Is this a meme? Most of these pictures are utter garbage/snapshots. Is it just me? Do I not see the 4+ years of work in these "phenomenal" art pieces?
>>2837881
Look through this here: http://www.nytimes.com/slideshow/2016/05/12/t-magazine/the-best-photography-from-yales-mfa-students/s/12tmag-viewfinder-slide-1UJE.html
lots of art students graduate with dogshit portfolios
I'm not shocked.
>>2837881
Thanks for the laugh. That one set of snapshits where the guy titled his """""""work"""""""
Is it just me or is it literally the same guy who starts every thread like this?
>HURR DURR WPP IS OUT CAN'T BELIEVE THIS SHIT WON
>LOL MAGNUM MORE LIKE SHITTEUM
etc, et al, ad nauseum.
>>2837881
2/3 of them are lightyears ahead of what /p/ will ever produce.
If it makes you feel better, some are actually really awful. The one with the eagle and that shot of the building especially. There's just nothing separating them from simple vernacular photography. Anyone, and I mean literally anyone, with a smartphone could and would have taken those shots just as well.
But seeing how most of them are far and away from anything 99.99% of people on this board have ever produced, who cares?
how much does yale cost per year?
imagine all the gear + traveling expenses they could have bought instead...
>>2837881
they're all garbage, those are unintelligent and derivative photos but that's to be expected because who goes to yale, one of the best institutions in the western hemisphere for photography? should've gone to Art Center or SVA
>inb4 b-b-but gregory crewdson and philip-lorcia dicorcia studied at yale
Ops pic is a classic example of bw being used as a crutch
>no intresting subject but its in bw
classic /p/ butthurt about being uneducated and not understanding photography/art
I have a BFA in photography
It was the biggest waste of time I guess
I dunno..I've been round Yale MFA peoples...
It's kind of maddening the bizarre hyper navel gazing that goes on...sitting through presentations of these people that last two hours long and they say absolutely nothing but post modern word salads
It becomes kind of like this theater of the most incredible bullshit...so much you start appreciating nothing the 'artist' has done, but their skill in bullshitting.
Some of them are pretty interesting/smart people.
The one that kicked my dick in and made me want to quit school (I dunno why I didnt) was some photographer that was in MOMA and big fancy galleries and did a 2 hour presentation on her pictures which where birds eating at her bird feeder. Like shit you would see on flickr of someone who just got their first camera. 2 hours of bullshit on that, I'm looking around and I can't fathom what the hell is going on around me, people actually interested in this? People believing anything thats being said? Insanity.
Art school is very much a scam which benefits people that work at the college and basically defrauds young people of their money. The professors make 6 figures for about 6 hours of work a week, and all the students just come to the realization that the only way to use whats being taught is to get an MFA and then get a teaching job. So theres like 1000 students for every 'job' of spouting all the bullshit to the next group. Its a horrible world.
>>2838110
Yalefag spotted
>>2837881
Most of those are really good
Some are complete shit
>>2837998
I'm starting to think more and more that themule loves dick up his ass
>>2838118
>navel gazing
>post modern word salads
>bullshit
Lmao, buttfrustrated MFA reject detected
I'm sorry that you're a BFA who literally can't comprehend anything above undergrad tier "and this is how you take a picture" spoonfeeding, but try not to be so sour grapes about it. Instead of obsessing over your delusions about how art school and the art world is some sort of big evil conspiracy, try educating yourself about the real history and issues with photography in the united states. There IS a scam going on but it's not the fact that undergrad degrees and unfunded MAs are just cash cows to fund MA and PhD programs, or for that matter the fact that professors--GASP--earn a livable salary (if you want something to be upset about, take a look at the salaries of the disproportionate number of "administrative" and managerial staff bloating most universities' payrolls. Then, look at the wages of the "adjunct" and "sessional" instructors who do most of the ACTUAL teaching while the professors research/make art and the administrators... administrate.)
Huh, sorry for the change of tone, this post started as a throwaway making fun of your shortsighted attitude but halfway through I wanted to make an actual point, because despite the fact that you're blurring the line between a valid critique of institutional privilege and elitism on the one hand (of the MFA and MOMA circlejerk) and idiotic reactionary propaganda on the other (hurr durr it's all bullshit made-up nonsense who needs art or academia) your ressentiment is not unjustified.
>>2837881
why would you expect anything good to come out of going to Yale, other than being able to tell employers "I was rich enough to go to Yale"
>>2838142
>implying anyone that went to Yale would post on 4chan, much less /p/
>>2837882
Four are good. Rest are babby's first rabal tier, or high school art class level at best.
>>2838176
well, it's a slow day at the studio and there's a long line at craft services soooo why not have some fun on the internet?
>sent from muh iFone
>>2837882
I feel like Eva O'Leary shows the most promise
>>2838151
what does this post even mean?
"nd this is how you take a picture" is like the first month of a BFA and then you're pretty much done with that
you don't sound like you know what you are talking about, or maybe your in a BFA program and shitposting to feel better about yourself and where you are
my conclusions are reactionary, they are what any person of sound mind would make
you have bought the 'its worth it for the experience' snake oil and sound completely bowled over by how colleges run their business model
Some of those photos are pure dogshit, mercy...
>>2838197
>what does this post even mean?
I know you're not exactly a genius (otherwise you wouldn't be a washed out BFA) but please try and make an effort, anon
>>2837998
>There's just nothing separating them from simple vernacular photography.
Welcome to the future. Where arts are fully democratized, and stuffy art intellectualism is cast as the delinquient self-abusive orphan it always really was before economics entered play.
Vernacular is the future of photography. And that's a good thing. Over-intellectualization is an anti-intellectual act.
>>2838228
>it's either over-intellectualized restrictive and stuffy, or totally anti-intellectual vernacular with zero element of formalism or standard
digusting black-and-white opinion. there is always a middle ground.
at any rate, vernacular art is not something that should be taught for half-a million dollars in 4 years at an academic institution. it would be like going to a musical college for 4 years, to get a Master's in "how to play a mediocre rendition of Wonderwall on guitar for your friends at parties"
>>2838244
That analogy is far more criminal than that false dichotomy.
But then again, so are certain collegiate notions of what "vernacular" even is.
"I see so many kids that love being writers more than they love writing."
>>2838248
vernacular in the sense of many of the photos in the link are just "I saw a pretty bird, and I like birds, it had an emotional effect on my so I took a picture of it"
i.e. the same thought process your mum goes through when taking snaps with a disposable on her vacation to florida
>"I see so many kids that love being writers more than they love writing."
disgusting
>>2838228
ENOUGH with the "democratization of the arts" meme
When's the last time you saw a representational democracy that served the interests of the people and not just those of a powerful minority? How exactly were the needs of every woman, child, slave, and deceased soldier in ancient greece reconciled with the single vote cast by the male citizen who fucked, raised, dominated and killed them, respectively?
If photography ever democratized the arts, it was a bourgeois revolution in the sense augured by Baudelaire. The vernacular is a bourgeois concept after all--coming out of the modern practice of dandyism and a socially coded everyday--and now it ideologically blindfolds the proletariat. Yes, we don't want any "stuffy art intellectualism"--let's keep the oppressed classes nice and ignorant!
>>2838176
>implying you need to be a special snowflake to go to Yale
>>2838261
>he thinks the arts are what are oppressing the classes and keeping them ignorant
lol
>>2838261
>b-but my art history DOES MATTER! I AM MEANINGFUL! I AM A REAL HISTORIAN!
You're a walking trope.
>>2838268
Where have you been for the last 2000 years?
>>2838228
Sorry, I won't cater to poorfags. They don't have money to buy prints. Eurocentric art is where the money is at, so that's what will continue to be the "future of photography".
>>2838272
There's an analogy to gun control debates in here.
>all this digishit
>>2838327
this. these are shit images that dont even look good. well what else can you expect from digiplebs.
>>2838151
Can you please analyze the all the pictures then
Call me simple but for me a good photograph has to look interesting or beautiful first. Meaning should be an additional layer and not the whole thing. Like old paintings that look impressive but also have meanings in them that you can understand if you know what the painting is about.
I read a book with artsy photographs and their analysis and it all honestly sounded far fetched. Like they took some mediocre photograph and then invented a narrative. It's almost like a parody.
photography hasn't been legitimate art since the early 70s
>>2838348
sure sure.
It's all about the connections you have. If you have connections in the media, galleries etc, you could easily upgrade yourself from a 'good artist' to a 'great artist'.
Most of the big shot photographers who are mostly jews fulfill these requirements quite easily.
Silly stuff
>>2838378
>It's all about the connections you have.
Sadly this is what art has become.
>/p/ tries to understand actual art
>I don't think it looks good so it's bad
>>2838384
In a world where every third person is a self proclaimed artist, making 40 photos a day on 4 different sharing platforms chasing after likes and follows, if you want to stand out, you have to be connected with people who have the capability to showcase your work.
It's not really worse than it was before. Today, you can get your wildlife photos showcased in any number of places, from National Geographic to your cousin's "Cool Deer" blog, and a hundred other places in between. 30 years ago, you had thousands of photographers fighting to be in the very small spotlight provided by a couple of very notable publications, and that was their only option. Now, there are tons more places to get noticed, but far more photographers to have to overcome to get noticed by them.
Then comes the issue brought up in that other thread, that most photographers think they deserve to be noticed, and that the only reason they aren't is due to their lack of connections and opportunities, but in fact, they're exactly as good as everyone around them, or in many cases, worse.
>>2838388
Fell free to educate us. Please explain the virtues of the photo in the OP. Educate the plebs.
Feel free to trip while you do it, so you can get credit for proving to us that you're so much better educated!
>>2838390
why would I go through the effort when you're /p/ are obviously dimwitted contrarians
>>2838392
Yeah, didn't think so. Good try though!
>>2838393
whatever bro, I don't have anything to prove to shiposters
>>2838389
>if you want to stand out, you have to be connected with people who have the capability to showcase your work
Or do something different, which, let's be honest, that's really hard to do.
>>2838394
Seriously, it was a good try, but let it go. Literally zero people fall for that sort of posturing. Just like putting on a too-large flat brimmed hat doesn't make you one of the cool kids.
It's okay though! You're anon! You can just stop talking, and go to another thread, and nobody will ever know it was you.
>>2838394
You ARE the shitposter.
>>2838396
Not just different, but different and BETTER, which is VERY hard to do. But even if you're doing something different and better, there's no guarantee that your audience will raise you up out of obscurity. Where do respected photographers even get wide audiences these days? A month showcased in the most popular gallery in the country still gets you maybe 1/10th the exposure of a semi naked model on instagram. Though admittedly, it's better exposure, with more artistic density.
>>2838401
I'd rather be showcased at a gallery for my talents than "showcased" on Instagram because I'm posing nude, even if it's a small no name gallery.
Never gonna happen, though.
>>2838403
Yeah, for sure, but the point is, that the definition of "making it" these days is very diluted. People just don't really care about photography anymore. It's become a super disposable resource. Meant to be glanced and and then discarded. They're so used to slogging through so many thousands of nothing photos all day every day, in their feeds, in their advertising, on their boxes, on billboards, on the sides of busses, etc. That there's really not very many people even trying to find good photos anymore. Sexy photos, yes. Flashy photos, maybe, but memorable, deep, lasting photos? There's not really a market for them anymore. Anything you can take a great photo of has been shot a thousand times, and everyone on the planet has access to all thousand. Most of our grandfathers had a subscription to National Geographic, and were amazed by what was inside. Now, there's no equivalent. You don't have these limited potent delivery vehicles full of great content that everyone goes to to see. Now, photos are everywhere, and so they mean nothing.
It's a shame, but it also frees you up to just shoot for yourself, if you want it.
>>2838338
>>2838378
>>2838389
>>2838405
>>2838401
you're all right, but you can't forget the fact that this overly conceptual "toss formality out the window" style is simply the popular and dominating trend for the past 30-ish years
give it a few more years, and we'll see people getting sick of it and a revival of aestheticism... the seeds are already sown
>>2838407
Maybe not. The majority of people think its stupid now, and has always been stupid. Most of the people who do say it's a good thing are doing so to seem deep, and to feign understanding (see >>2838388 )
The fact that it can be used as a sort of Emperor's New Clothes thing to give the impression of depth and understanding may mean it sticks around for a while.
