I tend to like work that is about perception, both figurative and literal. Each image generally has a subject, and the post-production effects are subtle or overly played out, which completely changes the narrative that would otherwise be there. This opens up a world of interpretation. I’m not going to go through each image and talk about what is interesting about it specifically, but these are the reasons I find this work interesting. I think a lot of work like this is generally vapid because it’s one-linery and made for the internet, a medium defined by its impermanence.

Hope that helps clarify!

I don’t necessarily disagree that Falls’ and Blalock’s work is not “unremarkable and vapid” but now that you mention it I’m not really sure why it isn’t. I enjoy looking at it but if you were forced to say why it is remarkable and stimulating what would you say?

Thanks for your response.