I saw a show of contemporary photography at a local gallery. The quality of the images, well, let's just say it was contemporary photography. But I won’t disparage the entire effort because there were actually little islands of photographic beauty surrounded by a vast sea of over manipulated photographic self-indulgence and political correctness. There are still photographers out there who can compose an image and create artwork that does not rely on manipulation or pandering to a specific world view to gain acceptance. I was happy to see photographers gaining recognition through the excellence of their vision. I rejoice in their success.
But while I was enjoying some of the photographs, the “glass half empty” guy in me asked the question, “Do these photographs look good because of their proximity to really bad photographs, or are they intrinsically beautiful?” Suppose we hung the contemporary photographs on the wall next to "contemporary photography" of the 1970's era. (I chose the 70’s because that’s when I first began to appreciate photography) Would they be considered barely competent? Or would they actually be “better” photographs because we have more advanced equipment, materials and a more sophisticated vision than we had forty years ago?
That’s something to think about.
Comments