Any time in the last 30 years, if you show a photo of nothing to someone, chances are very good they're going to laugh at you. It's never really been accepted, at all.
>>2838407
I should elaborate, that I mean in academic and high galleries
its present in most forms of art. Postmodernism is simply the academic standard. if your professors teach that composition and aesthetics are trivial compared to concepts, ideas, and communication... the art will show it
( aside from a few universities that specialize in classical training of course)
>>2838408
see
>>2838409
I know that most people find it ridiculous, and have since its inception in the late 1960s with the demise of modernism as the world knew it... it is by no means a new trend, just simply one that builds upon the past (arguably beginning wayyyy back with the Dada movement)
but I'm referring to the galleries, and collectors, and institutions and of the so-called "high brow" art world
![jenny-holzer-money[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/84csq1w.jpg "jenny-holzer-money[1].jpg")
>>2838409
>>2838411
>>2838408
>>2838407
and for the record, I agree its shit.
art has always retained a sense of aesthetics, if your art is entirely conceptual you're basically just hijacking photography or painting or whatever into a medium for political or ideological communication... call it whatever you want but its not fine art
>>2838409
>I should elaborate, that I mean in academic and high galleries
How is that elaborating at all, you're just making up some random abstract terms that don't mean anything to anyone who isn't you. What the fuck is a "high gallery"? At least use existing terminology or better yet examples, otherwise you're just spouting speculative nonsense with no basis in reality.
>>2838415
****high brow galleries
I mean to say its simply the dominating style taught at art schools, and the major style being purchased by galleries and collectors at the moment
>>2838414
Well think of Fountain by Duchamp, or Brillo by Warhol. You show that to 99.997% of people in the world and tell them it's art, and they laugh at you. It's very obviously not art, the way that your daughter is very obviously not dying when you take her phone away. The only people who do see it are the ones who all silently agree to participate in the delusion together, after being explained how it's just "so not even art that it's art because art being art is lame, man"
It's just pompous fools with a secret club where everyone is mumbling to each other, and everyone else is pretending to understand, playing along, to be sure they are allowed to be included in the group.
And much like adults look at a teenage girl without her phone, moaning and getting sympathy from her friends as if she'd just lost a loved one, the rest of the world is just sort of laughing, and waiting for you to grow up.
>>2838420
>the rest of the world is just sort of laughing, and waiting for you to grow up.
And then the rest of the world sees the kind of money these artists, consultants, collectors, arbiters, curators, critics, patrons, and global cultural elite in general are making, and how much business the trade in art generates internationally each year (around 65billion dollars worth of transactions in auctions alone), not to mention how much wealth is kept liquid in the form of private collections and art perpetually "in transit" in extranational freeports all over the world, and they sort of start wondering just who are the ones that are REALLY being laughed at
>>2838425
Telling people how much was paid for Rhein II doesn't make them change their mind, it makes them laugh harder. How fucking stupid are rich people?
And the more responsible ones get angry. $4.3 million for that? Do you know how many potholes that would fill? How many hospitals and schools it would fund? Etc.
>>2838426
>How fucking stupid are rich people?
Clearly they're not so stupid that they don't understand that as long as you're laughing and telling yourself that it's alllll just a big delusion that somehow has no real consequences, you aren't actually doing shit to change the fact that your road is full of potholes and your hospitals and schools are underfunded.
In other words, rich people are clearly smart enough to realize that it's much easier for them to fuck over everyone else if they do it in a way that the plebs don't take seriously
>>2838430
Not sure what point you think you're making, but the original concept was that most people see through the bullshit, and understand that the people who do claim to buy into it are all just pretending so that they can fit it.
Finding out that rich people are assholes doesn't really enter into it, nor does it surprise anyone.
>>2838426
This.
Outsider and vernacular art is the barbarian to sacc the wealth of arts Rome.
This whole thread misses the point. Yes you can be someone who appreciates the kind of "pretentious"/academic art being criticized OR you can be someone on the complete opposite side and STILL agree that these images are actually quite bad. O'Leary's work was interesting at least butost of the rest of it, unless part of some greater series, is just low effort, lazy, bad photography.
>>2838432
The point is that you're doing rich people's dirty work for them by enforcing the idea that what they're doing (what they're doing is speculating and circulating wealth on the international economy, by the way) is somehow bullshit and that people who participate in it are "pretending" (implying that there's a deeper reality making the level of pretence irrelevant). What is truly astounding to me is how you can even think that the appropriate reaction to Rhein II's purchasing for 4 million dollars is LAUGHTER--in a world where 4 million dollars can easily buy a human life several times over.
But congrats, you now know what "postmodernism" is. Postmodernism is not the revelation that the arts and their associated cultural/political industries are mere shams co-opted by the rich and powerful to facilitate the operation of the global economy. (The cultural sphere has always served the purpose of economically and socially facilitating power in one way or another). Postmodernism is the historical moment when the amount of effort on the part of the institution that is needed to conceal this fact has been reduced to practically zero--because the people that this fact otherwise needs to be concealed from (you and me) just don't seem to care anymore.
>>2838457
What are you even saying? You're like... agreeing... but in an argumentative way?
>>2838110
It's only art when it's an image series.
>>2838457
Underrated post
>>2838457
this post is postmodern
>>2838457
Subsemantic Narratives: Batailleist `powerful communication’ and
constructivism
JOHN K. U. DIETRICH
DEPARTMENT OF FUTURE STUDIES, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
1. Precultural construction and Derridaist reading
If one examines Derridaist reading, one is faced with a choice: either
reject constructivism or conclude that the goal of the artist is social
comment. Batailleist `powerful communication’ implies that academe is elitist.
Thus, Cameron[1] holds that the works of Tarantino are
reminiscent of Fellini. The subject is interpolated into a Derridaist reading
that includes sexuality as a whole.
However, Sartre promotes the use of Batailleist `powerful communication’ to
deconstruct sexist perceptions of sexual identity. In Pulp Fiction,
Tarantino analyses constructivism; in Reservoir Dogs he deconstructs
Derridaist reading.
Thus, Lyotard uses the term ‘Batailleist `powerful communication” to denote
the defining characteristic, and some would say the fatal flaw, of
conceptualist class. Baudrillard suggests the use of Derridaist reading to
analyse and challenge society.
>>2838556
2. Tarantino and constructivism
The main theme of Reicher’s[2] analysis of subtextual
cultural theory is a postsemantic paradox. However, the characteristic theme of
the works of Joyce is the fatal flaw of capitalist sexual identity. The example
of Batailleist `powerful communication’ intrinsic to Joyce’s Finnegan’s
Wake emerges again in Ulysses.
“Language is part of the futility of art,” says Marx. Therefore, an
abundance of appropriations concerning subsemioticist theory exist. If
Batailleist `powerful communication’ holds, we have to choose between
constructivism and Derridaist reading.
In a sense, Bataille promotes the use of Batailleist `powerful
communication’ to attack capitalism. Dahmus[3] implies that
the works of Joyce are not postmodern.
But if constructivism holds, we have to choose between Derridaist reading
and Sontagist camp. Any number of sublimations concerning a self-referential
whole may be found.
>>2838557
It could be said that Lacan’s essay on Batailleist `powerful communication’
holds that the significance of the poet is significant form. Derrida uses the
term ‘Derridaist reading’ to denote the common ground between sexual identity
and society.
Therefore, Lyotard suggests the use of Batailleist `powerful communication’
to modify class. The paradigm, and subsequent stasis, of constructivism which
is a central theme of Joyce’s Finnegan’s Wake is also evident in
Dubliners, although in a more mythopoetical sense.
3. Batailleist `powerful communication’ and the postdialectic paradigm of
consensus
In the works of Joyce, a predominant concept is the concept of capitalist
language. But the primary theme of de Selby’s[4] analysis of
the postdialectic paradigm of consensus is the role of the artist as poet.
Baudrillard promotes the use of Sartreist absurdity to deconstruct archaic
perceptions of society.
