4 ms·
Funny, without context (that I am unwilling to pursue atm, just skipped the whole article for the photos) they just look terrible pictures. Period.
by soneca 5y ago
Funny, without context (that I am unwilling to pursue atm, just skipped the whole article for the photos) they just look terrible pictures. Period.
- staticautomatic 5y agoI think many of them are great and it has little to do with the “quality” being bad.
- CabSauce 5y agoIt looks to me like the pictures may have been for his... uhh... own self-gratification.
- tyingq 5y agoHad that reaction too, and it's not just us :) "Tichy was frequently arrested for hanging around the local pool and snapping pictures of unsuspecting women." https://www.howardgreenberg.com/artists/miroslav-tich https://www.howardgreenberg.com/artists/miroslav-tich Though he seems to have made quite a lot of effort in the handmade cameras and deliberate processing techniques.
- mdoms 5y agoYup, you can't just take awful photos and say "these are good actually". Well, in the art world you can get away with that kind of nonsense. But to most people those are just terrible photos.
- dagw 5y agoThere is no contradiction between something being both a terrible photo (or painting or sculpture) from a technical perspective and art.
- kergonath 5y agoThere are various philosophical and artistic movements for which art should not look like art. Others are about art being abstract, inaccessible and incomprehensible. Others yet are about use of archaic techniques to blend a modern eye with faux nostalgia (proto-hipsters, one could say). There is not one kind of art. Art does not need to be popular or broadly understood to be art. You are not a majority anyway. Good taste, feeling, and emotions are personal.
- IggleSniggle 5y agoI agree that you can’t just take awful photos and say “these are good actually,” but I think these are incredible! Haven’t enjoyed a photo series as much as these in a long time. I suppose, as they say, there really is no accounting for taste. My own included, of course.
- falcrist 5y agoAdding context does little to change that, unfortunately. I could understand if they evoked some kind of emotions or served as a deconstruction of photography technique, but most of them just look like deliberately bad photographs to me. Then again, I'm only an amateur at photography.
- Jensson 5y agoI'd guess they invoked nostalgia in other photographers at the time about their old bad photos, so they thought it was brilliant. Like an inside thing only they understood.
- wavefunction 5y agoI like them and it's simply because they evoke an intellectual and emotional reaction. That's art.
- falcrist 5y agoI get nothing from them. Does that make them not art?
- caconym_ 5y agoI would guess GP was trying to explain what they enjoy about these photographs in the context of their putative classification as art, not offering a definition of art itself. This would be in contrast with the comment they replied to, which implied that this photographer and his work are "famous" only thanks to an indulgent, masturbatory sort of appreciation among critics, other artists, and their general ilk.
- wavefunction 5y agoFor you, perhaps. I don't think there is an objective truth of "this is art, this is not art." I shared my experience of the pictures with you. Art is the experience of Art imo.
- jstrH 5y agoHaving seen 100s of high def birds, mountains, weddings, even pro photos are pretty repetitive. These say interpretive art to me more than every pixel of yet another nature shot, or airbrushed person. They make my imagination curious about the world within. When all the details are there just as they would be outside, why not just go outside?
- pcrh 5y ago>without context That's an effect of perspective. Knowing the fact that the "home made" appearance is deliberate changes the photos from being random bad photos to being commentary.
- hellbannedguy 5y agoI truly believe their are two kind of appreciators of art in the world. 1. People who like realism, photoshopped pictures, GGI in media, etc. vs. 2. Modern art, film noir, Black & white classical movies, etc. If you give the second a chance, you might be suprised what your imagination does. I used to be kinda a #1 guy with the exception of bad action filmed CGI movies, but completely changed as the years went by. I've even gotten to the point where I think color in film has ruined a lot of movies, along with digital.
- soneca 5y agoI truly believe that you can’t divide appreciators of art in simple, unnuanced, mutually exclusive categories. Specially just 2 like you did. I don’t see myself in either category, at the same time that I do remember appreciating things that would fit both.