What do you think?
Rate this book
PHOTOart: Photography in the 21st Century
More adventurous in scope than other comparable compendiums, "Photo Art" is a vast critical survey of contemporary conceptual-oriented photography. It particularly addresses the work of artists emerging in Western and Eastern Europe--many of whom will be new to American audiences--and presents critical contexts for their work in accompanying essays. Gathering more than 120 image-makers from around the globe, this luscious compendium reads like an international art fair between covers, with the work of artists to watch now and in the future, from established figures to representatives of the newest generation. Among the artists featured here are Roy Arden, the Atlas Group, Seung Woo Back, Richard Billingham, Gerard Byrne, Claude Closky, Natalie Czech, Tacita Dean, Luc Delahaye, Ruud van Empel, J.H. Engström, Charles Fréger, Stephen Gill, G.R.A.M., Beate Gütschow, Jitka Hanzlová, Annika von Hausswolff, Michael Janiszewski, Aglaia Konrad, Justine Kurland, An-My Lê, Jochen Lempert, Zbigniew Libera, Hellen van Meene, Multiplicity, Wangechi Mutu, Mika Ninagawa, Arno Nollen, Gábor Ösz, Peter Piller, Xavier Ribas, Torbjørn Rødland, Anri Sala, Jules Spinatsch, Eve Sussman, Alec Soth, Santiago Sierra, Janaina Tschäpe, Jens Ullrich, Santos R. Vasquez, Qingsong Wang, Michael Wesely, Yang Fudong and Takashi Yasumura. Each artist's work is given a generous four-page spread, and many of these are embellished with installation views, book layouts and shots of artist's websites. Essays by 20 of the world's top international curators and theorists, including Uta Grosenick and Thomas Seelig, along with a glossary of important technical and theoretical terms, make this a definitive and essential volume.
- GenresPhotography
519 pages, Paperback
First published April 1, 2008
17 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
February 23, 2019
Some of these views were 4 or 5 star. I picked it because of the cover and not for its size. (HUGE and was on display- poundage and size not to be put into a book drop and mine DID have hard covers). The cover plate has a picture of Princess Margaret back in the day at their peer island retreat. And I thought it is definitely the most indicative photo for her personality that I'd ever seen. It truly caught me. It's one of maybe 5 or 6 in the entire collection of many artists that I think is a 5 star. And what does it say about me that I like all the Eastern European better than the Western European.
Most of these samples are moderns (stuff like machinery or clothing arranged in shapes/ piles etc. that kind of linear or texture study), but there are a couple of abstract or landscape or portrait forms in there.
Honestly, it's hard for me to be a judge. I sincerely cannot understand how anyone could make a living taking photos like this. But they do, so what do I know. Some are film, some ARE digital. And they are not all in black and white as so many "art" collections have tended to be. I can remember clearly a day when all digital was "nose up in the air" frowned upon.
Regardless, I'm not a accurate judge to any art form, or poetry either. But I do know what I like and what I think is stupid (many of these). And much prefer the human and animal forms, shapes and insets.
How Margaret looks both vulnerable and has her head just at that tilt and gaze that seems almost a waiting challenge to produce snark for "disturbing" her in the first place or bothering for you to be there at all- both together are visible. And the others in the background are placed rather introspectively and for "balance" as well.
Some of the abstracts I think I could do better myself just by taking photos of the inside of cooking pots for different soups etc.
Well, that's the entire art collection I view in book form for the next 2 years. LOL! I'd rather go to the Art Institute.
Most of these samples are moderns (stuff like machinery or clothing arranged in shapes/ piles etc. that kind of linear or texture study), but there are a couple of abstract or landscape or portrait forms in there.
Honestly, it's hard for me to be a judge. I sincerely cannot understand how anyone could make a living taking photos like this. But they do, so what do I know. Some are film, some ARE digital. And they are not all in black and white as so many "art" collections have tended to be. I can remember clearly a day when all digital was "nose up in the air" frowned upon.
Regardless, I'm not a accurate judge to any art form, or poetry either. But I do know what I like and what I think is stupid (many of these). And much prefer the human and animal forms, shapes and insets.
How Margaret looks both vulnerable and has her head just at that tilt and gaze that seems almost a waiting challenge to produce snark for "disturbing" her in the first place or bothering for you to be there at all- both together are visible. And the others in the background are placed rather introspectively and for "balance" as well.
Some of the abstracts I think I could do better myself just by taking photos of the inside of cooking pots for different soups etc.
Well, that's the entire art collection I view in book form for the next 2 years. LOL! I'd rather go to the Art Institute.
August 21, 2023
I love contemporary photography, I do contemporary photography, I show contemporary photography in my gallery, but this book is sorely disappointing. Some of the featured photographers are compelling but a majority of them are, to be rather harsh, stupid.
When I say "stupid", I don't mean, "It makes no sense to me, why can't they use better techniques?" I mean it is gimmicky, derivative, and shock for the sake of shock. Naked women with their legs spread, generic portraits of black people looking sad, generic street shots of beautiful white people looking bored, busy images of consumerism. It is Photo 101 of "how to be edgy". It is contemporary photography's version of Hot Topic. It's Garth Brooks being Chris Raines.
Ultimately, it fails at being illuminating. Even worse, it fails at making me want to make art.
When I say "stupid", I don't mean, "It makes no sense to me, why can't they use better techniques?" I mean it is gimmicky, derivative, and shock for the sake of shock. Naked women with their legs spread, generic portraits of black people looking sad, generic street shots of beautiful white people looking bored, busy images of consumerism. It is Photo 101 of "how to be edgy". It is contemporary photography's version of Hot Topic. It's Garth Brooks being Chris Raines.
Ultimately, it fails at being illuminating. Even worse, it fails at making me want to make art.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews