>>4428066No, photography in itself is not art. Indeed. Anywhere you find fine art "just photography" you're going to find it doesn't stand on its own. There is ALWAYS some "critical theory" or slacktivism (ie: behold, muh climate change) esque commentary that needs to go along with it, always some statement, otherwise, it's just snapshits.
You know, the kind of vapid stuff that a journo calls "powerful" and then walks past
And then you start paying attention to the apparently interrelatedness of all the participants. People get into magnum by knowing or being related to other magnum photographers, who are the friends and proteges of the past magnum photographers, who are ultimately, the ethnocentric co-conspirators of the tastemakers who tell all the impressionable midwit art students what art is about at this moment.
protip: now you know how to "make it". its truly who you know, you dont even need a vision just hit on a hot political topic that jives with the majority of the financial elite.
But, photography certainly can be art
>this is photographybut the art is a very small minority before the snapshits of poor people and garbage being pushed out by people who overuse the word "human" (and have a tendency to do time as leica brand ambassadors). And even in the more genuine side of things there are a LOT of photographers who just reenact paintings with modern clothing and buildings and fancy themselves clever.
Cinema on the other hand is inherently art.
