Conceptual vs Traditional Photography - questions for the viewer

[jovo]

I don't often listen to Brooks Jensen's podcasts anymore, but today's was definitely worth it. ( Podcast #582, 17 December 2009 ) He relates what I have, as a resident of the periphery of NYC, been increasingly made aware of which is that the only photography worthy to hang in NYC galleries has to be post-modern, conceptual, and ironic or any combination of those. It also helps if it looks rather amateurishly produced (though not always), is stupid large (as if everyone had acres of wall space), and is in blandly desaturated color If you're producing "beautiful" images, you haven't got a chance (except in a couple of rent-a-wall galleries), Of course, "calendar" or travel brochure work was never gallery worthy, but didn't pretend to be...it goes on calendars and in brochures, and gets shown that way in the first place. But the idea that the kind of work that some of the best photographers on apug produce is just not going to get shown here is really disappointing and unfortunate.

So...what's it like where you live? Are the same constraints being put on photography in the mid-west, the south, or the west coast? And what do you think of the type of work that IS being shown in NYC?

[df cardwell]

Conceptual art ? That's so '70s.

[juan]

Here in the tourist traps of northeast Florida, its over saturated, over sharpened, works which evoke sentimentality.
Or, maybe I'm too harsh.
juan

[jovo]

Conceptual art ? That's so '70s.

Yes it is, and so is new topographica, but it's there nonetheless. Here's a link to a whole slew of 'em:

http://art-support.com/galleries_ny.htm

[jovo]

Here in the tourist traps of northeast Florida, its over saturated, over sharpened, works which evoke sentimentality.
Or, maybe I'm too harsh.
juan

From what I remember seeing in the galleries in Ponte Vedre and Jacksonville, your comment isn't harsh, it's rather accurate.

[Marco B]

been increasingly made aware of which is that the only photography worthy to hang in NYC galleries has to be post-modern, conceptual, and ironic or any combination of those. It also helps if it looks rather amateurishly produced (though not always), is stupid large (as if everyone had acres of wall space), and is in blandly desaturated color If you're producing "beautiful" images, you haven't got a chance (except in a couple of rent-a-wall galleries)

I think you nailed it properly, but it is not just the US. Here in the Netherlands, a similar gallery "trend" is visible, though I must admit that some of the true photomuseums still do manage to stick their neck out once in a while and come up with good old "vintage", "aesthetic" or documentary photography of the great masters, but also lesser known souls.

But the idea that the kind of work that some of the best photographers on apug produce is just not going to get shown here is really disappointing and unfortunate.

I think the photography gallery market is actually going through its "puberty" stage... In the eighties and especially nineties, the first true photo galleries found their place in the art market, and did also deal in more "aesthetic" forms of photography.

Now that the market is going through its puberty stage, everything aesthetic is more or less abandoned, in favour of "arty" forms of photography with all the characteristics you describe. If it is big, it is good, if it is huge, it's excellent, seams to be a major theme... And yes, there is also big money going on in this, I have seen galleries here in the Netherlands running price tags of 10.000 euros for digitally printed and photoshopped works of 2x3 meters or so... and not even by world famous artists.

It all reminds me of the absolute rejection of romantic or realistic styles of painting when modernism started creeping in in the beginning of the twentieth century.

I guess we will have to wait for "maturity" in the photography art market, like with the regained interest in realistic art forms, that now can thrive next to modern forms of painting and sculpture and installation art.

[jovo]

It all reminds me of the absolute rejection of romantic or realistic styles of painting when modernism started creeping in in the beginning of the twentieth century.

.

Interesting, Marco. As far as I can tell, some of the best art (i.e. painting) galleries in the city totally embrace both contemporary realism and romanticism among their represented artists. Here, for example, is an excellent one on the upper east side of Manhattan:

http://www.spanierman.com/

[Vaughn]

Have not notice this trend locally -- but then Humboldt County is a rural area (with more artists per capita than anywhere else in California) and is a bit of a backwater -- no one has 10,000 euros, or dollars, to spend on art, so no reason to show that kind of work around here. I suppose I could find plenty of it by going 300 miles south to San Francisco.

Vaughn

[doughowk]

Somewhere I read a statement by Cindy Sherman that she has run out of cliches. The Eastern corridor galleries are still pushing it, but one has to wonder if others are also running out of ideas/concepts.

In the provinces here we're just catching up to NYC and conceptualism. Could be Northern retirees influencing the local viewpoint/taste. Conceptualism is an acquired taste; and, being provincials, we do want to demonstrate our good tastes. So I suspect the local scene will swing between gaudy and conceptual, with us traditionalists looking for the like-minded few.

[Greg Davis]

Like it was said above, the times change, and tastes with it. The Pictorialists bemoaned galleries showing only Modernist work, the Modernists complained only Post-Modern work was being shown, and now its Post-Post-Modernist art taking place. When the next movement comes along, they will complain, too.