Does anyone else feel like a lot of contemporary art photography has become overly academicized?
I don’t mean conceptual work is bad. Sometimes the idea behind an image can make it much more powerful. But lately I feel like, in a lot of gallery and museum photography, the actual image itself seems secondary to the artist statement or theoretical framework around it.
Sometimes I’ll see work where the writing does most of the heavy lifting, and without the explanation the photos don’t really stand on their own visually or emotionally.
Curious if others feel this way, or if I’m just looking at the wrong kinds of contemporary photography.
Edit:
I don't think intention or conceptual photography are bad per se. But the images should'nt come secondary to the idea behind them.
Take Richard Misrach for example. His photographs work on two levels: first as images themselves, through their use of light, color, composition, atmosphere, rhythm, scale, and emotional ambiguity; and second through the meanings that can be read into them, whether environmental, political, cultural, or art historical.
What makes Misrach’s work so strong, in my opinion, is that the photographic layer stands completely on its own. The interpretive layer adds depth, but it isn’t necessary for the images to function. That’s the distinction I’m trying to make I’m not against concepts or intention; I just don’t think the image itself should become secondary to the concept.