“Class is fundamentally responsible for sexism,” says Lacan. Therefore, in
Stardust, Gaiman affirms constructivism; in Sandman, however, he
examines neotextual semanticist theory. The subject is contextualised into a
postdialectic paradigm of consensus that includes culture as a reality.
le ebic random text generator meme
>>2837882
>dude pens with edgy images and a lot of color and horrible noise lmao
>dude a bald eagle lmao
>dude a jew lmao
>dude someone knocking down a condemended shithole lmao
>dude some red stuff on some kids foot lmao everyone loves babbies but this is edgy too xd
>dude bald people lmao
>dude a missed focus b&w artsy shot of a person
>dude watch me overexpose this image and convert to B&W
>dude vapenation lmao
>dude birds and low shutter speed lmao
>dude a dude in a building
>dude old people lmao
>dude a baby being stupid lmao
>dude MORE FUCKING BABIES BEING STUPID
NOTE : YOU CAN'T FUCKING MAKE THIS SHIT UP, THE SAME STUPID MEME PHOTO TWICE IN A ROW
>dude the sun is bright and water reflects stuff lmao
>dude dudes lmao
>dude niggers lmao
>dude pictures of pictures lmao
>dude pictures of plastic lmao
>dude lets intentionally fuck up focus as much as we can lmao
>dude sleeping people lmao
>dude lol let's put a canvas in front of a person it's so W@cKY and Ran_dum
>
>>2838565
>>dude some red stuff on some kids foot lmao everyone loves babbies but this is edgy too xd
>>dude bald people lmao
That 2 pics are really good. You have to learn more about art and photography.
>>2838571
interesting subject matter is an essential requirement for good photography
>>2838582
That's simply an illusion to you. A lot of great photos trick the viewer into thinking the subject matter is relevant.
>>2838571
bald eagle photo was SHIT
>>2837881
>who is william bailey
>>2838461
I'm agreeing that yes art is "bullshit" in the sense that all art produced after the late 19th/early 20th century (depending on where you prefer to draw the official line) is fundamentally different from all art produced before it. But I'm disagreeing if you think that all it would take for art to stop being "bullshit" would be a return to classicism, academicism, or any other formalist mode of production. Why? Because it's impossible for a work of art to exist autonomously from the political, social, and economic realities of its production. Obviously any talented individual could carve a technically skilful and virtuous sculpture, but that won't prevent its symbolic meaning and aesthetic beauty from being subverted by the economic forces of the art market where it is bought and sold. (In other words the context in which it is experienced completely changes it as an artwork. You might say that "all art is subjective" and therefore this shouldn't matter--but that's the point: in the past, art WASN'T "subjective," society had universal standards of beauty and aesthetic value that defined art as, precisely, a category of things whose beauty or value was indisputable). Today's artwork (the kind being discussed in this thread) is simply a clear and transparent reflection of the bullshit reality in which it exists. And the fact that this art is retarded bullshit is all the more reason to take it seriously (rather than instinctually reject it for being so empty and contemptible)--because it is the same bullshit that has disproportionately vast consequences in other areas of our lives.
>>2838055
0$ if your family makes less that 100k
>>2838587
Was talking about the pic with 4 bald men.
>hurr these guys are so bad
post your stuff that's so much better
im not holding my breath
>>2838766
>post your stuff that's so much better
What does that have to do with anything?
>>2838772
If you are incapable of producing quality photos why should anyone listen to your criticism?
>>2838773
Because you don't need to be able to produce something to recognize faults in something.
MFW my crit classes wouldn't tolerate art speak, had serious discussions about how aesthetics shouldn't be a dirty word in modern art, and that painters need to stop working from photographs.
>>2838866
If you can recognise fault, you know what is not faulty.
then all you have to do is take a non-faulty photo.
if you can't then the premise cant be true
>>2838866
you talk the talk
but
do ya walk the walk?
>>2838881
>if you can't then the premise cant be true
Recognition and production are different things. For example almost anyone can see if the proportions of a drawing are off but only good artists can do better.
>>2838866
When it comes to art, you sort of do. Much of the time, judging an artist's work involves being able to interpret what you're looking at. In most cases, if you can't comprehend good composition, light, mood, processing, etc. in your own work, then you aren't going to magically be able to do it for someone else's work either.
