>>4406000I'm not dense, I've wrote academic papers on graffiti and variations of it, and been shooting for quite some time to know that yeah of course there's something unique to those photos blablabla (as with any photograph, actually; being unique is a characteristic of the medium, not a merit of these photos)
the thing is that it'll always be derivative and will serve as nothing more than a photographic record of a moment in time of that specific wall
the light will change, the mood, the weather yadda yadda but in the end it's a shot of the graffiti
it would actually be impossible to have it separated from those aspects, that's just obvious
I'm not arguing some dumb shit like "oh it's not art" or anything like that
it can be art for all I care, I don't give a shit
what I'm saying is that it's bad
your contribution to the photo is pretty much null (and preferably so, so as not to interfere with what really matters: someone else's work)
as I said before: I too regularly shoot graffiti
but on my phone, just to show other people later or see them myself, not to LARP as an artist
>woah i'm such a great photographer, look at the quality of my body of work>>4404695>>4404682>>4404683>>4404686>I'm such a creative genius shooting stuff exactly the way they were meant to be seen because they actually ARE in that specific environment and I make a simulacrum of that other art by crystalizing a single moment in time, reducing it to a fraction of its own potence because it IS inherently an oeuvre of art in constant change with its own environmentI mean, you can fool yourself if you want to
>>4406001sick reading skillz, buddy