20th century AD

Contemporary photography is defined as the "concept that stimulates the mind of the viewer to interpret the message conveyed through the creative use of line, form and color," according to notes from the 1992 PSA Exhibition.

If we accept as fact that the taking of a photograph is a creative act, that the photograph so obtained is the creation of the photographer and that all photographs have, to a greater or lesser extent, elements of line, form and color, we must assume that contemporary photographs are distinguished from others by being more creative, therefore, non contemporary photographs are less creative.

The dictionary defines "Contemporary" as "belonging to the same time as oneself," or "modem or ultra modem in style or design." Thumbing through exhibition catalogues, "Contemporary" photographs which seem to fit such definitions include those using effect filters (a comparatively recent innovation although rapidly becoming old hat), and pictures constructed by computers and laser posterizations. Effects such as bas relief, ordinary posterization (tone separation), solarization, montage and collage should not be called contemporary since the have been part of the photographer's stock in trade for all of 50 years and more--some were known to Walter E. Woodbury who compiled an encyclopedia of photography which was published in London in 1890. The subject matter does not seem to have any bearing on what is "Contemporary." It seems one cannot say a picture of an ultra-modem building is "Contemporary" whilst one of ancient ruins is not.

But, enough of these pleasantries. The "Contemporary" category was devised for very disparate reasons and has nothing whatsoever to do with the contemporary photographic scene.

What I am particularly concerned about is the growing practice of having a completely separate contemporary category. As one who sends entries to salons, I wrote to the secretary of one such, complaining about the creation of a separate contemporary category because the definition is so vague that one could find oneself entering the wrong category by mistake and not getting a fair judging. His reply included the following: "...previously all slides were judged together ... this several times led to the rejection of good traditional slides in favor of rather weaker contemporary slides and the whole final show tended to be swamped with an excess number of contemporary slides..."

From this, and other researches I have made, I conclude that "contemporary" is a euphemism to denote a photograph which has been manipulated. So far as the organizers of the above salon were concerned, these photographs were not welcome and were thus shunted into a separate section away from the main stream of traditional pictorial photography.

One can have no objection to judges awarding extra marks for originality (that is what they are there for) but to hive off original and specially creative work into a separate section away from other pictorial work is to infer that the work left in the pictorial section is sub-standard and needs to be protected from the competition, while at the same time an elitist class is created whose main claim to fame is the ability to manipulate pictures.

Manipulated pictures are often novelties of but transient interest. The effect of separating such pictures has not led to a continuous stream of new and innovative work, but to repetitions of the same manipulations. An example of this is the number of pictures taken through speed filters, many almost indistinguishable from the rest. We all know the sort of thing, the "enchanted forest" type pictures and those with a blurry red object on a third. These pictures have acquired a "cult" status and continue to receive medals long after they would have faded into oblivion had they been mixed in with the rest of pictorial entries.

Let us get back to having one pictorial section. Let the judges decide if a slide merits a special award for any reason. If the exhibitor enters a "C" on the entry form, he is pre-judging the picture. He is telling the judge he considers his pictures to be more creative than others. It would be even better if the word "contemporary" were expunged from the salon vocabulary.

If we do not like the way judges judge ... well, that is another matter.

COPYRIGHT 1993 Photographic Society of America, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2004 Gale Group