>>3064457No. You keep looking at it because it is a strong composition. You should be less afraid of people only liking a photograph or a piece of art because the artist is famous and more afraid of dismissing a work because you don't know who made it. Ask yourself this--how did any of the famous photographers become famous? Were they conmen? They might be famous now, but they weren't always. It often takes more work to recognize the quality of older work because much of what was new and original has been done and redone. The ideas contained have already been devoured. No one alive today could catch beatle-mania. Given the problems of fame and time, turn to the work. If someone was successful, first acknowledge the possibility it was deserved. Analyze from that perspective. Say to yourself "Okay, I don't see it yet, but what about this piece could make it so well respected? What possible explanation is there?" Once you've done that, ask yourself if it's valid, or if it's bullshit marketing. Basically, double-check your work. Post another picture, from a famous artist, or a random snapshot, and let's see. I immediately recognized the amateur nature of
>>3064327It's true, my familiarity with Wall's work allowed me to analyze this picture more quickly, but that is a privilege of a known artist--benefit of the doubt. If I know you've made good work before, I will follow you further out on a limb. The Destroyed Room is a good intro to Wall--first you see a destroyed room. Feels like it could be anywhere in middle America. Then you see the painted bricks of the studio, and the wooden supports holding up the wall. The room is constructed. Now the picture is a lot more interesting.
