A portrait with an attitude
Marcin Wuu
Registered Users Posts: 87 Big grins
and axe...
Don't be horrid, Henry!
Don't be horrid, Henry!
I'm a lazy portraitist. I only shoot beautiful women.
0
Comments
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
Great setup nicely executed. (
Don
Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk
'I was older then, I'm younger than that now' ....
My Blog | Q+ | Moderator, Lightroom Forums | My Amateur Smugmug Stuff | My Blurb book Rust and Whimsy. More Rust , FaceBook .
Haha, sure his name's not Dexter?
I like the concept, and the sort of Victorian look to the set. However, if I was going to nitpick, I think a less conventional camera angle might have helped to more effectively convey the creepy, disturbing vibe that I'm sure you were going for (maybe not, though, since a straight-on static angle is indeed very Victorian, so it fits in that way). In any case, IMO a different lighting setup would have definitely done that-less evenly lit, more dramatic (and I know you can do dramatic
http://blog.timkphotography.com
yes, I know some will think I should lighten up, cut some slack, etc. sure it's just for fun, a joke. but also sure is that for me some things are no go. honestly I think this image is pathetic, and that includes technical reasons
Marcin, I hate to (have to) say these kinds of things, and as you know I have responded quite differently to others of your images. I don't mean to attack you personally or infer anything about you. my response is solely about myself, and I am sorry to be so sour here in my favourite online place Dgrin
if I am missing something I am more than willing to stand corrected!
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Think about it, it has nothing to do with any "violent male" stereotype. The whole concept is a juxtaposition of such a violent, dark scenario with the most unlikely of perpetrators, a child. Clearly you find this offensive, but either way it has nothing to do with male stereotypes or gender roles or anything of the sort.
Probably.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
fair enough, but with respect, by what route to you arrive at the conclusion that this image is neutral of any baggage of the kind we are talking about?
if I should lighten up, then I think equally others should rethink
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
Because I don't see any clues--either in the photo itself, the context in which it was posted, or the words that accompanied the original post--that the subject of this photo is male violence, or anything gender-related whatsoever. The maleness of the subject doesn't stand out or call attention to itself. On the other hand, the young age of the subject is a glaring incongruency with the circumstances depicted. This leads me to believe that I am to take note of it and look in that direction for any meaning or message (however deep or shallow it may be) that the creator of the photograph could have possibly intended.
Seriously, your comments about gender came totally out of left field for me. I can understand someone being offended (although I'm not personally) by a child being depicted as a murderer/serial killer/etc. What I don't understand is someone reading strange messages into a photo that don't actually appear to be there if you don't set out looking for them.
http://blog.timkphotography.com
yes Tom I understand what you are saying. I don't think though that we have to go into the deep and murky waters of "reading into" this image. the facts of it are significant and enough in themselves:
image in which a male child is placed into a scene the colour of blood containing props of dominance, bondage, torture and the most extreme aggression and violence which indicate a total breakdown of human personality, a scene of pathological butchery, and this child is placed in the role of being responsible for all of the above
the real child in this image has absolutely no idea what is really being depicted in it, and could give absolutely no rational consent to being part of it. he is being used unwittingly to make a sick joke, and worse he has been put into being the main element in this joke as the pathological character responsible for whatever the poster had in mind as its purpose
I put it to you that there is no way that any of the elements in this image can be part of the joke unless they also carry certain literal meanings and meanings from context which you, I and any adult readily understand, not hidden meanings or subjective meanings. a joke has references that must be there and readily understandable for the point of it to be got. take the gloves for example. what do they mean unless an admission of guilt and an attempt to avoid responsibility? would you like to suggest why they are there in the image. they are placed together with the weapon on-in the hands of a 5yr old boy. you seem to want to turn a blind eye to what the elements in the image signify while at the same time saying it's haha! that is impossible. this image is only haha! if the elements in it are understood for what they really are. you have to get the references. and it is those references and the placement of this child with them without it being possible for him to understand what they mean, and what he means in association with them, and without it being possible to give his consent to being part of the joke which he is crucial to making for the sake of the poster, that I am affronted by
it is significant that he is a male child in this scene of ultra violence, and you would not find it funny without that significance
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
www.cameraone.biz
Marcin, I am completely able to accept that the whole idea could have been the boy's. I am completely able to accept that children of any age have imaginations which produce horrendous horror, and are endlessly amused by it! There is an amusing anecdote concerning sibling rivalry. A new baby sister arrived in the family, and the 5yr old brother became habitually sullen and uncooperative, and sadistic towards the baby. The parents, before the birth of the baby, and in the meanwhile of the aftermath with the boy, had been planning on moving home. When it was ready to happen, they broke the news to the boy as a way of trying to lift the pall. They said to him with big smiles, "Tommy, we are going to go live in a new house! It's bigger than this one, and has a big yard full of things for you to play on and have adventures! You're going to love it!" The boy thought for a moment and then pushed out his bottom lip and declared, "Yes, but I bet she finds out where we are!"
