>>4111962>That's a dig at you too, ya fag. Contextualizing your bird snapshit when everyone rags on it because it's shitI'm not saying it's good, I'm saying it's art. That it has intent and planning behind it, that it's not ACCIDENTAL.
>Yeah bro you JUST KNOW, you JUST KNOW. The evidence is THERE, man, like, right there.>You fucking idiot, that supports nothing. That's meaningless. What is the evidence, and how do you know it's evidence? How do you know it's not brainless aestheticism?Aestheticism can't be brainless and the look of those pictures isn't natural, therefore it must have been created.
>Like your bird pic? Like your dog pic? Like all the pics you haven't shown and we should totally believe you because you said so? You're doing the exact same inane, babbling justification, you inbred.No, you're free to think they suck. The only thing I'm proving is they aren't and couldn't be ACCIDENTAL. Which is self-evident. They're no CCTV screencaps. Love them or hate them, they required intent.
>See my above point and apply it to your own photos, againYou're free to think they're snapshits, but you're wrong because they required a self-evident creative process to come into fruition. It'd be more appropriate for you to say they're bad art or even worthless art that shouldn't have been created.
>How so? You can claim it, but at least back it upHis photographs challenge the ill-conceived notion that photography is a negative art. Everything in them has been put there by Crewdson. If something is in a Crewdson photograph it's because he wanted it to be there.
>What gives them these qualities? You can claim it, but you have to back it upThe pictures back it up.
