>>4378750For a long time, the 3 highest forms of art were portraits of mortal lords, scenes of their exploits, and religious scenes. So fellating the rich, and spiritual hubris. Good riddance.
Landscapes were later considered more important than portraits and historical scenes for a long, long time and the only reason this ended was (((hollywood)))'s creation of the cult of celebrity. And now most "important" (ephemerally) photographs are of famous people wearing famous designers ugly ass dresses to promote a movie. It's all money money money! You're back to fellating the local duke but instead they're a pedophile.
Much like muslims abhor depictions of gods creation and prefer calligraphy, it SHOULD be seen as more morally and spiritually pure to appreciate god's creation (landscapes) rather than fellating of man's ego. Portraiture fucking disgusts me. How is beyonce important enough for her photo to be special? How is someone a better photographer if they take a photo of brad pitt? LOOKING AT LEIBOVITZ THE NEPO-BABY HACK HERE.
Also to paint a religious scene is hubris: How can you know what god looked like? How can you know what an angel looks like? Are you a prophet? No.
All photography should be split into two categories
Glorifying creation (landscapes, nature)
Documenting history as it was. That means film, and saving your negatives. Digital is never real.
