motels part deux

File: image.jpg (462KB, 1999x1586px) Image search: [Google]

462KB, 1999x1586px

2/6

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GooglePhotoScan
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1999
Image Height	1586

File: image.jpg (489KB, 1999x1499px) Image search: [Google]

489KB, 1999x1499px

3/6

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GooglePhotoScan
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1999
Image Height	1499

File: image.jpg (408KB, 1999x1499px) Image search: [Google]

408KB, 1999x1499px

4/6

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GooglePhotoScan
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1999
Image Height	1499

>>2966502
>>2966505
this one doesn't really convey anything, it's just kinda messy. I like the first shot a lot though.

File: image.jpg (558KB, 1999x1586px) Image search: [Google]

558KB, 1999x1586px

5/6

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GooglePhotoScan
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1999
Image Height	1586

File: image.jpg (479KB, 1999x1596px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 1999x1596px

6/6

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GooglePhotoScan
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1999
Image Height	1596

File: image.jpg (490KB, 1999x1499px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 1999x1499px

also here is another, clearer scan/image of one of the better(imo) prints from my prior thread. i printed it again in the darkroom last night - this time a little bigger and on paper that I prefer quite a bit (ilford warmtone semi-matt vs standard ilford fb glossy). so this is like 7/6 i guess lmao

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GooglePhotoScan
Image-Specific Properties:
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1999
Image Height	1499

>>2966506
funny you should say that, because i've been wondering whether the first shot is too boring because it's so clear and plainly representational. i like pics that are a little more confusing, its spicy

>>2966507
question: can yall read the text on the sign in this image? i can read it, but im not sure if already knowing what it says in advance is influencing that.

>>2966515
nope

>>2966515
it says something like "at your own risk" I think, it's a struggle to read the first word though

>>2966519
that's right, it says "PARK AT YOUR OWN RISK"

>>2966512
but everyone can read, say, this one - right? or is this also hard to make out?

Can you just never fucking post on /p/ ever again? You're contributing nothing, all you've ever done is annoy people and post crap detrimental to the quality of the board. gtfo.

>>2966742
>/p/
>Quality

>>2966742
I saw this post and opened the thread specifically to find something nice to say about the photos just to spite you. I still don't agree with your tone but you're sadly right. These are all shit and they show no skill or effort.

>>2966879
the style of these photos is deliberate and imo works well to emphasize the grittiness and neglect of what amount to buildings that operate solely as shooting galleries and brothels nowadays.

the way I made these prints also produces these blazing white lights with huge halos that spill into the surrounding darkness, emphasizing the irony of their conversion from businesses originally designed to serve as a warm, inviting beacon for tired travelers looking for a place to stay at night into grotesque, and at-times violent, parodies of motels. they're no longer inviting hearthfires but are now the sort of bright lights against which moths batter themselves to death.

they are not supposed to be nice pictures, they are supposed to be reflective of the nature of these places. i'm sure you could take similar pictures, but i don't think the measure of a piece of artwork is in how difficult it is to replicate.

All of the photos suck

Your explanation of what you were doing was far more interesting than your snapshits. Had I not read what you were photographing then I wouldn't know what the fuck you were documenting.

>>2966932
it's a work in progress and this thread doesn't even have half of the pictures i am considering for inclusion in the series so far.

as far as difficulty in recognizing what sort of motels these are, though, since these places operate in a legal grey area and openly advertising themselves as an hourly motel is just inviting police raids they don't really have signage or anything that acknowledges their rates up front for instance. even if these photos were crystal clear and shot during the day, you would likely just think it was a series about motels in general in the absence of an explanation.

