I actually saw this first message yesterday afternoon and didn't want to reply right away. I felt an answer needed some thought. I must admit that things in photography are again changing. Something which is quite hard to get a grasp on. So, please to follow my thought process... as it is not something I am sure will make logical sentences.
Art is inseparable from the times in which it is created. No matter how futuristic looking the art, it is always anchored in the present. It is thus normal that photography would very well represent this. Large color formats are a very good representation of the era in which they have been made. Most of those prints have been shot and printed in a time where the big screen TV was king... we could also say it was an era where big everything was king. It is only normal that the photographic print adapted itself to match. The shiny print surface matches the shiny surface of the television screen. Everything is usually packaged together including the Technicolor rendition of the image.
The subjects are also representative of the era. They for most represent an idea that the photographer had and wants to convey to the public. The idea is most of the time an intellectual comment on society or the world. I also understand that many of these works of art don't reach the average art lover. They are made in a way that is quite binary. You either get the message or you don't. This tends to leave many out of the circle.
You might say that many images don't go beyond the surface. It is only because it is representative of today's society. Very superficial. But it sadly seldom covers anything that might be hidden underneath. Pictures are made in the image of today's reality television. Instant stardom for totally uninteresting people. Only difference being that the stars are prints in this case. Like the people they try to emulate, they often rely on gimmicks to attract attention, just like the contestants on these shows that make instant stars. We also don't care that they remain relevant for a long time like those classics made by the old masters, just like those stars on television. Andy Warhol once said that everybody in their life will have their 15 minutes of fame. This is true of both people and artwork.
Art collectors flock to these pictures for investment purposes. Very few people know that in some countries (Canada being one of them), you can use an acquired work of art as an income tax deduction. So no matter if it is good or not, if you resell it or not, it is still a good deal. But this is slightly getting onto a whole other subject.
Now, things are changing again. Some photographers want to get away from the glassy large formats and back to something different. It is still only a representation of the times. Reality TV doesn't have the appeal it used to have. Climate change is threatening our very life. Senseless wars are raging all over the globe. We feel the big companies are manipulating the public. We are all getting older. So it is quite normal that we seek something different. We can tend to go the opposite from what we see at every art gallery. Or tend to go back to older styles which we grew-up loving. Print sizes will probably gradually become more manageable again. Small pictures that we can cherish and touch will become more popular. Images we can carry anywhere and that make us feel good seem like an appealing change. It is not that art gallery will instantly stop showing smaller artwork. But the big size art will probably become the "billboard" used to sell the smaller prints.
Texture is another issue which is hard to describe in photography. The gelatin image is inherently flat. I doubt many contemporary photographers will go that way. Especially if you consider that so many of them outsource their lab work to companies who use digital machines to do the work. But, as I said before, this is only part of the pendulum's swing.
I hope I am getting somewhere with this lengthy reply... or at least helping others and not just yapping for nothing
