I suppose we've waffled on about this enough to probably constitute a derailment lol; but this thread has always been as much about symbolic art as erotica, so waffle on I will. I didn't choose that photo for its composition which is why I didn't mention that aspect, but purely as an example of effacement of "focused" subjects, further enhanced by the clothing blending almost seamlessly with the sky, and serving as major reference points for the light source as ensconced in shadow. And like I said, I see a landscape, you see a portrait, so we're going to talk past each other to eternity as our frames of reference cannot square and we'd merely be stacking bricks onto our foundational points as to what sort of piece the photo constitutes.
Also invocation is not equalization, labeling something as "Kafkaesque" doesn't render it equal to the works of the referenced artist; merely points out thematic similarity or analogy. I reference Monet as a baseline for my thematic analysis. I am not a photographer and I'd be lying if I claimed any level of technical astuteness in the field, but I truly do think he would use subjects in a similar way to enhance a landscape had he had access to digital photography--maybe to better reception, maybe not. Also, Monet, as many artists were, was derided by his more technically minded contemporaries and his art gained wider appreciation posthumously--again, as many artists pieces do. The term impressionisme was coined satirically, in fact. So as with all things artistic, his wide appreciation in the modern era is largely subjective, regardless of the technical merits of his approach.
EDIT: Changed equivocation to equalization.
Last edited:
