If that is true then, why disguise your appearance with the Dark Glasses
Your mind could use some old fashioned Ivory soap! If you knew anything about our loyal teddy bears you would know they are anatomically different than many other creatures on our planet, and have no sensitivity in that area.
We are talking here about a communication event - the making and posting of a particular image. If you think that involves nothing more than what an automaton could put into it, then I will have to leave you there.
I however have reason to believe that things, including images and intentions, are not always what they seem, that the complexities that make us up are not completely plain to see or amenable to control, and that when we communicate we use a lot of bandwidth and multiple channels, and along with a number of signals there are all different kinds of noise. I think that's the difference between what we call art and what would be got from a digital graphics program set to automatic and random (assuming it were possible to not influence the program in any way).
My point is that in communicating, with an image in this case, we send a lot of information which is not necessarily all in the pixels - attitudes, values, associations, etc (some of which is baggage we have acquired and are passing on, like the association of males with violence) - and all information, including these cryptic types, is received. So it's not only a matter of sending a picture, say, of a dog, and of the receiver reacting, "Oh it's a dog". It's not like Google translation. The literal meaning is only superficially related to the message, and we might not be consciously aware of the actual and complete message, though we get it, are affected by it and react to it. Do you see the world now, including images, in the same way you did when you were 5? What's changed? You've moved from the mental age of 5. Even further, perhaps, now as a result of this thread.
I have told Marcin directly that I think his intentions were innocent. Does that make his image innocent? It's a non sequitur. Given the infinite complexity of existence, our thinking must be subtle, not simple!
Everyone is violent. Violence can take different forms. If you notice only the violence of males, as we in our present situation are primed to do, that becomes the definition of violence, and that is all that is seen and reported. Males, all males, are then guilty by association. That is what you say. And what I talk about is that very male-violence association that you just conveniently demonstrated for me.
I remember when government leadership roles first began to be occupied by females, there was a rumour that now wars would end. Have they? Do you know about the white feather ladies, and there's a certain lady P... in your part of the world? Is inciting violence better than violence? Oh, and there's that CIA woman photographed laughing with the body of the Arab terrorist suspect she had just murdered. We could go on... men, women, children. Humans are violent. But of course, here again, that's not the whole story. Reality is only for the subtlest of minds.
Beware of getting your world view from the likes of T&J!
Of course all humans have a propensity for violence and exhibit violent behavior in various forms. However, it's undeniable that the majority of violent crimes are committed by males. Not all, but the majority.
How we got to such a point and whether it's the result of nature or nurture is up for debate, but like it or not, that's the way it is.
Which of course STILL has nothing to do with this image...
And the fact remains that I am not responsible for whatever bizarre omens you may divine in the metaphorical tea leaves of my photograph.
Whether one likes it or not, whatever someone sees in it, everyone has an opinion; That's a good thing.
Having said that, I'd like things to go back on topic: the actual photograph
Whether one likes it or not, whatever someone sees in it, everyone has an opinion; That's a good thing.
Having said that, I'd like things to go back on topic: the actual photograph
Ivar, I respect your opinion, no doubt, but I would like to gently help you to remember that the etiquette at Dgrin is that you don't just say like/not like but respect the OP and the rest of us enough to tell us why.
When you remember that, it might be easier for you to see that we are here involved in just that pursuit, namely sharing with the OP and each other our reasons for the critiques we are making.
What a shame it would be, how violent even, to bring out the Moderator's Axe!
Perhaps you would like to tell us what you think about this image, to balance your telling me what I should not think about it? And while you are doing that please demonstrate how your opinions are totally unconnected with what the photographer has done.
You must have missed it; I gave my thoughts on the image in my first post:
Haha, sure his name's not Dexter?
In short: I got the joke, made a comment signifying as much, and then I moved on to briefly state my opinion on the technical aspects of the image. I thought that would be the end of it, only to come back and see that you had dragged this thread down the rabbit hole into bizarro-world.
I guess when all you have (or want to use) is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
um, sorry about the silence, had a rough couple of days...
There's really not much more to say here. I tried to explain how this was conceived and what I wanted to say with this image (which is, not much actually ). I think I can see the whys and hows of some people's reaction - barely though. Once again - I know how the story I wrote into this image. How you decide to read it is up to you. I still don't see any harm in it for the boy. I still think some people's reactions were uncalled for.
