>>3434217Wow, could you be any more edgy? This is textbook elitism pot calling the kettle black.
>comfortable distance away/not supercloseI wonder where this distance was learned from, gee. Our arms are only so long, and the ground is inversely proportionally distanced from an outstretched smartphone camera.
>theres a creepyness to blurry, unrehearsed, genuine oicturesThere's a creepyness to shoegaze, wall noise, free tone and any of that crappily efforted "music", but there is an elegance and _true_ emotionally scared shitless response behind refined binaural off-key classical piano. Or even the good stuff like bulgarian women's choir from Alone In The Dark.
>this was not for anyone else, he did not take it for anyone elseExcept you are wrong. The moment OP uploaded it to /p/ and started defending it ot was no longer meant for *just him*.
He posted it wanting a response and reaction.
He did not receive a favourable one, so do not lie to me.
Putting all that aside, you make a good point that OP is pushing against the grain to show something new and very raw and very real that deserves some merit. I'm personally a hybrid contemporary traditionalist, meaning I want to use traditional tried&trues in a contemporary/modern sense. Rework and recycle the old into the new.
OP's images are objectively a catastrophe, but if taken a little, just a little, more carefully and thoughtfully and with a higher quality, the they could be very well done.
>>3434471>>3434621>>3434624>>3434630>>3434728>>3435190>>3435192Literally all these are really goddamn good, and show what I mean by puttibg a little effort into it.
There is no shortage of "0 effort snapshits".
What most of us are also not happy about is OP's naive and fetishistic response to anything dead he sees, which is just not the societal norm. To act with eager salivating enthusiasm to morbidity instead of sympathy, sorrow, or revulsion is a bit weird.
