>>3160842> I could be anyone> clueless hipster kid, childish studentOne of these, I'd wager.
> if you think there's something more interesting going on in a creative manner than following poverty around with a camera, please tell me.Here's the Pulitzer's page with the award winning photographs from the AP for last year.
http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/photography-staff-thomson-reutersHere's the award winner for feature photography:
http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/jessica-rinaldiAnd here's the winner for breaking news photography:
http://www.pulitzer.org/winners/mauricio-lima-sergey-ponomarev-tyler-hicks-and-daniel-etterI'll agree that the Op's photo is not great--the only reason it got recognition is that it seemed to show a Muslim woman not giving a shit while a white person died from a terrorist attack.
But the Pulitzer prize winners? Fuck damn that's some good photography. Saying it's "following poverty around with a camera" is facile and reductive, like saying landscape photography is "Pointing your camera at trees and rocks", or that portraiture is "Snapshots of faces". It's not actually an argument, it's just you being wilfully ignorant of what's involved. You make it sound like they're just doing the 14-year-old-edgy photography strategy of waking pictures of a homeless person with a long tele, but they're actually embedding themselves in refugee crises and wars and shit, and the winning photographs are goddamn *masterfully* composed and taken at some truly decisive moments. Pic related.
Everyone goes through a phase where they think they know everything and conclude, therefore, that people renowned as great are mediocre. Push through that phase.