File: IMG_2325.jpg (2MB, 1600x1067px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1600x1067px

Nothing really tells me what you're doing here. Even taking the set as a piece, there's nothing connecting one to another outside of the color scheme. If you had a single shared identifying feature between your shots to let the audience peg just what they're looking at, you'd have a better set. Instead, you have a disconnected series. Unfortunately, that might just be the point, in which case you're making a virtue out of mediocrity and I don't like your taste. That said, keep shooting and trying and everything. Since I experience your art through a screen I'm sure something is lost in the translation. Still, I'm not really a fan although I can respect that you're trying. I'd suggest reading some Walter Benjamin's "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" or something. Alternately, and this is a fun exercise, compile a bunch of old and random photographs of yours and spread them on the ground. Over a period of time and with several breaks, group them together by some criteria. Maybe it's a visual cue, like a color, maybe just a sense you have. Whatever it is, once you're done you should have a bunch of groups that make sense in some way. Stop and think about what each group represents, why they're grouped together. Try to label them. Think about that whole process, and compare it to the set you have now, and realize that your set makes less sense than a bunch of random photographs grouped together by nothing more than instinct, and that they tell a better story.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 6D
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1 (Windows)
Photographer	Denver Duncan
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/4.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:06:01 23:58:14
Exposure Time	1/1000 sec
F-Number	f/9.0
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	400
Lens Aperture	f/9.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	105.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

These pictures are all of the drunken nights in my 20s in South Beach but in bw, I like them, but Im biased I've spent a lot of time in motels in the last few weeks. Thanks Peterbilt.

Get to Route 66 through Missouri and texas sometime lots of old art deco motels and neon signs and shit

File: Untitled.jpg (1MB, 1999x1586px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1999x1586px

>>2966500
I don't mind the blurriness and messiness but I think they are all underexposed. I would like to see more detail in the dark areas. The huge swaths of black sort of turn off my curiosity since it appears as though there aren't any additional details to glean.

>>2966505
For instance, I the lower half of this photo is ok for the most part but the upper 50% is just pure black. The composition feels sort of cramped but not in an interesting way.

>>2966502
This is my favorite in the series actually. It's messy but there are enough shapes and details to make me take a second look. Is that the silhouette of a person? Who is it? What are they doing? etc. I also just like the composition of the photo. If it is a person, it looks like they are facing left with lines converging toward a point where they might be looking.

>>2966954
i've read a lot of benjamin. and saussure, kracauer, sontag, barthes, baudrillard, etc.
i think that advice is interesting, but this:
>realize that your set makes less sense than a bunch of random photographs grouped together by nothing more than instinct
is almost by definition true of nearly any set based on an event or place or person or what have you. when you're putting together photos after the fact based on their visual characteristics, you have the luxury of choosing to include or exclude any picture in your entire past history of work based on a single criterion: whether or not it is consistent with the visual "theme." when these are your rules for putting together a set of photos of course they will be much more visually cohesive than a number of photos tied together by subject rather than by composition, especially when the latter come from a single roll so far.

>>2966992
>For instance, I the lower half of this photo is ok for the most part but the upper 50% is just pure black. The composition feels sort of cramped but not in an interesting way.
thanks very much for this advice actually. I'm going to reprint this but blow it up much closer to 8x10 to eliminate a majority of the dead space.

(not to spoil the mystery of the one you liked, but it's a photo I took of a couple guys fighting in the road outside one of these motels at around 1:30am)

>>2966992
>I think they are all underexposed

quite possible, although I do also deliberately eliminate information from a negative when printing regularly enough that I probably do it more often than not - mostly because the visual language I like to use relies heavily on disorienting the viewer through elimination of cues that suggest location, context, the "history" of events which may have led up to the photo, the identity of the photo's subject, etc. so not only dont I mind losing shadow detail generally, most of the time I prefer it because having detail in the shadows ends up informing the viewer more accurately about the image which in turn robs the pic of some of its impact.

>>2966981
did you see my first thread about this project, sugar? >>2961057

>>2967003
I hear you, I'm also being snide because hey, why not. Not really a fan, like I said, but then again, I don't like haggas. I'd still recommend that grouping exercise -- you'd be surprised how you end up clustering, and what results. For example, you might have one grouping that's compositionally similar, another with wild contrast, and another by subject, or mood, or lighting, or anything, really. If nothing else, after the fact it gives you a bit of an insight into what's important enough to you to pick out as a guiding criterion, which is better than any feedback a turkmenistani cave painting group might be able to give

>>2967012

yeah I do like it, some good stuff. definitely has that grungy feel, if you live in NYC we plan to crash there for a couple of days you can watch me plow through some tri-x with my FE, will be a couple months before we go

>>2966908
>they are not supposed to be nice pictures
It's fine that they're not nice, but they're not good either.
They're shit and no amount of artschool-tier captionwriting will fix that.

>>2966500
>warm, inviting beacon for tired travelers looking for a place to stay at night into grotesque, and at-times violent, parodies of motels. they're no longer inviting hearthfires but are now the sort of bright lights a

hi, im not a /p/ habituè, and i dont know about photography, but i love your photographs, im going to contact you to your tumblr to ask you a question (im musician), for me your images are strong

>>2966500
A lot of these images are just grainy mush.

They have the beginning of a mood about them, and I get what you're going for, but they don't say much to me besides "here's some grainy blobs and text".

You can take some red paint and mash it on a board, and then put a sign next to it that says "ANGER". I will believe that it is a sincere representation of anger. But I will still shrug and walk away from it.

File: 1 - billboard, holiday motel.jpg (158KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 2000x1500px

this thread is still up? cool, because I just developed and printed some more photos from this series.

i actually got hit by a car and fractured my wrist shooting this roll last night... i almost suspect it was some anon from /p/ who hates my photos and is tired of these threads trying to bump me off lamao

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:22 03:27:54
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1500

File: 2 - guest with bags, bronx park motel.jpg (185KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 2000x1500px

2/5

>>2967538
btw i never got any kind of message on tumblr

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:22 03:27:55
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 3 - front desk, holiday motel.jpg (220KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

220KB, 2000x1500px

3/5

>>2967038
and sure. i do live in nyc right now though i may move back to new orleans following the end of this school year. not 100% sure yet.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:22 03:27:55
Color Space Information	sRGB

File: 4 - guest, bronx park motel.jpg (237KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

237KB, 2000x1500px

4/5

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:22 03:27:56
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1500

File: 5 - couple, pelham gardens motel.jpg (203KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 2000x1500px

5/5

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.6 (Macintosh)
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	240 dpi
Vertical Resolution	240 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:22 03:27:57
Color Space Information	sRGB

Some of these photos are visually striking and quite nice, but you have to stop acting like they are deep and intricate pieces of art. Applying artist rhetoric to your blurry high contrast bw photos doesn't make them any better, it just makes you look like a pretentious ass. Drop the name and just let the photos speak for themselves.

Cool thread OP

while your series might not be my cup of tea, I'm glad that you posted it.

I'm also glad that you didn't use the word critique or advice because you would have been hidden by my filter. Threads like this are why I still go to /p/

File: IMG_0880.jpg (179KB, 1000x750px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1000x750px

here is a bonus picture of my fucked up wrist

>>2969413
i cant tell, are you being metaphorical or are you literally talking about my name on here? my namefag name?? i didnt think anyone would take it seriously, its intended to be a pretty obvious joke.
and you're right that i can sometimes get defensive and try too hard to justify my work. but at the same time, some of the posts I make about, say, trying to engage in dialogue with certain concepts and modes of thought via photography are easy to dismiss as "pretentious attempts to elevate snapshits" when they're really just things that interest me and that I want to have a conversation about.

>>2969418
thanks for being polite, and for being nice about the thread even if you didn't really like the work itself

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Photos 1.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:22 04:07:01
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1000
Image Height	750
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2969431
I think he's talking about the fact that you're identifying yourself at all, compared to just being anon and letting your work speak for itself entirely.

Now to my opinion: I like it but I also fucking HATE it. At the end of the day the photos themselves don't mean shit without the background, they honestly /don't/ speak for themselves. Yet, if you group them together and even leave just the briefest description letting the viewer know the background they suddenly become full of life and a story unravels itself. I'm a shit photog myself but if you're up to taking advice from an anon, allow yourself to start working with the dead space of your photo's, not against it.

