While I was recently poking around on the Royal Society of Photography website I was curious to come across the genres of photography into which you could categorize your body of work for assessment. Of the eight categories only three really appealed to me:
Contemporary: Photography that communicates a visual realisation of a stated argument, idea or concept.
Landscape Photography: Photography that illustrates and interprets earth’s habitats, from the remotest wilderness to urban environs
Visual Art Photography: Photography which communicates a creative vision.
These are quite broad and give you a lot of space to work in. Never quite satisfied. And because all three appeal to me, I wondered about the intersections of these genres and what’s there.
I had fun putting together the graphic above to explore this a little bit. Also fun to learn a bit more about the history of photography in this way.
I think that ‘contemporary’ could be interpreted in two ways – it could mean ‘of our time‘, it could also mean ‘conceptual’. I’m going with ‘of our time’.
My new types of photography then are:
Contemporary Landscape – think Robert Adams or Edward Burtynsky
Fine Art Landscape – think Hiroshi Sugimoto or Michael Kenna
Contemporary Fine Art – I’m thinking of people such as Arno Rafael Minkkinen or those doing composites such as Jerry Uelsmann or John Paul Caponigro or what Jeremy Cowart is doing with photography, light projection and painting.
I still don’t want to be hemmed in by definitions but these seven categories – including contemporary fine art landscape – nicely encapsulate the world that I’m currently playing in.
How about you? Do you put a label on the kind of work that you’re doing? Does it help or hinder?