>>3658370>my interpretation is that you use other artists gimmicks to try and elevate your photos into something "interesting", here you're trying to emulate the photographer you frequently allude to that did the red tinted images and slashed negativesthe stonehenge shots have nothing to do with lieko shiga beyond the fact that a single one of her shots was done with a green gel and a red sky once (not the same shade of green, btw, it's a pretty different look)
stonehenge is commonly thought to have been a death-centric monument, stones being cold like bones, while woodhenge nearby was the life-centric monument of the same people. the idea behind that shot was to create a portal of light within one of the arched segments, an inversion of beliefs, just as the color balance is an inversion, just as the wooded surroundings are an inversion of the blank landscape familiar around the modern stonehenge
it's very clear you've never been asked to try to extract meaning from something before and simply operate from spiteful bad faith, so you can't be too upset that I'm not all that concerned with having a dialogue about intentions with you.
It's certainly not difficult to understand if you have the most *basic* of symbolic concepts in your head, but you just consider all cultural layers outside of autistic data points to be meaningless fluff, so it's really no wonder you're not capable of speculative reasoning.
bless ur visually illiterate and spiritually vacant heart :^(
>I don't think you have the ability to create your own artistic narrativeThat's some hard projection!
>>3658375>Back to topic. To be honest, as I see it as another party, the last postings here are all unpleasant. I only see attacks and defense, in an nonobjective way and not level-headed, long lost from the actual topic, no matter who is writing.Welcome to /p/, where the cultureless argue about culture while flexxing their lack of class and tact :^)
