https://flashbak.com/photographs-by-the-perverted-flaneur-mi...
Or is this some commentary on the futility of the discourse, and postmodern discourse is just a performance art?
verfremdungseffekt = distancing effect, something devised to cause you to not identify on an emotional level with the subjects or the action in the scene, but to see the image from a more dispassionate intellectual perspective. Magritte was mentioned because his work often "breaks the fourth wall," directly addressing the viewer instead of the more traditional painterly approach of creating drama in the scene.
non-diegetic content = content which is not part of the world of the scene itself. The scratches on the photos aren't part of the world that the subjects live in.
I guess its a little unsurprising coming from the usual HN crowd lmao.
Yes.
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.
I suppose, as they say, there really is no accounting for taste. My own included, of course.
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.
Contrasting with galleries, museums, private exhibitions surviving off subsidies or entrance fees—and I don’t think it’s as simple as “it’s just a new way of viewing that you don’t like because it’s new”—what we have settled for are “free” ad-supported platforms that are in effect much closer to casinos and malls, and to which convincing a visitor to not leave directly equals revenue.
There is, of course, this flip side, where presenting any visually unoriginal, self-gratifying, etc. work in context of an exhibition gives it not-necessarily-deserved value; and it could be that the ability to make the viewer feel something you want them to feel despite all that widely varying context is a valid skill.
I just think art is poorly defined.
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?
"Tichy was frequently arrested for hanging around the local pool and snapping pictures of unsuspecting women."
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.
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.
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.
I don’t see myself in either category, at the same time that I do remember appreciating things that would fit both.
Here's a couple that I don't actually mind too much, but still not my cup of tea.
https://www.artsy.net/artist/misaki-kawai/works-for-sale https://www.artsy.net/artist/maja-djordjevic/works-for-sale
https://www.streetartbln.com/blu-murals-painted-over/
https://www.sueddeutsche.de/panorama/cuvry-brache-in-berlin-...
A good photo looks interesting or has something interesting in it or comes with some interesting context.
These are more or less random photos taken with a bad camera. That's it.
Now, I don't say you need good camera for good photos. You can make interesting photos with any camera. And you can also use bad camera for interesting effect.
But, again, these photos don't show any kind of plan, thought, deliberation, interesting subject, context, technique, nothing.
To my eye, these photos have all three of those things.
You don't have to like them yourself, but it seems a bit much to imply that they are objectively without value as art.
There is nothing objective about art anyway.
I agree with you, though. There is something in these. Some kind of motion. Some kind of primitive, wild instincts as well. As if a bear had found a camera, and he were more interested by ladies than about anything else.
Knowing the context and the work he must have put into building the camera, maintaining it and later developing his shots under the circumstances he worked with also helps. What I definitely don't see here is just a bunch of bad photos taken with a bad camera. I'd hardly call a homemade camera as simply bad, even imperfect it merits some respect.
I'd say they at least fit Susan Sontag's loose definition of photography showing others something novel.
I mean... I don't know if I'd take perfect pictures with such equipment, especially not if I'm trying to do it secretly.
... but I actually like them. I wish I could explain why; he's doing some clever stuff here. Some of it is kinda pervy and it feels like TMI, but he's at least being clever. There are a few photos that feel like you are voyeuristically peeking through time, the defects in the photos are like peeking through bushes to see something interesting. But mostly I can't explain why I like it. I just do.