>>3050670You're looking at a style variously known as:
>New Topographics/New TopographyWhich is a somewhat accurate way to describe it, but also woefully inaccurate as New Topographics was a single exhibition in the 1970's, and not a singular genre that extends forward to today. It's useful as a tool for comparison, however, because a lot of this style derived most of its language from NT, especially from the work of Lewis Baltz and Robert Adams.
>documentaryWhich is sort of a catch-all (what photography ISN'T documentary?), but it works.
>formalismWhich is true for some photographers who prefer a less narrative-driven and more aesthetic approach to their photos, but there are also photographers who are "saying" something with their photos as well and could still be classified as belonging to this overall style. gangculture has strong formalistic elements in his work, for instance, though he has plenty of narrative elements in a lot of his photos.
>deadpanthis is probably the most apt and contemporary descriptor of this style, and googling "deadpan photography" will bring up a lot of photos and photographers working in this style. it is still an incomplete description, however, because deadpan is supposed to be an emotionally neutral approach to the photograph, but there are plenty of great photographers who suffuse this style with ironic humor, or even sorrow or anger. gangculture in particular has a great sense of humor and playfulness with his work, which i think elevates him above his contemporaries.
It's not about capturing the oddities of life, necessarily. That's a shallow reading of the style. It's more about how life itself is odd. There is no normal, there is no center. Entropy is everywhere, everything is fucked up, but life is short so why worry about it?
