I'm likely being insufferably old-fashioned to bring this up: computer monitors are quite limited in their capacity to display, to really show, the essence of a photographic print... they are certainly adequate for studying composition, but never the same as seeing it in person. If I were your tutor I would insist that you get out to galleries and study work that is hanging; it does make a difference, or should.
Prints that I have seen recently that show the vast difference between a real print and facsimiles:
a series of prints of Moonrise, Hernandez that AA printed across several decades--very different interpretations of the same negative;
A series of prints from Life magazine;
Anything by Chris Burkett -- nothing compares to a Cibachrome print (obligatory contemporary content);
Really large format prints by Richard Fenker (http://richardfenker.com/).
I have a question, after looking at some (won't say which) of the contemporary work listed above. Are you using some definition besides "currently working" for "contemporary"? As in, there is some type of scale of development of photography as art that places later artists in a more advanced state? I ask, because I see a lot of work there that is stark, and just plain ugly, in the sense that it's not pretty and has no essential statement that communicates to the average observer. To me, that is the fallacy of much of "modern art", insisting that a viewer be privy to a secret code to interpret a work that has no other aesthetic reason for existence.
A bit more than you asked for, I'm sure, but hopefully seed for thought. Art needs no further reason.
And, of course, all the contemporary photography sites listed below each message are worth looking at...
Last edited by Dr. no; 04-16-2012 at 04:17 PM. Click to view previous post history.