>> |
Anonymous
>>172611 >who cares about the cliché of the 'strobist' style. >at the end of the day: this is a nice photo.
Three classic criteria for critiquing a work:
1. What is the artist trying to do?
Presumably make us laugh by doing a staged comic photograph, ala pskaught or "Dali Atomicus."
2. How well did he do it?
Not well at all. Very visually cliched style, lighting too harsh, composition is poor, actor is trying waaaaaaaaay too hard, costume design is fucked in a bad way, not in a good, funny way.
3. Was it worth doing?
No, not really. Pskaught's work explores social themes, "Dali Atomicus" is a photographic interpretation of Dali's persona and work, and this is just some shmuck pretending to be three year olds and we're supposed to think it's funny. Probably wouldn't have been worth it even if it was just funny. Good work almost always isn't so simplistic; it brings more to the table than an attempt at a two-second-laugh.
|