>>3111329I get your point. Now quit with the sarcasm and actually think up something with some substance.
In fact, I don't care to wait anymore, so I'm going to try and create a conclusion on my on (no help from you).
In portraiture, the subject isn't just a picture of a person, being a warm body or collection of cells. That's why these two
>>3111329 >>3111323 aren't portraits. In the first, the subject is her flat chest and underwear (her sexuality) and in the second it's the muscle structure of his back (like a medical diagram).
They have the portraiture side down. They're pictures of people, but they fail utterly to penetrate the deep inner core of what portraiture as an art really is. And that's pictures of people that contain a subtle inner truth about what's being viewed. We see a story within the person, something inside them that resonates within ourselves.
I thought my picture had that. but
>>3111316 brought up a very excellent point; I'm close to her. I already knew the story behind her, and so I failed to see that the picture doesn't communicate that to anyone who isn't me. What I did is called "violating the aesthetic distance."
In the end, It's just not a good photo. It has little to no artistic merit.
But it is a portrait.
It's a picture of a person. If we use portraiture as a dry, technical term, it agrees. It just isn't good enough to enter the subgrene of portraiture as an art.
>>3111334See above^
What I'm talking about here is art philosophy. It's funny, people always get mad when I try to bring it up
>>3111336this this this. thank you anon