This image would have been none of my business had it been kept an in-joke between you and your son. It would have been none of my business, and it would have been a harmless, if not a positive thing for you and he to have dealt with in a fun, supportive and healthy way. Teddybears are after all not only not human, they are also very unalive, and any ripping their guts out is inconsequential, apart from the mess and being lost to posterity. But this image is public, and we don't have the private context, and it cannot be dealt with appropriately by any of us. And you have given it to us to deal with at face value. Hardly appropriate, I think. I dealt with it at face value, and if you are going to give it some other value, that does not make my reaction a mistake. You have made the image and the boy in it something different to what it might originally have been by placing it in a public space. The boy now becomes not your son, but "boy", the violence is now not the normal morbid imagination of any child, but "violence", for sensationalism and a joke, which is the fare of the mass media. In that we have not your original image, but a new image, very disturbing as I have described in how it creates a male child character responsible for a graphic representation of extreme violence, a child who cannot know how his harmless playacting will appear in a different context, a public one, which he equally is unable to assess.
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
I'm hoping my kids don't need therapy in the first place...!
As a long time member and supporter of NCFPOTB I can't adequately express my out rage. This is despicable, and unwarranted!
The effect is clear to anyone who can see.
Sam
(NCFPOTB) National Council For The Protection Of Teddy Bears.
14-24 24-70 70-200mm (vr2)
85 and 50 1.4
45 PC and sb910 x2
http://www.danielkimphotography.com
www.tednghiem.com
www.cameraone.biz
First, let me address Sara's posts.
I've been showing my work around the web for several years now, and I have to say it's a rare thing to be attacked personally for a photograph. I've had various comments about my works, some good, some bad, some interesting and valid, some primitive and empty. But frankly, no one ever stooped down to personal attack because of my images. You don't know first thing about me yet you are sure I'm an evil, provocative wretch, whose only purpose in photography is to cause trauma in innocent viewers (getting off on it, as it were). Let me put it this way. Whatever you mean by "ilk", I'm glad you put me into "their" and not "yours".
Honestly, this is the first time I have to explain this particular photo - it's been around for quite a while, it even won quite prestigious photo competition for me, and never, not even once was it questioned as something more than it really is - a joke.
With this out of the way, Neil - You can't take this picture at it's face value, because, and I thought it pretty obvious, this image has no face value. I mean you can't seriously think this photo depicts a real world teddybear-maiming little monster, can you? That it's some kind of news photo of a serial teddykiller? This kind of assumption would not be just over the top, this would be over the top so high you wouldn't be able to see the top without a Hubble Telescope.
This image is thought out to be, and is, a tongue in cheek black humour Dexter meets Addams Family crossover. There's nothing deep going on here. I sure hope the boy didn't know what was going on - he's no monster, and this kind of satire is way over his then or even current cognitive abilities.
To put it another way.
We used to play war when I was around his age. I can assure you, no one of us had even the slightest idea of the horror and suffering real war brings. And, the game, cruel and primitive as it seems, didn't turn any of us into bloodthirsty killer, even though we all had pretty impressive bodycounts at the end of each day. So I'm pretty certain the impact on his psyche is (if any), negligible.
