>>3676585>>3676609Once again, /p/ gets it fundamentally wrong; proving, as always, that the most vocal are usually the least right.
>>3676580 this photo is the best of the three, and the most conceptually sound. The first two are just bland images of easily discernible objects that lack any clear message or intent. The viewer is distracted by the over exposed highlights and misfocus as well as the lack of any compelling subjects, colors or textures.
The third one, being black and white, offers more of a discernible message from the artist being that the lines and angles of the signs contrasting with the text is what the viewer should be looking at. The artist's function to compose the image is more apparent here, there are fewer elements to compose and it allows the viewer to focus on what's important which is the shapes and lines. The result is almost like an abstract painting..
It's main drawback is that you can pretty much make out what the sign says which makes it less abstract so you can't really have a personal interpretation of it. As well as making you think about the dummy that made and proudly displayed it before tossing it on ground and making it obvious just how much worth they gave it probably correlates to how much time they spent actually thinking about it.