You might be able to decide that you don't like something, but without talent or understanding, your opinion might just be based on the fact that you don't get it, or that you don't find it personally fitting with your tastes.
The most important aspect of critiquing a photo is getting out of your own head, and getting into the head of the artist. You don't critique based on your taste, you first figure out what the artist's goal was, and then spend time discussing how they achieved that goal (or didn't) and without any skills of your own, that's very very hard to do.
And that's all before you post your opinion, and expect others to respect it. If your food tastes like shit, nobody's going to take you seriously when you tell them that their dish needs more paprika. Why would they follow your advice? Doing what you say, leads to making photos like you make, which suck.
>>2838894
Is that the same as why people can tell that your mom is a slut even though they are not sluts themselves?
These are all piles of flaming garbage. Even the ones that have some artistic or storytelling element have obvious photographic issues. 14 Mouths is the only piece I consider of any value.
Thanks OP for showing me that my photography is apparently pretty fucking amazing.
>>2838911
Oh sorry Pens isn't complete balls either. I forgot that one by the time I looked at all the shit
maybe if we phrase this for art students they will understand why they suck exactly the same amount as everybody else:
but how will the transient dichotomies of human commodity meet the metaphysical needs of their self imposed environs and false aspirations if my photos are critically focused?
and will the strict nihilism of the sound my department store shoe makes on this asphalt render further meaninglessness if my exposures aren't technical? and if that is a good thing will a new york city gallery accommodate my work with wall space? and if this is all a cry to be heard what was really the difference i thought i was making? if i took a nice landscape rather than this purposefully ill composed photograph of an eagle in a suburban tree would the inevitable sounding of those shoes be brought to my attention as the very thing I both seek and have created are invariably intertwined with all that i loath? is my awareness of and persistence through this irony any more noble?
is the castration of ability necessary in art making or is it only necessary for the same reasons it isn't?
>>2839000
Nice try, but you're a long ways from cracking the code. That's the beauty of art-speak. If you haven't been trained to speak it then it just seems like an easily imitable style or at best a form of rhetoric. But in reality it's a jargon-heavy technical language whose complexity lies in its unwritten rules and ideas. To those of us who are familiar with it, what you wrote is to art-speak as randomly mashing my keyboard is to computer code.
It's been about 8 years since I looked at any Yale MFA shit
back then it was pretty noodly but some was really nice stuff.
I don't know what the fuck is going on in these pictures.
>>2839005
>But in reality it's a jargon-heavy technical language whose complexity lies in its unwritten rules and ideas. To those of us who are familiar with it, what you wrote is to art-speak as randomly mashing my keyboard is to computer code.
then explain how did sokal get his intentional pomo nonsense article published.
>>2837881
Yale isn't really an art school. I'm sure it's fine, but to expect something extraordinary from their MFA programs is strange.
I would hope their attorneys are noteworthy though.
>>2838176
i go to yale, whoopdie fucking do, but i'm here
anyways, some of these pics are shit. i agree. but robin myers ("14 mouths") is amazing. i know her personally (i suppose this affects my perception of her work), and she's not a shitbag asshole like a lot of Yalies. she was a huge help to me this semester.
i'm honestly not sure why the yale school of art is so hyped, but not everything here is shit.
>>2841590
14 mouths is just a photo of a work of art, nothing special
>>2838638
not for the mfa program, smartypants.
also this https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/for-the-poor-in-the-ivy-league-a-full-ride-isnt-always-what-they-imagined/2016/05/16/5f89972a-114d-11e6-81b4-581a5c4c42df_story.html?postshare=1321463493612641&tid=ss_fb
>>2840879
this
wow
>>2838426
>$4.3 million for that? Do you know how many potholes that would fill? How many hospitals and schools it would fund? Etc
someone doesn't understand how economics works
Man if I was going through a walk of my neighborhood I'd delete all but maybe a couple of those.
If they were posted on /p/ in the recent photos thread I'd probably say in summary that they were unispired snapshits and to use more creative thinking.
But to each their own, I'm sure one of those will be in some gallery in NYC and some rich cunt will buy a large print for $20k and I've never made a penny from photography.
