09/05/2011
What is Contemporary Art?
What is Contemporary Art Photography?
Welcome your comment.
Posted by David Stetson (EWAA judge for photography)
The problem of definition
There are no universally accepted definitions of the terms “art photography,” “artistic photography,” and “fine art photography,” as exemplified by definitions found in reference books, in scholarly articles, and on the Internet.
Historically, the term “Fine Art Photography” has sometimes been applied to any photography whose intention is aesthetic, as distinguished from scientific, commercial, or journalistic.
Fine art photography: After much research, it would appear that “nobody” has come to a consensus regarding the definition of the term.
Prior to the twentieth century, the invention of photography and the ”Modern” movement in art after the First World War, “art,” took the form of realism, (as it was then.) It never really needed to have a theory or an explanation of possible alternative meanings attached to it, in order for the viewer to be able to appreciate the work, (beyond it’s title and perhaps some factual information.) The “theory behind the work” was only introduced when art became “modern”, “abstract” and “contemporary”, and therefore, open to interpretation. Although photography arguable came along at more or less the same time, it somehow never seemed to acquired definition and categorization in the same way.
Throughout it’s entire but comparatively short history, photography has struggled to become accepted as an “art-form”, (or I should say, photographers and their advocates have struggled to make it so.) In spite of the wide and varied forms and categories within the application of photography since the invention of the camera, it has only recently (in the last 20 to 30 years) begun to become truly recognized by the art world and beyond, as an accepted art-form… So assuming that it is agreed that photography is finally accepted as a legitimate art form, the question is… How do we distinguish between the various forms and different categories that come under the general heading of “Art Photography”?
My intention is to try and encourage the “entire art world,” (yes, the entire art world) to once and for all, adopt universally accepted terms to distinguish between what amounts to essentially the two schools of “art photography”. These are, (albeit simplified) “photographs that contain recognizable subject matter”, and those that don’t… Realism and Abstract.
Realism in “Fine Art Photography,” (as in painting prior to the twentieth century) being images that contain recognizable subject matter, require no more than a title and perhaps some technical information, In order to be appreciated by the viewer.
However, as in all art movements, there are ultimately “splinter groups” with, (usually self proclaimed) a new, different and exciting approach. So it is now, with the existence of an extreme form of “Abstract Photography” that must be considered as the result of a new trend and style of photographic technique that is now in contention resulting from the advent of digital photography … that of the “random exposure”… Where in many cases the image is an out-of-focus blur with streaking lights.
Personal opinions aside, all schools of practice have merit. Criticism of each or any, or attempting to prove legitimacy over one or another, is absolutely not, and should not be the purpose here.
However, the inclusion of a third definition or category, simply called “Art Photography,” may be necessary to fill the “grey” area which falls between “Fine Art Photography” and “Abstract Photography” this definition would apply to work that has a subject that is recognizable as being “real,” but having been reduced to simply form… A style, similar to “Super Realism” in painting.
Changing the accepted view and definitions…
By virtue of the consensus of many opinions, both qualified and unqualified,
there have been many attempts at classifying photography as an art, in all its different forms. It is indeed very difficult to define and I think it has in fact been made even harder by previous unsuccessful attempts.
Most of them are either too painfully obvious or they are simply redundant…
The term “Contemporary Art Photography” for instance, possibly being the most widely accepted term, merely states the obvious… “ALL” photography is contemporary in respect to its comparatively short history.
So I put it to you all, that there should exist three accepted categories or schools or definitions, (whatever you want to call them) with which to cover the entire field of art photography… These are simply:
“FINE ART PHOTOGRAPHY”...
Containing a recognizable subject matter, in the realist form as seen with the naked eye and requiring no explanation. This should be reserved exclusively to photographs taken on “film”. This can be of any size or format and with images produced by using chemical photographic methods, ie. “in the darkroom”.
“ART PHOTOGRAPHY”…
Containing a subject that is recognizable as being “real,” but having been reduced to simply form… A style, similar to “Super Realism” in painting. Which may or may not require an explanation. These images can be acceptable in either “film” or “digital” formats.
“ABSTRACT PHOTOGRAPHY”…
Containing an unrecognizable or totally abstract subject matter, in which case, a compulsory “literary theory”… An explanation of the thought process behind the creation of the image would be compulsory and must be included in any submission for any application for display of the work.
This should be produced exclusively in digital format.
