>>4191763I think it can be enjoyed on different levels. There's the immediate of just liking what you see or there's the appreciating the narrative or referencing if you decide to take it in at any depth. I really don't mind either, also don't mind people just not liking my work. Don't think I'm purposely making stuff to look ugly either, I think some of it is a bit weird or funny but I don't know if ugly is my intention. I do find it weird when people go over the top to justify their reasoning of why it is objectively bad rather than simply saying they don't like it. I assume it's due to the subject matter rsther than anything because I don't see that happening on photos of dogs or petrol stations or whatever.
I don't think there's irony in my work in the way you think I'm trying to achieve, although there is with the healthy hedonism photos but maybe that's more of a study of what hedonism actually is if it's not excess of sex, drugs, drink and pleasure at expense of health. Haven't got it all figured out, just something I'm delving into.
I think the "art is beautiful by definition" just leads to the question of "what is beauty?" which is something I'm also interested in exploring. I did a whole series on nature, which led to a photo book, that went into this a bit more.
You'd be hard pushed to present that something like Goya's Saturn or Witches Sabbath (my favourite painting) or his cartoon illustrations of war isn't art because it's ugly to look at. Same as something like Shakespeare's Titus Andronicus or Richard III, which is really horrific but still clearly the pinnacle of that art form, as is Goya. I don't really get the jewish thing either, Witches Sabbath for example I think is even on the ADL list for being antisemitic, which is pretty funny.