As for my responsibilities as a parent - we all use the image of our kids to our delight. We dress them, we shape them into the image of our liking, then we photograph them and show them around. Look around the DGrin. How many photos of kids - from naked (oh gosh!) babies through cutsey toddlers to acne-ridden teenagers do you see? And how many of them actually gave their consent to have their photo published? No matter - cute girl with red ribbons and a ball or an impishly smiling boy holding an axe (yeah I know it's a cleaver but I like the word "axe". It has a more definite sound to it, if you know what I mean) it's for us to decide what we do with the image - and I fail to see any harm in showing this one. And while we're at it, what do you think about parents of Pugsley and Wednesday? And what about little Damien Thorn? Surely the impact of playing the devil himself is much bigger than standing for fifteen minutes beside a chair with a big kitchen utensil in one's hand? I suppose with a literal attitude to works of fiction it would be very difficult to live - we need some distance to reality, we need irony and humour, no matter how grim the subject.
Gender is another thing you read into this image that has not a trace of validity. I chose male figure because of easily (I hope) recognisable Dexter connotation. Also, I had one at hand
A female figure would probably have stronger impact, as we don't usually connect female with violence (until we come to live with mother-in-law that is), but it would lose the Dexteric factor.
And speaking of psychobabble. There is a very important psychological phenomenon that has high impact on our perception of reality (including art). Projection, or "you see what's in your head"
Thats really it for the meaning of this photo.
About the technical - I chose to make it a victorian style formal portrait, very rigid and static, to make it even more surreal. Making it into an actual scene of ripping the teddy, however dramatic, would be too obvious. No story to read into
As for the bear - it was bought just for the purpose of this photo (no emotional ties whatsoever), and was later re-stuffed and stitched back together (so, Sam, and any possible member of NCFPOTB reading this - no harm done
*) excuse the lame pun. I couldn't stop myself
That is purely a protective grab.
Sam
Marcin, I never should have gotten involved with this thread. I seriously meant not to, but somehow, did. I apologize that my comments insulted you.
I'm glad that you are not a trouble-maker, but rather, an artist, albeit with a very different vision than my own.
That's the thing about this mish-mosh that is called the internet, the place where so many people with so many different values, backgrounds and opinions sometimes try to get together and share ideas using the often-limited medium of language - sometimes it gets a little wild.
Please accept my apologies.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
Very good, Sam.
www.SaraPiazza.com - Edgartown News - Trad Diary - Facebook
I've seen more violence in an episode of Tom & Jerry. Can't see what all the fuss is about. Just a joke is all I see, not particularly funny, but certainly not outragious.
Allright. just to make it clear - in responsing to personal attack I wasn't referring to you but to Sara. I find your post interesting if not valid.
You expect me to make a critical analysis of my own work - this never works, you know.
And yes, putting an image up in a place inside my circle of cultural reference I do expect you to get this references. If you don't then well, the joke is wasted on you.
As for the kid - yes his role in this photo is purely as a "face donor". Again, you're reading too much into his relation to this image. It would be too much to even call him an actor.
And, at the risk of sounding like captain obvious, you do see how your being a psychologist explains a lot of what you're saying? It's like "Aaah, psychologist!" wink wink.
So, as far as the bottom lines go, here's mine:
"This is an image. Take it for what you think it is, just don't make me responsible for what YOU read into it."
I have no taste for bashing, and I feel that in what I have said I have come too close for my own comfort to that. I needed to say what I did, and I stand by it, but I want also to ensure balance. I could have no justification to cross the boundary into your private and personal life, though I came right up to that fence. You invited me, you gave me cause. I oppose the image with good reason, but I can't condemn you in any sense. I accept that the innocence you protest is genuine. I can feel it is in the way that you have handled this thread. There is something in this image of yours here which I find enormously charming, and it is the complete innocence in the eyes of the boy. Amid the theatrical sickness of the props he stands and looks at the camera with only one thought in his mind - the desire to please the photographer.
In the face of such charm no evil has a chance!:D
Neil
http://www.behance.net/brosepix
http://www.realphotoman.com/
Work in progress
http://www.realphotoman.net/ Zenfolio 10% off Referral Code: 1KH-5HX-5HU
C'mon, bodyguards always wear shades.
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I'm glad this thread exist; I was thinking of posting an image of my puppy that had shredded her toy bear, and was holding it in her mouth
Not now!!! I've checked my moral compass
God..please no!!! Don't do it.............................
Sam