I do like the noisiness and badly-framed-ness of that but not the subject. It's too... how can I put this. It's trying too hard. It's obvious and trite. Also I think you can tell when it's an intentionally jaunty angle or a renowned photographer very self-consciously using a disposable camera or something - which again becomes contrived and nasty. (so yeah, adding noise intentionally after the fact is definitely offputting. And aye, it's shame even phone cameras are so 'good' now :C ).
Patronising. Because it's making arrogant claims it can't live up to and expecting me to swallow that. It's trying (if only implicitly) to be both an 'honest' and 'true' recording of 'reality' and a constructed image/meaning/narrative at the same time. I feel like the ambiguity (and the viewer) is being exploited. Drawing (which includes painting and sculpture and so on)feels more 'honest', it doesn't make the same claims.
The only 'art' photos I've ever liked are those of... oh man what's his name. Richard Billingham. Stuff like:
There's narrative there, but it's not shoving it in your face, it's gentle and open-ended. Evocative rather than... declamatory. And visually beautiful, there's an almost baroque visual intensity/richness to it. The flatness is also intriguing. I dunno, his images just work on me.
That's an awful photo. Too busy and no point of focus. I actually like the one that Caer posted, although I'd prefer it without such a smug look on the boy's face.
I love Richard Billingham (he came to my uni to give a seminar). I think strong narrative is so important in photography trying to stand up as art. It's not just throw-away photographs of strangers either (like Martin Parr, who I like-a-little-bit but not very much since I read more about him and his past: it makes it seem like he's looking down his nose at his subjects) but in this case - his family.
There is a terrifying Japanese photographer who's a bit similar to Billingham, just with more polaroids of vaginas, if I ever remember I will tell you.
