"I never have taken a photograph i've intended they're always better or worse" Masters of photography - Diane Arbus (documentary, 1972) 27:58 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_0sQI90kYI
00
Anonymous06/03/26(Wed)13:35:14
>>4512552(OP) >Posting kino by photographer Diane Arbus I am still waiting OP
>portraits of mental illness >consistently ugly and schizophrenic aesthetic >no composition, camera randomly held crooked, things randomly cut off on the edge of the frame >”yeah but she shot a tranny with direct flash doe” I didn’t even have to check the early life section
00
Anonymous06/03/26(Wed)16:04:11
>>4512583 I see a lot of ugly people in my daily life. How do I profit from this?
00
Anonymous06/03/26(Wed)16:46:25
>>4512587 Which synagogue do you go to? Ezra bessaroth here
>>4512552(OP) I like this work. It's nice to see portraiture with some grit.
00
Anonymous06/04/26(Thu)11:04:17
>>4512552(OP) First if all, thanks for the effortposing anon. Second, dam those pics are mid at best.. the composition is terrible, of course the subjects might have been rare back then but nowadays I don't need to go to a circus to see strangers twice as ugly. Literal garbage tier photographer
00
Anonymous06/04/26(Thu)14:00:24
>>4512580 Like an anon said i also appreciate the effortposting, it makes us discover or refresh the memories of a famous name. Shame you picked a museum jew rather than an actual good one, but you open the door to discuss this whole ideological sub-genre inside photography, the museum jew one aka Stieglitz, Cartier-Bresson, Arbus, Leibowitz, Nan Goldin, Jill Freedman, Man Ray, Winegrad, Levinstein, good old Terry along with opinions from non-photographers like Susan Sontag.
00
Anonymous06/06/26(Sat)00:09:10
>>4512726 >whole ideological sub-genre inside photography How would you describe this sub-genre?
00
Anonymous06/07/26(Sun)04:51:10
>>4512843 >How would you describe this sub-genre? Jewish photography, basically, our contemporary version performed after the theories from the 60's and 70's and the old timey version, bending the rules and forfeiting aesthetic rulings from past painting conventions and newer new vision ones. Photography as a medium rather than an art form, a racist one because of its scientific origins, exploring the limits of the media itself (the meta) rather than the works portrayed therein, documenting reality and being an non-interventionist agent when doing it, frowning upon flexible vision and undergoing a fixed standard way of working, the criticism against the idealization of subjects like aesthetically pleasing geometries, orderly masses, coordinated functions, symmetrical compositions, heroic narratives against clear obstacles ...and thus the championing of traditionally ugly subjects, provoking emotions against heroism/greater good causes, subverting the concept of order, doing away with classical portrayals of beauty set by other art forms, not aesthetically isolating political symbolism with its former history, all of these are done because otherwise it would be fascist not to. Or simply going full meta and objectifying the body of work from someone else and re-contextualizing it in a fictitious way while taking the credit or royalties, like the case of Maloof & Goldstein with Vivian Maier or Stieglitz with the Pictorial movement in the US.
Once you understand these theory basics you will also understand the bizarre logic behind contemporary art photography, juries and their decisions. And once you somewhat understand how jews work when they enter a field you will perhaps understand why they made these theories.
00
Anonymous06/07/26(Sun)05:12:34
>>4512976 In other words, destroying and mocking the original culture is their plainly stated goal, and they will ceaselessly accuse you of being stupid and uncultured if you don’t go along with it and adopt their culture instead.
Your entire post is an antisemitic conspiracy theory because this is its logical conclusion. The actual answer is: most people are shitty photographers. Jews are no exception, but they are more likely to have rich relatives who can make excuses. There are plenty of shitty, sloppy photographers that weren’t jewish and still had enough rich friends to succeed. The justifications are just investor grade bullshit. Jews don’t have a mystical evil culture that worships ugliness and the destruction of beauty, sorry. If you think we do and said we do, you’re either using a made up quote or referring to the jewish equivalent to a white separatist fundamentalist christian nazi nutjob.
00
Anonymous06/07/26(Sun)05:22:06
>>4512976 >jews aren’t just getting rich by bullshitting about their snapshits and upselling them to retarded rich kids with more money than taste, its a grand kabbalistic conspiracy to remove beauty and competence from art because they love glorifying evil and decay. i shall have no part in their jesus hating ways. -antisemites >man i wish i could be rich. whats the secret? shovels and septic tanks? maybe photography is a waste of time and I’m poor because jews are hogging all the money. -also antisemites snore you invented a photography genre just for a conspiracy theory that explains jews having more money than you reflect on your life
00
Anonymous06/07/26(Sun)17:11:15
>>4512982 >destroying and mocking the original culture is their plainly stated goal Perhaps, but this is not stated as a medium theory rule but you do read between the lines due to your previous experience reading certain things. >The actual answer is: most people are shitty photographers While this is true it does not explain the decisions and criteria used by many jury members and critics in competitions and academia, they use the photography theory made years ago that state the same things i did. >If you think we do and said we do Settle down Moshe, i am basing everything i said directly from widespread and accepted theory taught in schools. For further inquire please consult: Susan Sontag (On Photography, Fascinating Fascism), John Szarkowski (Looking at Photographs), Kaja Silverman (The Subject of Semiotics), Rosalind Krauss (Contemporary Criticism), Mikkel Borch-Jacobsen (Undoing Recognition), among others that aren't as widely known.
