>>4101278>What the fuck are you blabbering about? When did I mention anything about high art?? You’re literally just inserting ideas and monologue in your head at this point & arguing w/ yourself. Meds now schizo.When you said there can be something made via the creative process that isn't art. You're the one gatekeeping.
>Basically you’re saying so long as there’s a “creative process” everything can be considered art (which is BS and even more antiquated/laughable). Not anything, anything that takes creativity to make.
>But however… the creative process of Winogrand isn’t art, even though many people around the world regard him & celebrates his work & he is very esteemed. Has works in MoMaThe quality of the work has nothing to do with it being creative. His pictures speak for themselves, there's not an ounce of creation in them, just manic button pressing.
>Let me guess, you just began your professional photographic career less than a decade ago and think you know more about art and anyone else & you prove this by sharing 2 no name, generic fashion photogs whose work aren’t in MoMa. Really goes to show how low your knowledge of art isMoMa was a literal CIA psyop created to frame non-art as art as a way to "own the commies", dipshit. My career has nothing to do with my knowledge of art.
>>4101283>because you’re too smooth brain to understand or conceive other creative processes that don’t align with your own.No, because there's no creative process to speak of. If I take Google Street View screenshots, call them my photographs and pretend I created them, am I doing art or just curating surveillance? Because that's what Winogrand was, a curator of his own surveillance. He was a man with a stills camera, not an artist.
>>4101286>Feel free to show us real art Here you go.
>by posting your own work anytime OP. No.
>We are waitingAnd you'll keep waiting.