>> |
Anonymous File :-(, x)
What depth?
The depth of the scene? It's terrible, there's no goddamn point to it. It's more cliched ultrawide shit, the sort of generic let's-make-this-more-interesting-with-baroque-strobes-and-hey-let's-make-the-subject-larger-than-lif e-because-he's-a-politician,- he's-larger-than-life,-geddit? editorial bullshitting portrait by people who can't shove an ounce of humanity through a lens with the camera doing everything for them. Pic related, it's the exact opposite, by Cartier-Bresson.
The depth of field? It neither adds nor detracts. Congrats to whoever took this, Ron Paul has an office and you have a light stand.
The emotional/political/whatever depth? That doesn't even exist.
Emotional depth? What, Ron Paul, like most old men, gets a lonely and vaguely confused look on his face some time? Submit this to iStock Photo and tag it "aging!"
Political? Besides it being just plain wrong, it's drenched with the superficial messiah-desire so common today. This flavor is basically taken up only by Freshmen just cynical enough to not be religious social conservatives, just pissy and morally nonchalant and impulsive enough to find their desires don't go with their bosses' or their parents' or their high school teachers', and just inhumane enough to not care about the poor or people who aren't Merkinz.
|