>>4512985 >man i wish i could be rich >getting rich by bullshitting >a conspiracy theory that explains jews having more money Who said anything about money you doofus, i am talking about the theory regarding making and looking at photography. >reflect on your life I am, i spent a couple of years reading the established theory only to realize that it doesn't reflect at all the practice of trying to make pictures aesthetically pleasing for both the masses and the initiated. It's its own monster, the products of these theories are consumed only by the academics and hold little relevance to what a random civilian or a photo hobbyist enjoy, the images produced by some of these purveyors are deemed interesting only because they had a previous traditional education which leaks into their work, that's why the old museum masters have some cool works but their students fully developed under the theories are lackluster in the traditional sense.
00
Anonymous06/07/26(Sun)18:42:41
>>4513058 >i quoted the salesmen and beneficiaries and fell for the grift Great, but jews don’t go further than that. No shit we join in with the sales pitch and leverage our hard fought academic roles to help a fellow sell his snapshits. Please give us a break with the insane complex conspiracies and kabbalistic subversion worship shit. The average jew has an IQ of 100, no rhythm, and no taste just like you. The difference is we help each other no questions asked and you think our shoddy excuses for overvaluing artwork are intellectual revelations and satanic wizardry because even if you’re not a christian, at heart you still think we’re literally magical people.
You basically asked ten jews if the last one sold you a fake rolex and they all called their lawyers and got back to you with a flowery language telling you to enjoy your watch and piss off. And then they got book deals talking about the critical intersectionalities of the repro watch market. There is no “jewish photography”, it’s just good business. Open and shut. That’s that, snoyim. We’re good at making money.
00
Anonymous06/07/26(Sun)23:28:59
>>4513067 >fell for the grift Why is there a grift in the first place, that's the point The rest is just jew ironic shitposting or actual meta lawyerese so let's leave it like that
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)11:54:51
Really don't like this sort of photography. There's absolutely no regard for composition, shapes, framing, etc. The whole gimmick is that the subject matter is weird. I guess you could get away with this sort of stuff in the 70's, but it doesn't hold up in the modern age.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)20:49:25
>>4513273 >but it doesn't hold up in the modern age Aesthetics are mostly universal rules, they either hold forever or never did. In this case i agree with you on them not being pretty but you are sadly very wrong in them not holding up, these kind of photos often keep winning competitions.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)20:55:38
>>4513085 >why is there a grift? garry winogrand was sick of being broke and a fellow jew realized that urban new york life had enough in common with the hot topics of the day to upsell his snapshits (taken at such a high rate he left behind over 1000 undeveloped roles) and make both of them rich.
and now here we are. if people fell for it, it must have been a good idea, irreverent or not… if you have IP laws in your country, art is a commodity, not a culture.
unfortunately garry was probably poor for a reason and likely had an undiagnosed mental illness because he literally could not stop taking photos. his wife left him because he would be snapshitting in the middle of lunch and then never develop those rolls.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)21:41:29
>>4512583 >filtered by Arbus How does this even happen in 2026?
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)21:48:19
>>4512976 >>4513058 See, this is why I love 4chan. Nowhere else can you find some schizo autist retard unironically regurgitating "le heckin degenerate art poisoning our heckin glorious volk n sheit" screeds from the 30s. The funniest fucking part is that this retard clearly thinks he's incredibly intelligent KEK
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)21:55:31
>>4513338 Degenerate art was destructive, but it wasn’t a conspiracy. It was good business practices. About as much of a grand plot as finding out people will pay for tobacco products.
The stupidest people with the worst taste also spend the most money. Why make good art? The people who are smart enough to like it and see bad art as destructive to aesthetic hygiene aren’t paying shit.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)22:50:27
>>4513342 >art is heckin degenerate because... uh... uh... because... uh... they wanted to make big bucks in fine art photography I just can't take this kind of shit seriously, I'm sorry
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)22:55:50
these photos feel weirdly predatory like oooooh you look lower class I will capture you I guess she was doing it to make money but the "look at all the circus freaks" vibe just feels exploitative and gross
I guess the stated goal here is "capturing candid reality" but it feels more like mocking those who are different.
00
Anonymous06/09/26(Tue)23:07:27
>>4513350 It’s degenerate AND they wanted big bucks, and thus took the shortest path which isnt exactly deeply thoughtful shit. Its like photography had a marvel/dc film moment. >wait, the works of art make less money than the simplistic childish novelty? and all we have to do is heap some postmodern nonsense on later? WELL THEN *unzips leica*