an objective sense, like working in a lab mixing chemicals or designing software, etc.


The best artists, the ones that come across as true artists to me are the photographers that can have an idea that is central and most important to the whole project or series of photographs, have this idea be eloquent and simple to understand yet insightful and still have the photographs be visually alluring. This is an exceptionally rare breed of photographer.

As you can see by this thread, the problem isn't with the terminology. The problem is with the random people who keep coming up with imaginary ideas in their head about what the terminology is supposed to mean, and then projecting these bullshit assumptions onto the terminology as a criticism.

Quite literally, contemporary means simultaneous or existing at the same time. Contemporary refers to a temporal relationship between two things: a work of art, and the writing/discussion about the work of art. As a term used to classify art such as photography, "contemporary" thus refers primarily to the temporality of the text in which it appears rather than that of the work that is being described. In other words, "contemporary photography" means "photography that was created in the same time period as this text was written." It refers to a present moment that is shared by both the photography and the discourse about the photography--to photography that is CONTEMPORARY with its reception. It has no definite meaning outside of that. It doesn't refer to any specific style or politics in itself. There are plenty of other terms that can be used to describe those.

To reiterate, "contemporary" does not refer to a particular type, style, or period of art. "Contemporary" refers to a particular type of discourse about art. "Contemporary" refers to the discourse on art made in the present: in so far as one can never NOT write from the perspective of the present, it distinguishes the way in which the text engages with time and history. The ultimate point of the term "contemporary" is not to define certain objective characteristics of the art being described, but to define the methodological framework and perspective that is being employed in the first place.

There is no such thing as a single contemporary style. There are MANY DIFFERENT contemporary styles.

Alec Soth is hardly "contemporary photography".

>>2840272

explain?