>> |
Anonymous
>>122683 (Con't)
>no. by medium i mean the type of photography. i should have been clearer. he could have done this on polariod and it wouldn't have changed anything about the story or content.
>none of you would have batted a fucking eyelid if it wasnt in this ultra sharp harsh lighting bullshit.
And no one would read Shakespeare if he wrote like a four year old with Down Syndrome and a lobotomy. Form is as integral to art as content; it's how the content is transmitted. No matter how good the content is, no one will pay it any attention if the form sucks.
>None of you would have asked OOOOH how did you do that.
Of course not, because every non-noob to photography knows how to set the ISO, aperture, shutter speed, focus his camera, and all that. Not everyone knows how to set up strobes like that, or mix paints, or write in iambic pentameter, or play the guitar, or...
>all of your primary interest is in the technical, making the content void, making your arguments weak.
TBH, I'm not generally too keen on this style or on strobework. It works perfectly for him, though.
>post a link? like that would validate everything?
No, it wouldn't "validate" anything, but it would, at least in theory, provide evidence for your position. What sort of work do you consider "artists using photography?" And how does it differ from pskaught's work? You're case is entirely a negation: one big long "pskaught sucks gaiz and you all are cocksucking sycophants" is not an argument. Offer real points or GTFO.
|