Clifford On The Road

The only dog burning I can see was in Rick's frying pan!

Eugene: Clap, clap, clap (standing ovation).

This photo is so wonderful, the only response I can give is violence against it, for no longer can I be a photographer, my one true passion...alas...

There comes a time in every man's life when he's just gotta' say, "What the F#$%". This apparently was Lawrence's. He broke all the rules of modern thinking and created something visionary. I have to admit though, that I was disappointed by the lack of a motion blur...but that's just my narrow minded thinking, I guess.

 

I try so hard to create beautiful images, that it makes me jealous to know that someone like Lawrence can make it look so easy. As I reach for my goal of reaching even an "average" rating on my photos, I'll try to keep in mind the lessons I've learned here by reading all the comments written. I humbly bow in shame though, until I can come up with something half as exciting. (Maybe I'll ask my five year old daughter to help me)

In depth analysis reveals that the colors in this photograph are all painted after the fact. I can only assume that the maker realized that the world was not ready for something as revolutionary is this.

 

The light was only there for an instant, I suspect.

Eugene said: "Dogs (Canis familiaris, L.) are colour blind. Therefore, not only they cannot discriminate their own "natural" colours, but also they have a problem watching traffic lights when leading completely (not colour) blind pedestrians. Dogs do, however, work around (or walk around) this problem by monitoring traffic, especially looking after Fords that may be red, and might carry red Clif-Fords on their dashboards. It leads me to believe, that a dog, dog as a subject, cannot find this web page offensive, unless a human (like Geraldine) tells him so. Therefore, it is Okay to paint dogs red."

Dogs (4-legged flesh-eating animal of many breeds akin to wolf etc) may well be colour blind, but this does not mean we can indisputably conclude they cannot find this web page or red paint 'offensive' without someone telling them so. Consider these points:

a) during the hours that we sit here zombied in awe, soaking up the divine exalted array of Clifford pixels, hoping in our desperate desire for some tiny ray of genius to be imbibed - our little four legged friends meanwhile suffer at our feet, from gross negligence and frustration that their meal has not been laid down, and they have not been out of the house to stretch their limbs or empty their bladders for an entire week (this can be tested by calculating the mean average of urine puddles around the house, and multiplying it by the sum value of recorded data collected from counting hard stools)

b) red paint (colouring matter esp in liquid form, applied to matter) feels sticky, glutinous, viscous, and uncomfortable, matting hair whatever the colour of the paint. This hypothesis has been supported by results obtained by a rigourously controlled experiment conducted on at least two children's heads (Allen 2002), providing statistics that were analysed using the 'Clifford scale of significance', and based on these results we might deduce that the paint would stimulate similar subjective responses and consequences of viscosity factor by a dog.

c) "natural colours" may not be observed visually by dogs, but unnatural colours can indeed be recognised by canines. Not by optical means producing visual information true, but by sniffing bottoms, the receptors in the nasal membranes become excited, sending transmitters through the synapses and central nervous system to the amygdala of the brain, where the message is interpreted subconsciously. If, for example, an unpainted dog inhales the aromatic pheramones from red painted dogs bottom, an upsurge of adrenalin will immediately be initiated, promoting subconscious thoughts such as "this is not a brother canine but an artifically coloured slave creature for the pleasure of the human". The sensory inputs therefore stimulate the dog's instinct to 'fight or flight' as anxieties of slave capture by humans envelope them. Similarly, Freud describes the Canis Complex, whereby a dog displays inappropriate sexual behaviour on an owners leg, driven by subconscious desires to 'own' him.

Of course if you submissively feed the dog roast chicken (with homemade gravy) whilst the 'painting red' process is being undertaken, accompanied by verbal statements of humility from the human such as 'your royal highness', 'oh regal one', or 'I am nothing without you' then the dogs natural instinct and automatic impulses for fight or flight, are blocked. He will thereafter associate the smell of other red painted dogs bottoms as not being 'human slave' but rather a master of the human (which is probably how Tony got away with it). Was it Plato or Aristotle that said 'let thy dog be painted only by virtue of the throne'?

Regards to the egocentric law you refer Eugene, is this not justified considering where I go the sun still follows me? And further, should not Clifford be assumed to be alive on the basis that all our collective devotion, love, and adoration has made him alive? Don't bother with the age old 'projection' claptrap please. This argument is synonomous to mirror theory, but I know my reflection in the mirror only exists because I am stood in front of it, yet it still looks lovingly back at me, and it is still there if I close my eyes and don't see it, yes? Hah! How to explain that? In fact don't bother to try on this page, as the discussion will inevitably deny Clifford his full and rightful entitlement to further offerings of glory.