>>2969462
>allow yourself to start working with the dead space of your photo's, not against it.
what do you mean? like using negative space as a compositional tool? maybe you can point to a specific photo and tell me what you'd do differently? not being snide I'm genuinely appreciative of you giving me this advice and I want to know more so I can really consider it.

>>2969467
I think you hit the nail on the head when you suggested to start using the negative space as a compositional tool. Theres not a specific photo I can point to considering the feeling I got that pointed me to that thought came from the entire series. I got an overall sense of emptiness from your first 7/6 photos and to sum up my advice it would be to start working with that emptiness, embrace it. I think the best way that you could do that is to stop "deliberately eliminating information" from your negatives when printing. Disorientation is a fantastic tool, but no one likes getting slapped in the face and then getting locked in a extremely dimly lit room.

After reviewing your second series the 5/5 set I have to say I like the second batch much much better. More of a story but yet still the extremely dark undertones.

>>2969405
Is by far the best in the series.

>>2969489
I agree that the pictures I posted today are better quality than the batch I used to start the thread. I had a clearer idea of what I wanted to express and what sort of images/objects I was looking for when I went out to shoot this time since I had spent time looking over the previous roll and figuring out what worked and what didn't.

It's interesting that you like >>2969405 best - personally, I think it's OK but I'm much more interested in >>2969402 or >>2969400 where the subjects barely even seem human.

>>2969405
>>2969401
>>2969397
>>2966512
>>2966500
Yes, rest are forced

File: image.jpg (421KB, 2000x1593px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 2000x1593px

i also have exterior shots of all these motels but i'm torn on how well they work in the series. im leaning toward excluding them because they ground the other shots concretely in a specific place and thereby strip them of their impact but i'm curious as to your thoughts

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GooglePhotoScan
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1593

File: image.jpg (610KB, 1999x1583px) Image search: [Google]

610KB, 1999x1583px

here's another one

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	GooglePhotoScan
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1999
Image Height	1583

>>2969523
>>2969526
Can I ask what you're shooting with? Also what roll?

>>2969538
it's neopan 400 pushed a stop shot on an olympus pen

>>2969539
Ilford 3200 shot at 400, give it a shot if you've got some spare scratch. I bet it'd give you some wild looking images that fit your motief.

>>2969547
do you have any examples of what that looks like? sounds interesting

>>2969523
>>2969526
>>2969401
>>2969405
>>2966502
>>2966500

Theres your progression. Throw it in an album, delete the rest and go find something else. Preferredly in color and digital.

>>2969565
Thats actually not a bad progression.. I'd probably reprint the lot and make them look as similar as possible.

Also fuck digital.

>>2969565
i can see how this works, but my goal isn't really to create a narrative like that - its more to give viewers a sense of what it's like to be at these places than to tell a story about them, if you get what I mean.

>>2969571
Lol you filmfags are so gay, always looking down at me with muh rebel.

But yea I choose that progression so it actually tells a story, OP shoulda been dedicated and rented a room and a hooker to make it a complete story.

Pack of marlboros and a bottle of vodka on the bedstand under lamplight with the lady out of focus on the bed nearby smoking

I like most of these. Please continue.

>>2969629
I would recommend you understand that concepts need direction. A sense of being there would require knowing the purpose of going there.

The reek of desperation and sadness should be overpowering and ending ironic with "Paradise"

>>2969629
I think we just look at art differently, and honestly dude thats really fucking cool. At the end of the day you had this really fucking cool idea and you're making it into a reality by going out and capturing these images. Also you are doing it in the perfectly suited medium for said art, so seriously, respect bruh.

>>2969638
Honestly homosexuality and film probably go hand in hand, I'll buy that. Regardless my digital rig is a t3i with a 24mm f/2.8 prime. I feel muh rebel.

>>2969656
You alright filmfag u alright.

>>2969661
love me

>>2969654
that's true traditionally but depending on your intent it's perfectly adequate to simply describe the thing and leave it at that. in fact i'd argue that's the sort of presentation to which photography is uniquely suited.
to dip into pretension a bit, its basically the same sort of thinking that produced the nouveau roman from the traditional novel but applied to the traditional photoessay instead. although it is not really revolutionary methodology: atget was doing it over a century ago.

>>2969647
i ran out of paper so i dont have any more prints but i'll post a picture of the contact sheet in a second

File: contact sheet pic.jpg (603KB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

603KB, 2000x1500px

>>2969683
>>2969647

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone SE
Camera Software	Photos 1.5
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:22 02:46:52
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-0.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1500
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>2969654
i agree with you about the irony of the name though, i was just going to put it at the beginning to color the tone of the whole set rather than at the end where it'd be more of a punchier emotional beat. i can see the merits in either of those placements though.

File: 1479819908536 copy.jpg (1MB, 2000x1500px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1500px

>>2969683
Oh god this just got wayyyyy to art school for me.

>>2969684
Whenever you get a chance I'd like to see pics of the red-circled pics or the one you consider the "best" out of all the shots of the subject I circled. If this thread is dead feel free to email me Canonsouthpark@gmail

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Apple
Camera Model	iPhone SE
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Elements 9.0 Macintosh
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	29 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2016:11:22 08:14:57
Exposure Time	1/15 sec
F-Number	f/2.2
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	250
Lens Aperture	f/2.2
Brightness	-0.4 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	4.15 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2000
Image Height	1500
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

File: front desk detail (sign) - holiday motel.jpg (475KB, 1599x2000px) Image search: [Google]

475KB, 1599x2000px

>>2969691
i can show you this one right now, since i actually did print it but decided it didn't work that great in the set. maybe as a book cover or something.
and when I get a chance I can do some negative scanning if you want to see the others.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Photos 1.5
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72
Vertical Resolution	72
Image Created	2016:11:22 08:26:06
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	1599
Image Height	2000

>>2969695
Perfect dust cover.

>>2966500
Link to your previous thread?

>>2969701
sure, here: >>2961057

>>2966908
Do you to art school or something? Your rhetoric seems like a pretty blatant 2deep4u explanation to mask the lack of an actual concept or even interesting execution. I go to a high-tier art-school (not american "art-school") and can tell you that posers like you get weeded out pretty quickly.

>>2969704
haha if only, unfortunately im a pleb who attends a real school. it is a pretty good school though imo, maybe even more prestigious than yors depending on where you go, and i am taking a photography courseload there where the department is run by a fairly well known photographer.

>>2969704
>>2969713
See look! You're both faggots. Now kiss.

>>2969713
Unless the art department is the reason for your school's prestige, it's probably shit. Should've gone to art school if you wanted to study art bro. Most are shit but there's a few decent ones, even in America.

>>2969717
im not an art major, i'm just taking the full lineup of photography courses my school offers. i'm studying neuroscience.

>>2969718
actually i just looked it up and the fine arts dept is tied for a rank of #6 in the nation by us news and world report

>>2969565
>>2969654
>>2969638
These are me. Just for reference.

I didn't go to school cause I'm not a trust fund faggot like you 2. I seriously fucking hate people like you driving up rent in cities and shitting up the scene.

Just go live on your estates and stop ruining city life for us real artists.
FUCK YOU BOTH

>>2969730
>le starving bohemian city artist meme
stop living in the past, gramps

>>2969732
trust fund kids have never produced anything good. just look at our boards own specimens.

>>2969730
le feeling when you cant just live on your estate photographing your serfs and servants all day

>>2969735
I don't even know what you're trying to say. how is this board an example of people attempting art? it's just a hobby for them. if by trust fund kids you mean privileged people, you'd be wrong in thinking they aren't capable of creating good art, plenty of artists come from privileged backgrounds.

Honestly you seem pretty caught up on romanticising ideals which don't really exist.

>>2969754
He's clearly trying to get a rise out of you, just ignore him.