there are other projects on the web maintained by similarly youngish however heavily committed artists so this speaks to a group and not to an individual:

what do you expect?

It takes a long time of making work and looking at work to develop a sense of what is good that is educated. What I like today is very different from when I was starting out, and that is as it should be.

the problem if you can call it that, is that the gatekeeping function is now split open, essentially there is no gatekeeping anymore. this is good and bad, but obviously bad at times.

it wouldn’t matter much except that the general pace in photography has accelerated and we expect good work to come from someone directly out of a BFA. I don’t know that we would expect that from a writer, for example. there is maturity and then there is mastery, and it just takes a long time, with a few meteoric exceptions allowed.

Is this some sort of APE joke?

Are these the sorts of images that rise to the top?

I see a clear disconnect between what I would call better than good photography and these images (that I find less than better than good).

Based on the previous comments, I’m not the only one who feels that way.

I find these images as a group empty, void of passion, drama, beauty, unique ugliness, or even abstract curiosity.

In fact the only thing I find of interest about the images as a group is the consistency with which they maintain this void of elements I search for in a top caliber photograph.

If it is a survey of contemporary photography, it’s an oddly sullen, cramped and homogenous view. There is much better and more varied work about than this, as your own recent Flickr showreel proves.

I even wondered whether you were being mischievously ironic describing them as ‘outstanding’. Just to make sure I looked at quite a lot of them twice, and the more I looked the (even) less there was.

Then when I came across this masterpiece of gratuitous pretence accompanying some unspeakably trite snapshots…

‘My investigation, iconoclastic and sacrilegious, scrutinizes the “surrealizing” incongruity of darkrooms and throws the spotlight on the bric-à-brac of plumbing and electricity, the ventilation-system engines, the posted iconography, the weirdness of “planets” envisioned at the bottom of chemical trays, the splattering of silver salts, the wear of equipment and the countdown of timers that defies the disappearance of the panchromatic spectre.’

… I’m afraid I lost my temper and manners. My apologies. But anyone who feels the need to write b*ll*cks like that needs a slap.

I guess I was just put off by the fact that the term “contemporary” seems to have been hijacked and twisted by a certain set of people in the photographic world. Instead of cutting edge, “contemporary” appears to be used for those photographers that are willing to ape (pun intended) a minimalist style that appears to appeal to some editors, curators and critics, yet does not appear to require much technical or conceptual thinking. Nor does this style appear to appeal to people who I see as cutting edge photographers themselves.

The big difference now is that the big media outlets no longer have the monopoly on “contemporary”. Instead of dissing someone else’s choice, I can work to promote my sense of what is “contemporary” instead of re-enforcing the old guard by contributing page views to those sites that have hijacked “contemporary”.

My own anti-film bias was a little off, since I find the work at chromogenic.net much more contemporary then the linked article, and it’s 100% film.

I don’t know, but I think it’s just another book to sell to photographers who can put it with all of their other contemporary photography books. Maybe I’ll buy, though I have too many contemporary photography books that resemble each other already.

Oh well, to each his own…

I know it sounds like I reverting back to art school but I wonder if this attempt at nostalgia is a need to escape back to a time or instance when things were better. Because right now things could be better. But not in the desperate escapism during/after WWII. That was more high glamour Hollywood and Dali. This is more wistful and youth centered.

I feel kinda stuck because young and wistful just isn’t my bag o’ tea. I’ve always been more of a total escapist or realist depending on the hour. This sort of work is in between. It leaves me feeling not happy but not sad and very vague, which may very well be the point.

I just wish there were a bit more variety in the awarded and published imagery. There’s room for more than just a few styles. Maybe I’ll get into publishing. Maybe I’ve just had tooo much coffee.

Cheers,
Michelle

Just click the link, then on any one of the names of the people who “made it.”

Don’t bother though, just imagine that the old guard hates digital, and only promotes things shot on film, or look like they were shot on film and you might get a general idea.

Yes Mr. Editor, I think you are one of them.