Contemporary Fine Art

thefly

Just saw the thread about a Jackie Nickerson photo. I have to say, I can't believe how juvenile some are the comments are. This is a favorite photography genre of mine. I do agree that it's very hard make an informed decision or have an informed discussion based on one photo so I have attached a few links to contemporary photographers I like. Things to look out for are an undercurrent or under lying theme. While banality is not a "rule" per say, it often features in fine art photography. Things like juxtaposition can be important and the context of the image is important also. And, you want to find out what the photographer was thinking and why he\she took the images.

You don't have to like them, of course not. Each to there own and all that but the main point in my opinion is, to get you thinking. Get your mind thinking about the images. These are not wishy washy sunrises or bloody homeless people there is more to the image than "meets the eye".

Anyway hope you enjoy and look forward to discussion.

Ps: There is usually a blurb about each piece. I would advise you to view the images first and then read the blurb and then view the images again. The artist is not telling you what to see or think but sometimes the images are so abstract the viewer needs a subtle inside into the mind of the photographer.

Anyway, heres a few to get you started


http://www.pieterhugo.com/selected-work/rwanda-2004-vestiges-of-a-genocide/17.jpg/

http://www.pieterhugo.com/selected-work/nollywood/nollywoodescort.jpg/

www.edwardburtynsky.com

http://www.cindysherman.com/

I'd also recommend The Family of Man by Edward Steichen and Sally Mann Immediate Family

charybdis

I bought Immediate Family recently. I think it was out of print for a while but it seems to have been reissued.

It's very good, although I can imagine some might find the subject matter a little awkward.

magicbastarder

thefly wrote: »

Just saw the thread about a Jackie Nickerson photo.

link?

humberklog

magicbastarder wrote: »

link?

here you go.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Fajitas!

Rather be a naked king than a poor pleb

sineadw

charybdis wrote: »

I bought Immediate Family recently. I think it was out of print for a while but it seems to have been reissued.

It's very good, although I can imagine some might find the subject matter a little awkward.

It's a very odd book. Certainly makes you think though, and has an extra edge given the whole you-can't take-shots-of-kids-anymore sh!te. I'd have to say though, I wouldn't class her images as 'banal' at all - they have a very strong aesthetic.

@thefly - I've forgotten (and couldn't be arsed searching :P ) did you make it in to the stephen shore exhibition? That sort of 'vernacular photography' (I think that's the term that's used in the essay that went along with the exhibition) is fascinating me at the moment. I'm gonna do my dissertation on it. Would also appreciate any more links

ender ender

Have you checked out the Stephen Ahern show at the Galery of Photography? Put me in mind of Shore's stuff, American Surfaces anyway. Not too sure if I like it or not but it's interesting I suppose.

Thanks to whoever posted the Jackie Nickerson video (sorry I'm too lazy to go looking). I think maybe some people look at her as a chancer but she obviously has plenty of experience with more conventional work.

sineadw

ender ender wrote: »

Have you checked out the Stephen Ahern show at the Galery of Photography?

That's my morning sorted - nice one

ozymandius

OK, seeing as someone mentioned Shore - I went to the exhibition and was quite underwhelmed. I just felt the images were very flat; or lazy even. The later BW images were very different. Better, I thought. See http://www.303gallery.com/artists/stephen_shore/index.php for examples of Shore's work.

By way of contrast see the images in my Americana post. Those images are so much more alive and meaningful, but still quite ordinary - vernacular even. Whilst taken by professionals (?) I doubt they would have considered themselves as fine-artists.

K_user

I can appreciate the idea of Contemporary Fine Art, but it just doesn’t hold my interest for very long.

The better photographers can really make a difficult image look like a snap shot and there can be a fantastic idea behind whats been shown. But, unfortunately, its not for me.

sineadw

ozymandius wrote: »

I just felt the images were very flat; or lazy even. The later BW images were very different. Better, I thought.

Hah! See - I felt the exact opposite I thought the B&Ws were over-aestheticised especially given the rest of the exhibition, and felt completely out of place. I'd love to see a full show of his - the one they had was too fractured I think.

Just out of the Ahern exhibition there. I really loved it - thanks ender ender for the reminder that i was on And I can see completely the reference to Shore. I think with these types of shows you *have* to take the whole thing into account and not each individual image. As photos they can seem a bit flat alright, but in the wider context they're part of a story. Or a feeling. I wish I had a better vocabulary for this type of thing..

I'm off to see if I can get some Parr books from the library in college. Lots of things buzzing in my head now for my dissertation God I love photography...

ender ender

You're welcome! I've to think about Stephen Ahern's stuff a bit more, I might go back for another look. Adam Jeppesen is similar (i think!), his stuff is beautifully taken.

I agree the Stephen Shore exhibition was a bit all over the place, more like a retrospective. I'd prefer to see just one project of his on its own. But I see a lot of similarities between his stuff and the Americana from the other thread. From two different decades but definitely similar.