I do not think your logocentrism has deconstructed sufficiently enough to account for the fact that first, the spoken language is adequate enough expression only if the ideas are already shared in the mind of the interactive parties, and second, that writing them is twice removed from the 'living presence'! Space is limited, and humble sycophancy is of the essence. Rate high 7's and bow down before Clifford - or else move over and allow another visitor to oblige!

I don't understand ...why there are so many comments and high ratings for this photo?

 

I agree with Geraldine.

At least I think I do....?

Dis

Rene Magritte says it well in this image. We are not really looking at Clifford, but rather a collection of pixels on a monitor. The thing-for-itself mind, which is accustomed to transforming perceptual patterns into the experience of a thing-in-itself, brings Clifford to confront and challenge us. And yet the act of looking with admiration is also an act of betrayal. The mind sees the eyes of longing in Clifford and experiences the need to return the feelings of friendship. But the almost instantaneous response is to declare, "You are not Clifford. Clifford is dead," in order to be excused from any such attachment. In a sense, Clifford may be a mirror to one's own soul. You sense it is there, beckoning. It even fascinates you at times. Yet even as you pull it towards you, you reject it and deny its place in your map of reality. The mind remains stuck in a love/hate paradox, seeking, but never quite reaching satisfaction.

brilliance, sheer brilliance

What really makes me sad are the multiple comments from people here who don't understand this. Guess they just don't appreciate art . . .

Art? No art! The original picture is a photograph.. and the rest are derivatives of that original therefore these and all the other beautifully crafted alterations submitted by everyone are indeed photographs.

p.s. Aside from the original masterpiece... I really like Neil's intrepretation of Warhol's classic :) (the rest are great too!)

With all this analyzing...Are you all seeing the color in this image correctly? Did you know that 10% of men have one of the many forms of colorblindness? Aha... Maybe that is the problem here. If you want to test your color accuity... Go to this link.. There is a color test there. http://members.aol.com/protanope/colorblindtest2.html

For just a moment I thought you were onto something, Mary. I mean there has to be a reason why there are some folk who just don't seem to get this masterpiece. But I am in fact a partial protanope - and yet I was gobsmacked from the moment I saw this. Even my dog, who some are cruelly claiming to have very limited color vision, went into raptures when he saw it. The only other time he does this is when I say the 'w-a-l-k' word.

Anyway, Snoop (no relation to Nathanael) would also like to offer this image, rendered appropriately but inadequately, merely as an homage to the Master. It shows him in my car, with a pleading look - he wants a Spinak print for his kennel.

Lawrence, Snoop and I are in awe.

Mark, you mean I'm not the ONLY one who has to spell that word? You can't imagine how liberating it is, knowing that it's not just me (I have trouble with "d-o-g" too).

Yes, Tony, it feels great when you finally decide to 'come out'. And it is not just w-a-l-k, it is also l-e-a-s-h, c-a-r, d-r-i-v-e, and worst of all... n-e-k-c-i-h-c and e-t-a-l-o-c-o-h-c*.

 

(Those last two I have to do backwards, even, otherwise he just goes ballistic.)

 

Anyway, back to this icon of our time.. Has anyone else noticed the repeating shapes here? You need to zoom in *really* close - in fact I use special NASA-designed software for the purpose (follow the links from the main Nasa homepage). But once there, you will clearly see that the caravan tailights=Clifford Ears (horizontal), 4WD tailights=ditto (vertical) and the roadside stones=Clifford Eyes.. Go on, look reeallly close.

 

So, digital manipulation? I think NOT. A higher power is at work here, methinks..

 

mt

 

 

*Small children are warned that deciphering this word and feeding it to your dog can in fact be fatal unless it is special 'doggy ---------'.

breathtaking

It looks to me like someone got really bored on a long road trip and popped off a shot of a red stuffed dog with a cheap digital camera, Then people looked at it and called it art. It's only art if you make it art by commenting on it hundreds of times and rating it high. What's at the top of the page is not art, But from there down is.

Utterly insane, please keep it going.

Clifford? The hat of the man on the corner, it beckons. Where was he?

Could you umm, punch up the road a little bit. Also, we'd like a little more of a highlight on Clifford's forehead to give his fur a healthy glow. Take the hood saturation down a notch too, it competes with him.

 

You guys bill 180 days net, right?

How would you describe a dyslexic agnostic with insomnia?

Clifford in his latest incarnation was martyred at the Internet and last seen walking in the desert with a porcupine-like suit of many arrows.

Ahhh ......... there he is again ........... My only regret is I have but one vote to give this ......... this ......... sobbing

 

Oh ......... guess I can vote again ...........