>>3012211Sigh... so: the photo works as a document of a certain time, it tells a full story in a single frame. You can guess several details from it, like the fact that it is set in NY (it has easily identifyable buildings), it allows you to question the man's situation and to some extent creates a relationship with you (as a human, and specially as a working class person). besides its historical value in terms of documentation, you could also say that it is technically good/aesthetically pleasing.
I personally like the way it is composed, a little loaded to the left, but well distributed from left to right, as the building is basically in the same position, mirroring the man.(we dont know if this is the original composition).
the photo also generates a sense of scale on several levels: the man and the building, the man's feet hand from the structure and they are cut in the right spot, wich allows you to understand he is actually hanging from a great height. the human and the city, etc.
While this is a digital reproduction, you can still argue that the black and white contrast is well acomplished, he is wearing dark clothes and is nicely separated form the background which looks kind of foggy.
in the end you have a pretty photo, with a certain historical value, which gives you just enough details to create a more complex reading from it, and that is why it is a good photo.
>>3012252>>3013698Also, damn boys, you have a very simplistic view of photography
Recommended reading:
Susan Sontag- Regarding the Pain of Others
Roland Barthes- Camera Lucida
Walter Benjamin-The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction
and if you really fucking hate yourself
Guy Debord- The Society of the Spectacle
Jean Baudrillard- Simulacra and Simulation
There's also some decent reading regardint the idea of post photography by Joan Fontcuberta