And Neil, when you say your profession doesn't affect the way you perceive reality, you are kidding, I hope? It might not give you answers, but sure as hell it gives you plenty of questions.
And, at the risk of repeating myself - this is not an argument in any sort of gender battle. I already explained why boy suited better for my concept. He was at hand, and Dexter is a boy. Anyway, it had to be either boy or a girl. Would you complain about gloryfing female violence had I put the girl in this image? Remember how I wrote that my biggest worry was that he'd drop the thing on his foot? I was constantly repeating "don't drop it, just don't drop it, hold it tight...". Because, other than him being my son and me loving him like nothing else on this world, I have a very vivid imagination. And I couldn't really stop myself from thinking that, should the axe drop, it would be me sitting in the chair with a piece of tape over the mouth, spilling stuffing from my tummy. Taste of a female violence
Also - I took some time to browse through the images in Dgrin's People thread. There's a lot of commercial or would be commercial work, family pictures, some portraiture, alot of "senior shots" whatever they might be, but very little, if any, narrative shots. I mean, pictures with a story to them, photos where a photographer tries to spin a little fairy tale. Perhaps that is one of the reasons you take this so seriously? Not being used to photos that don't try to depict real reality? Then I found a picture not unlike mine - with a slightly older boy pointing a very real gun towards the camera... Surprisingly, no one objected to the moral implications, or any possible harm to the kid's psyche. No one seemed to worry that the next time he'll be seen packing iron, it would be on the tape from some bank's security camera... why? Beats me, considering the stringent moral code expressed by some in the comments under my photo...
On a completely side note - I gave a second thought to your bottom line (the first one, with one "bottom" in it ) Neil. I don't really like the implications of it - you can't just go and remove anything that you don't like from the public space. Smells too much with Orwell, if you know what I mean.
To sum it up:
If I hurt someone's feelings with this image, so be it. I'm not going to apologize, because I don't really see what's there to apologize for. This is not a "provocation" of any sorts. This is not a statement. It's a joke. You might not like it and that's fine with me. Just don't try and make me resposible for your own interpretations of it.
I'm a lazy portraitist. I only shoot beautiful women.
I've deleted all posts that I felt were off topic. There were many to read through and I apologize in advance if I deleted a post you felt was valid feedback.
As Ivar already mentioned, let's keep the comments focused on photography. I personally don't find the image offensive so I'm leaving it. Sure, it's a little dark but so are many other photos posted on Dgrin. Either keep posts on topic or move on.
I've deleted all posts that I felt were off topic. There were many to read through and I apologize in advance if I deleted a post you felt was valid feedback.
As Ivar already mentioned, let's keep the comments focused on photography. I personally don't find the image offensive so I'm leaving it. Sure, it's a little dark but so are many other photos posted on Dgrin. Either keep posts on topic or move on.
Thanks,
Alex
An error of judgment I believe, Alex.
This thread attracted over 1,700 views, not for nothing surely, and not for the eviscerated remains you have deigned to leave, I'll warrant.
I wonder about the power of a moderator to interfere with communication between members of Dgrin on the basis of what you personally consider to be "focused on photography". You did not respect us enough to show how the comments that you removed were not relevant critique of the image. You just issued a fiat like a dictator.
It is Dgrin etiquette to explain opinions given, and it is also common for friends to banter about this and that unrelated matter while communicating in a forum, and this is not penalised. To me your action appears redneck and anti-intellectual. Prejudiced, in other words, and to me it makes a stain on Dgrin.
I wonder about the judgment of a moderator who can do this and at the same time use this forum and his privilege as its moderator for posting images of his own to it which on his own admission are off topic for this forum.
I am making a complaint to SmugMug about your affront, and in protest I am not going to post in Dgrin for 1 month.
While I agree that the moderators take an unusual stance in threads like this (i.e. people who are in favor of the idea of the image can say whatever they like, but people who are opposed to it are silenced and told to remain on topic), I'm not sure your harshness is warranted.
A volunteer moderator deleted some threads on a free internet forum. For that you've called him disrespectful, a dictator, redneck, anti-intellectual, and prejudiced (which is an interesting claim from a man who just used "redneck" as an insult!). Beyond that, you've apparently determined to punish the rest of the forum by refusing to participate for a month and by spamming the forums in a blaze of anger as you leave.
Perhaps you might want to re-think this strategy - and again, this is coming from someone who agrees with the substance of your complaint.
(i.e. people who are in favor of the idea of the image can say whatever they like, but people who are opposed to it are silenced and told to remain on topic),
Warm regards,
Paul
Paul, I don't think you're correct at all about this. I think (for instance) if someone posted images of a political or religious nature, and people started posting praise for the political or religious ideas portrayed by the image, the moderators would try to steer the thread back to photography. If their gentle nudging didn't work, they'd bring out the cleaver. Oops.
John :
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I always thought that one of the goals of photography was to create conversation. It sounds like this photo did that. Controversial photos always seem to get deleted or banned which is a shame that people can't be open to variety.
As far as the photo, Cheers to the photographer for doing something different and creative. I've seen worse on the 6 o'clock news.
Er... I think this thread had gone from "conversation" to "mud-slinging" before, and was continuing into a drawn out mud-war. Let's not do that again!
As for the photo, I actually overlooked the cleaver when I first saw it. I saw the bear and the boy's face, scrolled down and read a couple of comments, scrolled back up and *then* saw the cleaver. So perhaps it could have been more obviously placed or lit (or maybe I just need to be less distracted).
Paul, I don't think you're correct at all about this. I think (for instance) if someone posted images of a political or religious nature, and people started posting praise for the political or religious ideas portrayed by the image, the moderators would try to steer the thread back to photography. If their gentle nudging didn't work, they'd bring out the cleaver. Oops.
That's not been my observation over the years, and it's not what happened in this thread. Scroll up and read which comments (not technically related to the photography aspect) remain and which (by seeing the quotes in other posts) were removed.
I really like the composition. From a technical standpoint, the chair is too busy a background for the mutilated teddy bear. It blends into the chair and so is hard to discern the details. Also the boy needs better separation from the background as his lower body is missing until you get to his shoes.
On whether the shot is appropriate or not is a subjective call. I think it's fine. Kids are used as actors for dark subjects all the time. (Think of Linda Blair in the Exorcist.) However, my wife thinks the shot is inappropriate. That's surprising to me because my wife and I almost always agree on philosophical issues like this. Fortunately, we were able to discuss the shot objectively, dispassionately, and without any hysterics.
How you people, (yes you people.......you know who you are!), take the mutilation of of the gentlest most life affirming creature on our planet with such detachment is beyond comprehension and human endurance. cry:cry
My technical explanation was cut out together with the rest of the discussion so I'll repeat it without going into moral issues.
I wanted this image as a formal, staged shot, akin to the early studio portraits. Rigid in form. The boy is lit with two hard lights to the head and a separate one to the cleaver. The chair and teddy are lit with a large softbox. I did not want the boy to stand out - his attire is akin to Dexter's - for working in shadows, so to speak. The slippers are there to increase overall cuteness factor. The chair is for increasing the feeling of a late 19-th century formal portrait, and also as a wink towards Addams Family. I agree the complicated textures make it a bit harder to read what's really going on, but it's there, visible enough, provided you want to spend a moment to take it all in.
I'm a lazy portraitist. I only shoot beautiful women.
Artistically: Yes, its a rough topic potentially. I am a father and I am protective of kids BUT I think the comment re tom and jerry is very true. Years of seeing wylie coyote being blown up and shooting friends with boys and arrows etc never landed me in therapy. A trip to the toy store shows a bewildering array of potentially disturbing toys, let alone the hookeresque dolls girls are constantly surrounded by.
So the argument is, because there are worse things out there this is okay? Where would that slippery slope end?
And let me be clear: I'm not objecting to the photo. I'm suggesting that this rationale probably isn't the direction a defense of the photo ought to take.
Gotcha - sorry for my mis-characterization of your position.
I think I'd be willing to agree to "have no obvious detrimental effect." Kids today seem to have more problems than they used to. Who knows what all the contributing factors are?
I've been quiet for some time but this thread forces a response from me.
IMO, all to often imagery goes without comments because of emotional feelings toward the subject matter, or the subject matter itself receives the criticism - Either instances repulse me.
This is a forum for photography. All else [emotions] should be left on the desk you're logging in from, including thoughts of how imagery effects (insert what ever you feel, here: ___________), unless explicitly asked for in the OP.
WTS, I think the image has a couple separation issues but feel that the emotion it makes me deal with (really dark yet sickly humorous), over shadows those flaws to some extent - It makes me go hmmm, interesting. And compels me to look further into it.
Pretty Good Job!. My biggest nit is the lack of separation in the boys trousers. Thanks for sharing.
<snip>This is a forum for photography. All else [emotions] should be left on the desk you're logging in from, including thoughts of how imagery effects (insert what ever you feel, here: ___________), unless explicitly asked for in the OP. </snip>
First off - what a boring forum that would be. Leave all your emotions out of it? No thanks.
WTS, I think the image has a couple separation issues but feel that the emotion it makes me deal with (really dark yet sickly humorous), over shadows those flaws to some extent - It makes me go hmmm, interesting. And compels me to look further into it.
So everyone should leave their emotions out of it except you? You make one technical observation (separation) and the rest of your critique is all about emotions.
It is only the best expressions of art that generate controversy and debate. No matter what anyone takes away form this wonderful work, even those who hate it, the work is a tremendous success for stimulating emotions. Not sure why though.
I think this is a worthwhile and intelligent piece of work. I get a fun and weird feeling from it that evokes the memory of Pugsley Adams on the Adam's family TV show of the 70s. Very funny stuff and certainly not a show that I recall being hailed as a evil corrupter of youth.
Awesome work. I recommend doing a complete series of this stuff. What was Pugsley's sisters name?
I've come back to look at this image repeatedly over the past 24 hours and have decided it is really brilliant.
I really like your lighting. The smirk and awkward positioning of the feet is perfect.
Yes it is a tough subject matter but you handled it in a great style
Comments
Your mind could use some old fashioned Ivory soap!
Sam
I however have reason to believe that things, including images and intentions, are not always what they seem, that the complexities that make us up are not completely plain to see or amenable to control, and that when we communicate we use a lot of bandwidth and multiple channels, and along with a number of signals there are all different kinds of noise. I think that's the difference between what we call art and what would be got from a digital graphics program set to automatic and random (assuming it were possible to not influence the program in any way).
My point is that in communicating, with an image in this case, we send a lot of information which is not necessarily all in the pixels - attitudes, values, associations, etc (some of which is baggage we have acquired and are passing on, like the association of males with violence) - and all information, including these cryptic types, is received. So it's not only a matter of sending a picture, say, of a dog, and of the receiver reacting, "Oh it's a dog". It's not like Google translation. The literal meaning is only superficially related to the message, and we might not be consciously aware of the actual and complete message, though we get it, are affected by it and react to it. Do you see the world now, including images, in the same way you did when you were 5? What's changed? You've moved from the mental age of 5. Even further, perhaps, now as a result of this thread.
I have told Marcin directly that I think his intentions were innocent. Does that make his image innocent? It's a non sequitur. Given the infinite complexity of existence, our thinking must be subtle, not simple!
Everyone is violent. Violence can take different forms. If you notice only the violence of males, as we in our present situation are primed to do, that becomes the definition of violence, and that is all that is seen and reported. Males, all males, are then guilty by association. That is what you say. And what I talk about is that very male-violence association that you just conveniently demonstrated for me.
I remember when government leadership roles first began to be occupied by females, there was a rumour that now wars would end. Have they? Do you know about the white feather ladies, and there's a certain lady P... in your part of the world? Is inciting violence better than violence? Oh, and there's that CIA woman photographed laughing with the body of the Arab terrorist suspect she had just murdered. We could go on... men, women, children. Humans are violent. But of course, here again, that's not the whole story. Reality is only for the subtlest of minds.
Beware of getting your world view from the likes of T&J!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
How we got to such a point and whether it's the result of nature or nurture is up for debate, but like it or not, that's the way it is.
Which of course STILL has nothing to do with this image...
And the fact remains that I am not responsible for whatever bizarre omens you may divine in the metaphorical tea leaves of my photograph.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
Whether one likes it or not, whatever someone sees in it, everyone has an opinion; That's a good thing.
Having said that, I'd like things to go back on topic: the actual photograph
www.ivarborst.nl & smugmug
Ivar, I respect your opinion, no doubt, but I would like to gently help you to remember that the etiquette at Dgrin is that you don't just say like/not like but respect the OP and the rest of us enough to tell us why.
When you remember that, it might be easier for you to see that we are here involved in just that pursuit, namely sharing with the OP and each other our reasons for the critiques we are making.
What a shame it would be, how violent even, to bring out the Moderator's Axe!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
You must have missed it; I gave my thoughts on the image in my first post:
In short: I got the joke, made a comment signifying as much, and then I moved on to briefly state my opinion on the technical aspects of the image. I thought that would be the end of it, only to come back and see that you had dragged this thread down the rabbit hole into bizarro-world.
I guess when all you have (or want to use) is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
+ 1!
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I hope everybody has a nice weekend
Apologies Tim!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
There's really not much more to say here. I tried to explain how this was conceived and what I wanted to say with this image (which is, not much actually
And Neil, when you say your profession doesn't affect the way you perceive reality, you are kidding, I hope? It might not give you answers, but sure as hell it gives you plenty of questions.
And, at the risk of repeating myself - this is not an argument in any sort of gender battle. I already explained why boy suited better for my concept. He was at hand, and Dexter is a boy. Anyway, it had to be either boy or a girl. Would you complain about gloryfing female violence had I put the girl in this image? Remember how I wrote that my biggest worry was that he'd drop the thing on his foot? I was constantly repeating "don't drop it, just don't drop it, hold it tight...". Because, other than him being my son and me loving him like nothing else on this world, I have a very vivid imagination. And I couldn't really stop myself from thinking that, should the axe drop, it would be me sitting in the chair with a piece of tape over the mouth, spilling stuffing from my tummy. Taste of a female violence
Also - I took some time to browse through the images in Dgrin's People thread. There's a lot of commercial or would be commercial work, family pictures, some portraiture, alot of "senior shots" whatever they might be, but very little, if any, narrative shots. I mean, pictures with a story to them, photos where a photographer tries to spin a little fairy tale. Perhaps that is one of the reasons you take this so seriously? Not being used to photos that don't try to depict real reality? Then I found a picture not unlike mine - with a slightly older boy pointing a very real gun towards the camera... Surprisingly, no one objected to the moral implications, or any possible harm to the kid's psyche. No one seemed to worry that the next time he'll be seen packing iron, it would be on the tape from some bank's security camera... why? Beats me, considering the stringent moral code expressed by some in the comments under my photo...
On a completely side note - I gave a second thought to your bottom line (the first one, with one "bottom" in it
To sum it up:
If I hurt someone's feelings with this image, so be it. I'm not going to apologize, because I don't really see what's there to apologize for. This is not a "provocation" of any sorts. This is not a statement. It's a joke. You might not like it and that's fine with me. Just don't try and make me resposible for your own interpretations of it.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I've deleted all posts that I felt were off topic. There were many to read through and I apologize in advance if I deleted a post you felt was valid feedback.
As Ivar already mentioned, let's keep the comments focused on photography. I personally don't find the image offensive so I'm leaving it. Sure, it's a little dark but so are many other photos posted on Dgrin. Either keep posts on topic or move on.
Thanks,
Alex
Moderator of the People and Go Figure forums
My Smug Site
An error of judgment I believe, Alex.
This thread attracted over 1,700 views, not for nothing surely, and not for the eviscerated remains you have deigned to leave, I'll warrant.
I wonder about the power of a moderator to interfere with communication between members of Dgrin on the basis of what you personally consider to be "focused on photography". You did not respect us enough to show how the comments that you removed were not relevant critique of the image. You just issued a fiat like a dictator.
It is Dgrin etiquette to explain opinions given, and it is also common for friends to banter about this and that unrelated matter while communicating in a forum, and this is not penalised. To me your action appears redneck and anti-intellectual. Prejudiced, in other words, and to me it makes a stain on Dgrin.
I wonder about the judgment of a moderator who can do this and at the same time use this forum and his privilege as its moderator for posting images of his own to it which on his own admission are off topic for this forum.
I am making a complaint to SmugMug about your affront, and in protest I am not going to post in Dgrin for 1 month.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Neill,
While I agree that the moderators take an unusual stance in threads like this (i.e. people who are in favor of the idea of the image can say whatever they like, but people who are opposed to it are silenced and told to remain on topic), I'm not sure your harshness is warranted.
A volunteer moderator deleted some threads on a free internet forum. For that you've called him disrespectful, a dictator, redneck, anti-intellectual, and prejudiced (which is an interesting claim from a man who just used "redneck" as an insult!). Beyond that, you've apparently determined to punish the rest of the forum by refusing to participate for a month and by spamming the forums in a blaze of anger as you leave.
Perhaps you might want to re-think this strategy - and again, this is coming from someone who agrees with the substance of your complaint.
Warm regards,
Paul
Paul, I don't think you're correct at all about this. I think (for instance) if someone posted images of a political or religious nature, and people started posting praise for the political or religious ideas portrayed by the image, the moderators would try to steer the thread back to photography. If their gentle nudging didn't work, they'd bring out the cleaver. Oops.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
As far as the photo, Cheers to the photographer for doing something different and creative. I've seen worse on the 6 o'clock news.
Photos by KJS | Flickr | Blog | 500px | Google+
As for the photo, I actually overlooked the cleaver when I first saw it. I saw the bear and the boy's face, scrolled down and read a couple of comments, scrolled back up and *then* saw the cleaver. So perhaps it could have been more obviously placed or lit (or maybe I just need to be less distracted).
That's not been my observation over the years, and it's not what happened in this thread. Scroll up and read which comments (not technically related to the photography aspect) remain and which (by seeing the quotes in other posts) were removed.
On whether the shot is appropriate or not is a subjective call. I think it's fine. Kids are used as actors for dark subjects all the time. (Think of Linda Blair in the Exorcist.) However, my wife thinks the shot is inappropriate. That's surprising to me because my wife and I almost always agree on philosophical issues like this. Fortunately, we were able to discuss the shot objectively, dispassionately, and without any hysterics.
Link to my Smugmug site
Sam
I wanted this image as a formal, staged shot, akin to the early studio portraits. Rigid in form. The boy is lit with two hard lights to the head and a separate one to the cleaver. The chair and teddy are lit with a large softbox. I did not want the boy to stand out - his attire is akin to Dexter's - for working in shadows, so to speak. The slippers are there to increase overall cuteness factor. The chair is for increasing the feeling of a late 19-th century formal portrait, and also as a wink towards Addams Family. I agree the complicated textures make it a bit harder to read what's really going on, but it's there, visible enough, provided you want to spend a moment to take it all in.
So the argument is, because there are worse things out there this is okay? Where would that slippery slope end?
And let me be clear: I'm not objecting to the photo. I'm suggesting that this rationale probably isn't the direction a defense of the photo ought to take.
I think I'd be willing to agree to "have no obvious detrimental effect." Kids today seem to have more problems than they used to. Who knows what all the contributing factors are?
IMO, all to often imagery goes without comments because of emotional feelings toward the subject matter, or the subject matter itself receives the criticism - Either instances repulse me.
This is a forum for photography. All else [emotions] should be left on the desk you're logging in from, including thoughts of how imagery effects (insert what ever you feel, here: ___________), unless explicitly asked for in the OP.
WTS, I think the image has a couple separation issues but feel that the emotion it makes me deal with (really dark yet sickly humorous), over shadows those flaws to some extent - It makes me go hmmm, interesting. And compels me to look further into it.
Pretty Good Job!. My biggest nit is the lack of separation in the boys trousers. Thanks for sharing.
First off - what a boring forum that would be. Leave all your emotions out of it? No thanks.
Second - <img src="https://us.v-cdn.net/6029383/emoji/headscratch.gif" border="0" alt="" >
So everyone should leave their emotions out of it except you? You make one technical observation (separation) and the rest of your critique is all about emotions.
I think this is a worthwhile and intelligent piece of work. I get a fun and weird feeling from it that evokes the memory of Pugsley Adams on the Adam's family TV show of the 70s. Very funny stuff and certainly not a show that I recall being hailed as a evil corrupter of youth.
Awesome work. I recommend doing a complete series of this stuff. What was Pugsley's sisters name?
Albert@WhetstoneImagery.com
http://Albert-Dickson.com
I really like your lighting. The smirk and awkward positioning of the feet is perfect.
Yes it is a tough subject matter but you handled it in a great style
My site | Non-MHD Landscapes |Google+ | Twitter | Facebook | Smugmug photos