>>3679404you're complaining about people mooching off the aesthetics from 50 years ago but your example of good photography is a book from 50 years ago...
i guess we just have different taste in photography...I saw one photo that i liked in that book and the rest just seemed very boring...
and once again you spent an entire photograph having to justify why the photography was good and the name of the movement and how he beautifully exposed the human nature conflict in anthropocene and la dee da and his influence and all these words...the reason i like photography is because you don't have to use words you just look...
if you like that style then go for it but it just bores the h*ck out of me and especially if you have to go to art photography school to be able to explain it and then learn the movements and all that...like great if you want to be a museum curator i guess
saying things like they are masters of the medium with highly influential bodies of work just sounds like bullshit meant to keep photography and art as inaccessible as possible and only to those that really studied it and had their parents pay money for art school.
and street photographers are all doing cliche photos, mooching off aesthetics while the guy photographing houses in black and white is visual poetry...ok if you say so...you're just proving my point of the lack of authenticity
