>>4064724>My point was, aesthetics of evil which photography is so bad at signifyingThere's an artist whose name is on the tip of my tongue, active in the 80s, who was quite good at capturing the grotesque in an unflattering way. I have his name written down in some notebook, somewhere. Then some pictorialist work also portrays evil.
>For something to be art there must be artifice this is why I don't consider documentary dogshit, artThere is no such thing as true documentary, especially with large format. That's something I do like about it. Modica modified the social environment she was trying to capture, whenever she was present. In becoming a fly on the wall (with a view camera, more of a Permian insect), you're causing it to become theatre. People won't behave the same way when under the photographer's gaze, however at ease they become with acclimatization. If you ask them to pose, to stand still for the shot, etc. you are already creating some artifice; molding reality to a scene. Even in some street and event photography, the photographer is applying effects, angles, views that do not accurately reflect normal participants' perceptions. They are projecting an image in their head, which I would call artifice, and seeking to recreate it in contrast with that which is typically seen. If I stumbled around at a party with a camera on a stick at foot-level and released a series based on those pictures, would that fulfill criteria for documentary or a product of artifice? I don't think the distinction is as stark as you see it.
>sharpnessMost of the lack of sharpness in my photos has to do with a mix of the imperfection of my aforementioned focus compensation factors. One of my personal favourites was where I nailed focus so well that you can see the individual capillaries in her eyes. Pic related. I am limited in my lens and filter selection, because of how UV is transmitted. I'd like to try soft-focus, but it'd have to be with normal photos.
