>>2920345I always like your threads No1, even though you do cop a bit of shit, it is refreshing to discuss this type of photography, and although there is a lot of valid criticism coming from these other people threads like this are positive for /p/.
I agree with the anons that you are letting the rigid intellectualism of your course or your interest in media theorists impact you in too much of a way in which there is no soul to your work.
When i say that, i understand that your photography doesnt have to 'say' anything specific, but especially with this style, at its core photography is centered around the experience of the photographer snapping the shutter. In that aspect, the photos in this set are just far to detached from one another. Instead they feel like an experiment in only the aesthetic of are bure, a mixture of photos that really do bite too hard on the style of established legends, (which isn't the main problem) and say nothing else.
I feel you use these highbrow art ideas of decontextualisation, but youve found yourself in this awkward middleground where you havent decontextualized enough but also by doing it the amount you have, youve told the viewer that any deeper meaning they could potentially read into it is immediately unjustified.
For a 9 photo board like this, my recomendation would be to simplify, focus one one of the sensations or deeper meanings you talk about and excentuate it in a way that really drives the point home more simply.
For example, my favorite is the one at the center of the square, the energy and anonymity of inner city life. How does that relate to the relatively in focus shot of some pros ass? If your whole thang is about the sexualisation of women in fashion etc, then atleast 7 of the 9 should relate to that, with perhaps 1 or 2 more abstract shots thrown in to keep the reader on their toes.
