On 9/14/05, Glen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > It's not meant to be a photo of a girl's legs anymore. It's actually meant > to be a weathered statue.
Problem is, to me, it still looks like a photo of real legs. I suspect this is a psychological thing - it's in my head that way, and I doubt that I can change that now. > If you are thinking of this as a girl's legs, > perhaps that is where you get the sensation of grotesque? It's not that I'm thinking it's girl's legs, it's that I'm thinking it's a girl's legs that have been badly burned. No matter what it's intended to be, or indeed, what it reallly is, that's what I see. > Perhaps I should > have named it "A Statue of Lisa - (detail)" or something like that? ;) Maybe, but it's too late now (for me, anyway) <vbg> > > Perhaps you will like this variation better? > http://webpages.charter.net/glenweb/gallery/Stone_Legs_03.jpg Nope - damage's been done. <g> > <techno babble snipped> > If you still don't like it, that's okay. I'd much rather hear an honest > complaint than false praise. Thanks for looking. ;) Yeah, still don't, for a lot of reasons, that I know have to do with me, not you or the photo. I like the composition and framing, but I don't like knowing that it was heavily manipulated (personal prejudice) and I've already told you about the "burn ward" thing. Even the re-done one still gives me that feeling. We can't all like everything - hell, there are even those who've not liked everything I've posted <LOL>. But, it seems you understand that just fine. <g> cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
