>>2685386No your wrong, he can take technically good photographs, but shooting models in a perfect lighting situation while aesthetically gorgeous, creates nothing past a pretty picture.
Your argument relys on the fact that Photograpy is relatively easy for the average scrub to take a nice picture. Where as painting for example is very difficult to get past the stage of having it look like absolute dog shit.
But this is bullshit, because even in painting, its not the technical brilliance that creates the best artists, but the freshness of their ideas, or the difference in their technique that creates something truly beautiful and unique. It is this x factor that seperates the arse scratcher from the auteur, and truly the idea that is sailing over your head, if you consider the 19 year old's pictures artistic.
If your point was true, then in reality we should see many photos on /p/ every day that we can consider great up to the level of those titans of history. There are plenty of people on this board that can get a pretty picture of a sunset, or the NY city skyline, but how often have you really seen a truly great picture that jumped out at you as being more than the sum of its parts?
I can honestly say i havent seen one. I havent seen anybody really create a body of work here or set of pictures that amounted to shit. And that is because it is a skill that surpasses pure technique.
On another note, have you ever looked through a proper photography book? I think id you did it would clear a few things up for you in terms of what i mean by that extra something something that determines art. I would argue that you can look at photography books as the real artistic creation of the photographer, a collection of images that together creates a mood, or en-captures a little part of humanity withini its pages. Just like a film. ( i seriously hope you consider film art....)
Its one thing for a pleb to fluke a great image, its impossible to fluke a book.
