>>3049685Assuming you aren't Isi larping again, and want an actual answer. Lets take picture number three - the church. The church is placed poorly in the frame. It does not adhere to any compositional method, nor does it intentionally violate one in a constructive method. There are many facets to composition, which can be used to improve a photo. Leading lines, repetition, shapes, juxtaposition, etc. Even worse, the perspective Is skewed. While Isi might argue this on purpose for some reason, it doesn't really hold water, as the image itself doesn't benefit from the tiny failure. The other issue that is glaringly obvious, is the utterly blown highlights. Again, you can blow highlights creatively, but it's rare, and in this case, based on Isi's previous rationale of the photo, it serves no purpose here. In fact, drawing back the highlights just a touch to introduce some detail would be a welcome addition. However Isi shoots jpeg, making that difficult.
Lastly, the image, put together as a whole, is aesthetically not pleasing. Is that ok in some images? Of course. However, it severely limits the range of use of the photo. Isi will argue that it needs to be seen in a set to be appreciated, but the fact is that images are not always seen in sets - they are often consumed individually.
In short, it's painful to look at. Isi appears to be following the modern art style of justification. 'Well I made it that way on purpose.' Awesome, but shit made shit on purpose is still shit. Much like most contemporary art is disdained by the common folk. Isi's work holds its primary value in her own head. Her photos are a glass of water labeled 'oak tree,' and like the contemporary artist, she doesn't accept any responsibility for this, but instead blames the consumer.
Even if Isi is shooting this way on purpose, or trying to create a unique look and feeling, she could still be doing it better.