>>4210897>This is pretentious advertisingno. just no. this is art. uhhhh, sorry to be the one to break the bad news to you but the photographer who took those photos literally rarely does brand deals or any other kind of commercial or advert fashion work, she focuses on art more than fashion and she specifically makes sure to say exactly that in literally every single interview or when she holds a presentation - and even when she does do it, she either does it in her own way and her own style or refuses to do the shoot entirely - and even when it happens its usually for a high end fashion magazine like Vogue or some other jew magazine. her fashion, beauty and fine art photography is the old school art focused style, not commercial/advert type shit.
>advertisingalso, please give me one single shot from
>>4210608 that can be seen as a typical commercial or advert fashion shot? protip, you wont be able to find one because there is none, because thats not what she (the photographer) does. why? because she is focused on art, not advert and commercial fashion and says so herself on literally every single video you can find of her online.
>>4210887>competitive photographersjust because someone is willing to work hard AND put in hours and hours of thought, work and creativity into their photography in order to create a piece of art, instead of just pressing a button, creating snapshits in seconds, doesnt make it ''competitive'' it just makes it NORMAL, its competitive to you because youre used to taking shitty, tasteless, meaningless, thoughtless, artless, snapshits and call it ''alt fashion'' and ''art'' - well, ive got news for you just because you call it art, doesnt mean it is art. a snapshit is a snapshit is a snapshit. full stop. enough said.
>I too have seen perfume commercials for whatever is currently on sale at sephora>There are two kinds of fashion photographyno. stop. just no. read the above paragraph written to other anon.
