So this broad is one of ten winners in the Magnum Photos Graduate Photographers Award 2016, in which they are paired with a mentor at Magnum and have their work put on display.
http://emmagruner.com/
Am I missing something here?
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Canon Camera Model Canon PowerShot G10 Camera Software Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh Maximum Lens Aperture f/2.8 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Image-Specific Properties: Image Width 4416 Image Height 3312 Number of Bits Per Component 8, 8, 8 Pixel Composition RGB Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:05:07 15:14:39 Exposure Time 1/60 sec F-Number f/2.8 ISO Speed Rating 250 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Exposure Bias 0 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash Flash, Auto, Red-Eye Reduce Focal Length 7.41 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 800 Image Height 600 Rendering Normal Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2846237
>Am I missing something here?
Taste? Culture? Knowledge? Empathy? Critical thinking? Insight?
b8
>>2846238
>but anon these photos show nothing interesting
Post a nice landscape and /p/ will either love it, or argue about split toning, ETTR, or lens distortion/bad processing.
Most of them are not able to get photos as a coherent series and have strange opinions on what a photo is supposed to look like.
>>2846238
>>2846237
you must be having a laugh, this is low even for /p/. magnum only gives awards to those with a meaningful, culturally relevent body of work
>>2846244
Sick burn bro
The framing/composition in that is terrible.
Someone explain to me how the coherency in her series supports that. Unless the series is just meant to be cohesively bad. But I checked and not all the photos are like the one OP posted.
Seems like everyday commercial sexualization that's usually passive; but now its a heavy side person that's being put in the same light.
sjwprogessivetumblrbuzzwords
>Emma Gruner’s images reflect upon the construction of visual identity and self-representation in the post-digital era. Her images depict hypersexual representations, conveying notions of visual pleasure, consumption and persona. Referencing aesthetics of mainstream pornography, the awkwardness of her performance underlines the vulnerability of the work while raising questions concerning the digital diffusion of images.
just what photography needs.
>>2846262
>The framing/composition in that is terrible.
lol this board man
>>2846266
You want to complain about this board how about providing me with a legitimate response and not bullshit. I've been visiting her all but a few months so I in no way reperesent "this board" as much as you'd like to blame it.
>>2846264
>>Emma Gruner’s images reflect upon the construction of visual identity and self-representation in the post-digital era. Her images depict hypersexual representations, conveying notions of visual pleasure, consumption and persona. Referencing aesthetics of mainstream pornography, the awkwardness of her performance underlines the vulnerability of the work while raising questions concerning the digital diffusion of images.
what a load of shite
>>2846268
>I've been visiting her all but a few months so I in no way reperesent "this board" as much as you'd like to blame it.
You're here, you posted, you posted something silly. You represent /p/ far more than you may realize. Half of this has been here for far less than a year, so don't sweat your supposed lack of longevity.
Composition is utterly unimportant once you get into art photography. Content and intent is far more critical to the success of a photograph, or set of photographs.
filename says San Luis Obispo
I live in San Luis Obispo
fuck guys I can do something about this
>>2846266
lol fags theres more to composition than following ratios
>>2846237
>Am I missing something here?
Yes, a Postmodernist Feminist Agenda.
Seriously, all these competitions are staffed with liberal arts graduates that actually swallow shit like Walter Benjamin, Berger-Luckmann or Judith Butler.
It sounds like a conspiracy theory but it runs deep.
>>2846264
This reeks of art major fluff.
Snapshits of a whale. No thanks.
>>2846237
>What she thinks she's doing
I CHALLENGE THE PERCEPTION OF EROTICISM IN THE AGE OF INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY
>what she's actually doing
I AM INTERNET PORNOGRAPHY AND NOT EVEN GOOD AT IT
>>2846339
if I were to e-mail her a link to this thread do you think she'd clarify the intentions of her project?
>>2846343
Yeah, you do that. However, if the photos don't speak for themselves it's absolutely useless. It would be like explaining a joke. Good photos work for themselves or at least in a series and hers all look like cheap porn pics.
>>2846343
Also, I would kinda get it if she went a bit more over the top, add a layer of surrealism that showcases what she actually wants to point at. In a blindfold test on xhamster, nobody would notice her images as anything special or out of the ordinary.
>>2846343
she'll use it to start a social media crusade by claiming victimhood, thus raising her work and sjw-cred to great heights
>>2846264
Really didn't get that impression from her work and I suppose if I say that it'd just be 2deep4me
>>2846274
I agree, but there is a clear lack of intent when you throw the idea of composition out the window. You say intent is more important, don't you? Or is it the intent of no composure that helps you justify it?
http://emmagruner.com/MOVING-IMAGE
The most fucking awkward person ever. Also reported the first video for sexual content lel
>>2846401
>Also reported the first video for sexual content lel
dont be a prude
>>2846388
>but there is a clear lack of intent when you throw the idea of composition out the window
what, no. slightly bigger, maybe not-so-attractive chick takes a bunch of nude selfies and blows them up to wall size and puts them in a public space. the intent is very clear.
>>2846310
Not in the sense of craft. Maybe you are talking about purpose, but there are visual elements in the photo itself that were unintended.
>>2846249
Your sarcasm is delicious. More please!
she isnt deconstructing shit. she is right inside of the machine, working as a cog.
specially when there are currently pop singers that dress, pose, and do videos literally like this "highly sexualized" shit she tries to do. hell, the slut pop singer act is old as fuck, madonna everyone?
if you want to look at someone playing on stereotypes, theres cindy sherman. you wouldnt mistake her photos for a dumb bimbo, because her intent went paired with intelligent execution. now this broad from this thread, shes just daddy issues: the photog.
>>2846454
Thanks for mansplaining that!
One of her exhibitions is in a bathroom at what I'm assuming is a pub - 2deep4me,
The bus stop ones look like they were guerilla installments, 90% of the people walk by without noticing it and 10% say 'what a stupid fucking ad campaign, what are they selling?' 5% of them probably remark on the shit quality of the image.
women are bad at everything constructive
>>2846388
>composition and framing
Dear sir/madam, my sincere apologies for the appropriateness of me wording but, err, are you from the 19th century?
>>2846836
>come on, it's the current year!
>>2846836
Call me old-fashioned, but thanks for indirectly making the point that photgraphy as an art has more or less devolved from aesthetic purpose to political empowerment.
>>2846264
Too self–absorbed for me. I know that's the point but that doesn't make less unlikable.
So.....purposefully shooting shitty pictures of unattractive poses/models is art because it defies common beauty norms and provokes.
Time to hand in my scrotum at the next Awards.
>>2846874
Text is much better to express political points. Photography is arguably better at getting emotional response out of people, and to get that response composition and framing are important factors. They are not a meme, they make pictures more powerful.
This fat chicks photos do not bring forth any emotions. Not disgust, not anger, no aesthetic pleasure. Just boredom, just apathy. Completely amateur shit.
>>2846237
>Magnum Photos Graduate Photographers Award 2016
I mean, if you look at the work of the other winners, the competition doesn't seem too tough. Maybe she stood out by pure edge.
>>2846884
It's almost impossible to not frame a photo and technically impossible to take a photo without any composition. The "rules" you state to be "important factors" are part of the photo, but not necessarily of the process of taking it.
Imagine a photographer shooting in a pitch black room at 1/500s f/11 ISO100. There is no framing (as you don't see anything), it's a single black rectangle - cleary a geometric shape that can be considered a composition due to the aspect ratio of 3:2 (one of the most used aspect ratios in art), it shows nothing at all, but it's still a photo.
really?
>>2846884
Why are you telling me this? I've been saying this throughout the entire thread. Notice my usage of the word "devolve."
>>2846264
>post-digital era
We are not in the post-digital era
Most if not almost all people still don't understand how new media is effecting politics
>images reflect upon the construction of visual identity and self-representation
There is no standard for this, she is reflecting off of a constructed narrative existing only to support her set of photography. Provide sociological proof if this isn't the case.
>Her images depict hypersexual representations, conveying notions of visual pleasure, consumption and persona
cant argue with this
>Referencing aesthetics of mainstream pornography
Not in the slightest. I feel like amateur pornography is what this is referencing. If she were to actually try to reference mainstream photography she could have done something a lot better and more interesting. Something more striking and something that would actually hold my attention to look at for more than a few seconds.
>the awkwardness of her performance underlines the vulnerability of the work
I only sense awkwardness in (excuse me for using this term again) framing and composition. The way she acts in the front of the camera comes off to me as more or less just trying to be sexy. The vulnerability lies in the shitty comp and lack of craft which is exactly why I made the parralel of this to amateur pornography rather than mainstream/professional porn.
>while raising questions concerning the digital diffusion of images
What questions? Concerning what? The diffusion of digital imagery is an interesting and relevant topic today, but I would like to have someone explain to me how these photos address this at all. Is this in reference to her bus ads or whatever? If that's the case, she isn't the first to work a project like this. Other than that, the fact that these photos are hosted on a portfolio style site tells me the exact opposite of any message about diffusion of imagery besides in the art world itself.
I'm posting this in the interest in learning. Prove me wrong please.
>>2846292
No, makes a lot of sense - you're not alone in this belief lol, this shit isn't in just photography. In fact what you mentioned is the norm for most institutions or groups for that matter that by default will always fear some other higher or equal level of control that would disallow any freedom of expression or desire no matter who suffers so long as the relevance and favor of those people who think they're in charge and involved meet and are satisfied with the results.
>"Everyone is a winner, but the rest of you are losers for not keeping up with what we have to keep up with and for not fitting our preset categories of success! Now a few words and advertisements from our sponsors for whom without this shit wouldn't be possible! Remember - it's you, the audience, that makes this all possible!"
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone 4 Camera Software 6.1.3 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:03:03 11:09:23 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 1000 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness -1.1 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 3.85 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 2592 Image Height 1936 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2846966
>We are not in the post-digital era
true
>There is no standard for this, she is reflecting off of a constructed narrative existing only to support her set of photography.
That's exactly what the text says: She constructed a certain identity by presenting herself in a certain way.
>Not in the slightest. I feel like amateur pornography is what this is referencing. If she were to actually try to reference mainstream photography she could have done something a lot better and more interesting. Something more striking and something that would actually hold my attention to look at for more than a few seconds.
Again, this is exactly what the text says:
>Referencing aesthetics of mainstream pornography, the awkwardness of her performance underlines the vulnerability of the work
Referring to mainstream asthethics her stuff looks cheap and hence is awkward, which makes the whole work strangely personal and therefore vulnerable.
>What questions? Concerning what?
Post some photos of this set at >>>/b/ and see what happens.
>>2846409
make me. RARARARARARAHHAHAAAAAAA
>>2846237
No, Magnum is mostly a bunch of retards riding on the backs of a few famous Magnum photographers.
>>2846978
>She constructed a certain identity by presenting herself in a certain way.
This can't be argued for sure, but the artist statement specifically says "the construction of visual identity and self-representation in the post-digital era" and not of perception of it. The statement should have been more clear. We both agreed the post-digital era currently does not exist, at least not on a full scale so I don't know why I'm bothering writing about this since it's clearly bullshit.
>Referring to mainstream asthethics her stuff looks cheap and hence is awkward, which makes the whole work strangely personal and therefore vulnerable.
I reading comprehension failed on that. I still don't believe that the work is particularly strangely personal or vulnerable because rather than referencing mainstream porn, my mind references amateur porn simply because that's what these photos come of to me as. There was nothing in these photos that referred me back mainstream porn, only the short artist statement did this. These photos did not send me to the mindset to compare the two, especially since amateur porn is so much more prevalent and popular these days.
>Post some photos of this set at >>>/b/ and see what happens.
I'm curious about what the response would be but I'm too lazy.
>>2846974
Thus - it's these kinds of competitions held by these assumed feminists that attempt to promote everything this fag said (and more I bet) >>2846238
Only because things like modern and pop culture want to see anorexic, plastic barbie dolls and young jail-bait on the verge of womanhood, and these promoters have access to major revenues and mainstream popularity. Sexuality sells better than >>2846238
But can you honestly say this ugly cunt in OP's pic is not, "sexual"?
>Pic: Winter, my old cat. Sup /p/
[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]
Camera-Specific Properties: Equipment Make Apple Camera Model iPhone 4 Camera Software Microsoft Windows Photo Viewer 6.1.7600.16385 Sensing Method One-Chip Color Area Focal Length (35mm Equiv) 35 mm Image-Specific Properties: Image Orientation Top, Left-Hand Horizontal Resolution 72 dpi Vertical Resolution 72 dpi Image Created 2014:06:02 14:46:26 Exposure Time 1/15 sec F-Number f/2.8 Exposure Program Normal Program ISO Speed Rating 1000 Lens Aperture f/2.8 Brightness -1.3 EV Metering Mode Pattern Flash No Flash, Auto Focal Length 3.85 mm Color Space Information sRGB Image Width 1936 Image Height 2592 Exposure Mode Auto White Balance Auto Scene Capture Type Standard
>>2846991
Oh and I forgot to mention that the term mainstream porn is pretty much meaningless. It isn't defined very well. I've been assuming mainstream pornography means professional pornography so there is likely problems in my post as a result of that.
>>2846991
I read it that way that with reference to mainstream porn her photos look especially badly done = what you call amateur porn and that's exactly what it is: Badly executed amateur porn, but it has been made to look like this on purpose.
>>2847001
>It's like it's a sociology degree first and photography degree second or maybe third.
That's exactly what it is about. The quality of the photo in terms of composition/exposure/framing etc. is secondary due to its content. While the purposely bad execution referring to these aspects underlines the content even more. The photo is deconstructed and restricted to its content.
See >>2846923 for an extreme example.
>>2847013
I've seen well crafted photos by an artist addressing nearly the same thing, better depicting the relationship between technology (camera and new media) and the subject (amateur snapshit porn). This woman should not be regarded as a photographer and her intent to me is shallow addressing something persasive from only a single perspective that can easily be misinterpreted. Or simply put, it's ineffective. At least I think so, but my opinion is meaningless here.
>>2847035
>At least I think so, but my opinion is meaningless here.
It's not, but different people perceive things they see differently. Independent of what a photo shows you're always going to have some people who like it and others who don't.
>>2847039
At least I can articulate why I don't like them to a certain extent.
>>2847046
Sure, but other people can explain why they like them to a certain extent as well. There's no black or white here and the reasons why people like/dislike something are also various.
magnum is not a reference anymore, and it hasn't been for a while; it's been shooting out for modern art photography, conceptual photography, hard news photography etc etc
the last great magnum style photographer I recall is thomas dworzak, kavkaz
id fuck her
then again id fuck anyone not obese
These look like any other random amateur porn pics.
