Photography's Expanded Field

Baker talks about how in the mid-1990s a whole new generation of artists began “to mine the possibilities of stasis and not-stasis” and “pushing the still image to a field of both multiple social layers and incomplete image fragments.” He mentions that this has increased the connotational codes found within still images and how this has expanded to a more fully cultural arena. I think that this types of photographs by this new generation of artist would be interesting, because each cultural group may have a different perceptive when viewing the photograph. So I am wondering how these different cultural connotations the artist created though photography affected the appreciation or acceptance of the new wave of art photography? I feel that cultural connotations are quite confusing, especially with art and photography out of my cultural realm, whether it be cultural differences in time or background. Sometimes I feel that my cultural background makes me perceive things differently, maybe not what the artist intended their views to perceive.

When reading the article, I found some of the description of the different expansion of art a little difficult to understand like how something can be narrative and not-narrative at the same time. I found some of the pictures in the text confusing also. Some of the pictures in the text like on pg494 look like they are just photography of just regular people, similar to pictures one would take of their family or friends. What is Baker trying to say about these photos? Are these included under his definition of photography expansion?