The supposed force of this analogy escapes me. The relationship between the appearance of food and its taste is not at all parallel to that of a visual representation and the essential nature of the thing being represented.
Especially with food--having done some commercial food photography, I can say for a fact that the goal is to make the food look like it would taste great--even if that bowl of soup is stone cold and has rocks in the bottom to make it look like it's chockfull of delicious ingredients.
As art objects, the visual impression and emotional effect of Chou-chan's photos on the viewer is not at all dependent on the actual relationship between the two subjects.
When you sell food, you want it to look appealing. It doesn't matter what it actually tastes like, because you just trick people into buying your food.
When you sell photos you want them to look appealing. It doesn't matter if they don't reflect reality or are in fact the opposite of what they display, because all you want is that one illusive fake moment to win your contest/sell your piece.
In both cases authenticity, something people put value in, is disregarded for the sake of gain.
If you shoot a photo of two people who hate each other, but fix it so that they seem deeply in love, that might be prasied for the effort itself, but still leaves a bad aftertaste when you look at it, much like a badly made loaf of bread...
PS: I thought the idea was that we are making fun of MC here. How did this become serious? lol
last edited at May 4, 2019 11:57AM