>>2846264>post-digital eraWe are not in the post-digital era
Most if not almost all people still don't understand how new media is effecting politics
>images reflect upon the construction of visual identity and self-representationThere is no standard for this, she is reflecting off of a constructed narrative existing only to support her set of photography. Provide sociological proof if this isn't the case.
>Her images depict hypersexual representations, conveying notions of visual pleasure, consumption and personacant argue with this
>Referencing aesthetics of mainstream pornographyNot in the slightest. I feel like amateur pornography is what this is referencing. If she were to actually try to reference mainstream photography she could have done something a lot better and more interesting. Something more striking and something that would actually hold my attention to look at for more than a few seconds.
>the awkwardness of her performance underlines the vulnerability of the workI only sense awkwardness in (excuse me for using this term again) framing and composition. The way she acts in the front of the camera comes off to me as more or less just trying to be sexy. The vulnerability lies in the shitty comp and lack of craft which is exactly why I made the parralel of this to amateur pornography rather than mainstream/professional porn.
>while raising questions concerning the digital diffusion of imagesWhat questions? Concerning what? The diffusion of digital imagery is an interesting and relevant topic today, but I would like to have someone explain to me how these photos address this at all. Is this in reference to her bus ads or whatever? If that's the case, she isn't the first to work a project like this. Other than that, the fact that these photos are hosted on a portfolio style site tells me the exact opposite of any message about diffusion of imagery besides in the art world itself.
I'm posting this in the interest in learning. Prove me wrong please.
