Contemporary Art?

Jarle Aasland

Jarle Aasland

Nikon SP/S2, Fuji X100
Local time
4:21 PM
Joined
Sep 21, 2005
Messages
164
The following is a photo contest category description:

"Open to all subject matter and all photographic approaches, this is a completely open category where you can enter images that you feel best fulfil the category title. These could be fine-art images, nudes, single images from photographic projects or images from nature – as long as the approach is contemporary." (highlighting by me)

What exactly does this mean? "Contemporary approach". Doesn't make much sense to me.

Here's the wikipedia definition of contemporary art, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_art

Jarle
 
I don't know either. There is no "Official Style" in art today like there has been at times in the past (eg. Straight Photography, abstract expressionism in painting, etc). Artists today are pretty much free to do what they want with any technique or style that they want.
 
I recently managed to get about halfway through "The Photograph as Contemporary Art" by Charlotte Cotton. In a way, the photogaphy displayed in this book is the antithesis of the photography that I like, being staged, artificial and conceptual. I simply couldn't find anything to like about it. Whether this has any bearing on the photo contest, I'm not sure.
 
go conceptual ... drive to the shoot in a new car, then you can have a contemporary approach and an equally contemporary withdrawal
 
Just guessing like everyone else. But I would think they want to avoid the literal and are looking for something more conceptual or interpretive. To me "contemporary" suggests an emphasis on form and design.

John
 
Last edited:
Surely it's simply photography based on concept - i.e. with a strong underpinning idea - that deals with anything relevant to the present?

The Royal Society of Photography in the UK defines contemporary photography as the following (the quote describes submission of panels of photographs for its distinctions such as Associateship or Fellowship). Being one of the world's foremost photographic institutions (albeit a bit fusty!), it's a good authority.
"The fundamental essence of a Contemporary submission is conception. The Panel attaches key importance to ideas and favours work by photographers who, through their photographic image making, wish to explore, define, illustrate or evaluate contemporary issues or their own particular vision of the world."
​
I consider myself a contemporary photographer. My current exhibition http://www.richcutler.co.uk/exhibitions/ has this following description on the gallery wall. For me, the idea comes first, and photographs are taken specifically to support this idea.
The exhibition
Memento mori (Latin: remember death) was once a common theme in art, reaching its zenith in 17th-century vanitas paintings, and used snuffed candles, fading light and other metaphors for the past, the future and life’s impermanence. But today, art depicting mortality makes us uncomfortable: death has become taboo – avoided, and spoken of in euphemisms.
​
Rich Cutler's current project explores memento mori. Despite appearances, the photographs are about life, not death. They reflect our lives, mirror-like, back at us: Who am I? Where am I going? What have I done? They remind us that nothing is forever, especially not us. So, let go of the past, take opportunities and embrace life: carpe diem – seize the day.​
PS: nearly all the photographs were taken with a Leica M8 or Epson R-D1, just to prove that a rangefinder can be as versatile as an SLR!
 
Last edited:
It's apparently like Porn: can't describe it but you know it when you see it.

Best,

Bob
 
Jarle Aasland said:
What exactly does this mean? "Contemporary approach". Doesn't make much sense to me.
Click to expand...


Oooh, that's easy, just look at the recent copy of the yearly edition of B&W Magazine (the fine art US-based one, not the UK-based). You'll see what people consider (and pay good money for) art these days...

Confused? so am I.
 
Shoot a series of your own belly button using an 8x10 camera, and build huge 4m by 5m back lighted plexiglass instalation.
That's comtemporary
... almost post-contemporary.
 
Jarle Aasland said:
The following is a photo contest category description:

"Open to all subject matter and all photographic approaches, this is a completely open category where you can enter images that you feel best fulfil the category title. These could be fine-art images, nudes, single images from photographic projects or images from nature – as long as the approach is contemporary." (highlighting by me)

What exactly does this mean? "Contemporary approach". Doesn't make much sense to me.

Here's the wikipedia definition of contemporary art, btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contemporary_art

Jarle
Click to expand...

What ChrisCrawford said is somewhat true (the lack of a true One Way at this moment), while what others have said is also true (that there's a definite leaning toward the plastic and conceptual at the moment).

But this says "contemporary approach", not "style", which to me aren't the same thing (though I sometimes read too closely). I would read that to mean "not imitative of Atget, HCB, Leibovitz, or anyone in between". Nothing more, and I wouldn't really think twice about it.
 
Jamie123 said:
You can't describe porn? That's news to me. I'm not an expert in the field but I think this would be fairly easy to do :)
Click to expand...

Well Jamie, you are way ahead of the legal system. The supreme court has been unable to define "pornography". Once again, I think we all know what images are "pornographic" to us, but that is not a standard. That is what I was refering to.

Bob
 
shadowfox said:
Oooh, that's easy, just look at the recent copy of the yearly edition of B&W Magazine (the fine art US-based one, not the UK-based). You'll see what people consider (and pay good money for) art these days...

Confused? so am I.
Click to expand...

Enhanced by holding the magazine up to a mirror to read it....and squint too.

Best,

Bob
 
rpsawin said:
Well Jamie, you are way ahead of the legal system. The supreme court has been unable to define "pornography". Once again, I think we all know what images are "pornographic" to us, but that is not a standard. That is what I was refering to.

Bob
Click to expand...

Ah, but there's a big difference between describing and defining. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom