Toy of kid giving finger. I think it had to do with their return policy.

You wouldn't call this art? I guess a dirty coffee cup with a rainbow in it is art. Sorry I try and keep caffiene to a minimum. BTW I Put up a new page with an old photo just for you http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=513963

A little more reference to if this is art....

 

I think this qualifies. The way the background glows warmy is very appealing to me. The figure is facing into the middle of the frame from one side of it following the rule of thirds. Draw one of those golde rule squigly things and it lands on the eyes of the figure. Which by the way have very nice catchlights. Draw another one going down and it intersects with the figure's nutsack. Also notice he is portrayed as uncircumsized as many of the great male statues of Greek and Roman artists. The finger gesture also falls pretty much in the middle of the frame.

 

Why would this not be considered art?

Just wanted to post something different. I think this is funny and

not a bad capture of this little figure. I took two shots of this.

One with flash and one without. I prefer this one because the

background is nicely lit instead of dark like the flash version.

This little guy was near the cash register of a little shop in

Amsterdam.

 

Don't take the critique I have in the comments too seriously :)

Well, I don't want to school somebody on what Art "is" and what Art "isn't." There are dozens of definitions for it, and dozens more opinions on it. Art is, as far as I'm concerned, somebody's attempt at capturing something relating to life, the one thing we all have in common.

Mr. Menegatos here captured a tounge-in-cheek moment he experienced in Amsterdam, it may not be in Dave's opinion that it's Fine Art or Traditional Art, but it is art nonetheless. I completely agree with Tom, which is something he'll remember I don't often do, but in this case I believe he's right!

Of course its art. A photo of an artistic figure has to be art by definition, and a nude charicture of the human body also has to be art, by definition. Well done Tom! Thumbs (or maybe fingers) up!

No you don't ignore ratings because sometime after you saw my ratings on your images you went through and gave me 3/4's... It's obvious you are ticked off at the ratings. I gave my honest opinions on your images. Let's have a look and maybe we'll compare them to the ratings of some you call a "friend" that you "go back a while" with just for kicks.

Right Angle Current Average 6.65/6.55. I rated it 4/3. Your friend rated it 3/3. There is also another 4/3 and 3/3. My rating is not the lowest, higher than your "friend's" rating and there are 2 more similar ones. What's funny to me is that you call it right angle but you didn't even capture a right angle. The perspective distortion made one wall lean in.

Pellegrino 7.20/7.50 I rated it 4/4 your friend gave it 5/6 and I have the lowest score. It only had 10 ratnigs. I don't particularly like this image. Somewhat trite to me.

Gassosa It's just the same as Pellegrino but a wider shot. At least the other one had more interest to me. I gave it a 3/3 wich was the lowest. Next lowest was 4/5. Your friend didn't rate this.

At the end of a rainbow - a cup of coffee - Most people liked it. I gave it a 4/4 you're friend a whopping 9/9 there are 5's and 6's in there too. I don't know what people see in it. First of all the end of the rainbow isn't in the picture let alone where the coffee cup is. The spoon doesn't fit into the composition well and I think the framing isn't very good either. Add to the fact the coffee cup looks very dirty and there's a dark thing floating in it.

Blue Flight - I gave it a 6/5 I thought this was pretty nice. Nothing spectacular but good. There was a time where a 6/5 was considered a good score. Your friend gave it a 7/6.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. After we had settled our last debate what prompted you to make these comments about me in the last couple of days? The only contact I had with you was the ratings. And then you rated mine. I agree that my ratings were quite low but it was my honest opinion. If you didn't like it you could have contacted me in an adult fashion to ask about them.

Would you be willing to give me your ratings on my photos the same attention? I remember seeing your name on a few and they were mostly in the 3-4 range.

Is that what this is about? would you like me to give you higher ratings? Will that make you feel better? Do you feel bad that when you first came on the top member rated list you came in as number one because of the overinflated ratings peple are giving everyone. Then you got knocked down the list? I saw that comment on one of your photos to another comment to your photos. We are very sensitive aren't we little gouras. It's not fair to make you number 1 and not let you stay there so that every one worships you? Is that the problem?

Are you going to get your little band of brothers together again to make you number 1?

Oh and David you said "NOTE no rating from me.". You rated this 3/4 on December 15th. Get real indeed!

return blitz;

Funny tacticts for someone that doesn't care about ratings. You seem to talk about them a lot.

As for the 10/10 Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I never complained about your ratings on my photos but I thought I'd mention them since you brought them up. It looks like you overlook a lot of things when you make comments.If you take ratings so seriously and you don't consider this art consider this.... one person that rated this photo also rated one of yours very similiarly.

Dave said: And - Tom - you really want a critique of this??

Jesus man...a freak, a sodding freak.

Well I'd imagine since this is a critique forum, I believe that Tom did want you to leave your honest opinion, and not call him a prick.

I'm guessing Tom didn't post this picture simply so that you could attack other people for giving their own opinions, (which you have yet to leave your own.) Tom noted: Don't take the critique I have in the comments too seriously :)

Dave, If you consider what you contribute, critique-wise, to this website is of Any benefit or relevance to the photographers who've had their luck to receive them, then by all means...classify me a "prick" now and don't bother to leave your word upon any of my photographs.

I've nearly given up on visiting this site because of folks like you. It's the great contributors, (there are many, including Tom), and the Elves, who of course keep this place so well maintained and worthwhile. Please don't ruin their hard work.

I leave this message with a question: Tom, haven't you posted this image previously on the Critique forum? That statue is very familiar to me, though I don't recall ever going to Amsterdam. There is some JPEG artifacting, though I'm sure it's probably an uploading issue, and that white thing in the background is a tad distracting, but sounds like you didn't have time to pose the little fellow.

Dustin,

 

Thanks for the kind words. These people are in the minority but they try and make a big stink and most people ignore them but from what I've heard from other photographers on here these types are making some people uncomfortable. I don't respond to repeated threats and insults without taking a stand. Especially after starting to peice together their history.

 

I've only uploaded and posted this photo to the critique forum once. There was a time or two that I used it in a forum posting and maybe a pow? The one time I'm sure of was in response to some guy that uploaded a large image in his response to a forum comment that had nothing to do with his post. Actually his post didn't have anything to do with the thread as I recall.

 

Also I didn't wan't to tamper with the scene so that it was as I saw it in the shop and not what I wanted it to be. Ok truth is I didn't want anyone to see me touching this thing :) So I just did my best framing it and it's natural surroundings.

 

Tom

"though what about the 10/10??"

 

If I gave it a 1/1, would you be happy? Its my rating, not your rating, Dave.

 

I heard Alfred Hitchcock say that the purpose of art is to evoke emotion. Based upon the comments this photo has generated, it has evoked (maybe provoked) emotion. Therefore, it is art by that definition. Because the comments are so emotional, I gave it a 10/10 just to see what emotions that would evoke.