>> |
Anonymous
>>100874 1. I disagree. It's easy to dismiss because of its style, but there's definitely something here. Was Hieronymus Bosch just trying shock with his works? (I cite Bosch because I see a direct artistic lineage, or at least linkage, between Bosch's major works and "The Imps of Marge and Fletch." Pskaught just adds his brand of humor to Bosch's wild depictions. If Bosch can be seen as one of the most important figures in Western art, you can't impugn pskaught for picking up with his 5D and strobes where Bosch left off.)
When I think of pskaught's work, I think of how Christopher Hitchens described the work of Martin Amis: "a vivid, lasting illustration of comic brilliance allied to high intelligence."
2. >the negative view of modern art on /p/ is due to lack of understanding. /p/ has no contemporary point of reference to judge anything by.
Heh. When you're talking modern photographic art, what do you mean? DiCorcia? There's somebody with technically astute pictures lacking substance.
There's plenty of good photographic artists working today. Loads. James Nachtwey, David Alan Harvey, Joel-Peter Witkin, Sally Mann, Elliot Erwitt, Abbas, Elsa Dorfman, Josef Koudelka, Martin Parr (who pskaught's work also has much in common with), Brian Ulrich, William Eggleston...
I'm sure many people on /p/ are familiar enough with those names.
|