>>4187879i appreciate the post. i will continue, and not fetishize art. thanks for the advice. in any endeavor i try to carve my own way. the modern era has sufficiently shit on anything that is meaningful and worthwhile, and continues to do so, sadly. i will fill my camera roll to the brink and beyond following your advice, godspeed.
>>4187510viewers always form their own meaning no? show me a picture where the intent is inherent, objective or intrinsic. it is run and gun, that's what makes it so fucking fun to do, you should try it, really gets my fucking goose going, adrenaline, good shit
>>4187441thanks for the post, i think you're right. i guess what i wanted to say was that film and literature seem more objectively critiqueable than photography because it's so limited. it's only 1 frame. critics and mass opinion have boiled down what are the best works in literature and film, whereas photography to me feels more like roulette game, a guessing game of what is actually best. same reason why i don't think any piece of poetry can be marked as 'better' or 'worse' than any other piece of poetry. they're not "big" enough to properly critique and more subject to the whims and fickleness of everyday existence. i might prefer a certain picture in the morning and another picture in the evening, but i'll always know i'll prefer kafka's writing over gogol's, you know what i mean
i think my blurriness is 1. to maintain a semblance of abstraction, which i'm a big fan of 2. to somehow capture the chaos, dissolution & eradication of society. my biggest art inspiration is james ferraro nowadays. 3. yeah to hide the admittedly just plain ugliness and messiness of most street photography, a crutch to make the pictures not seem so shit, but i always end up prefering shooting blurry picture over clear ones. blurriness does seem to convey more of what i'm trying to do however. it seems to capture more the essence of what i think street photography should be in ano domini 2023
