MyFourThirds.com
The Photographic Community for the Four Thirds Photographer

"Go Figure"

   


Copyright ©2005, Hakan Aker HoF ¤

Photographer: Hakan Aker HoF ¤
Folder:
Uploaded: 2005-Dec-17 10:49 EST
Current Rating: 8.50/2 (Weighted rating: 8.16)
View all ratings
Delete my rating
Copying allowed: No
Camera: Olympus E-300
Lens: Olympus ED 50mm f2.0
Lens Adapter: None
ISO: 100
Aperture:
Shutter Speed:
Focal Length:
Flash: No
Tripod/Monopod: No
Critique Level: Dead Honest Critique

Comment/Rate Critique Guideline Share this Image

NO SUBJECT

A haunting, mysterious and disturbing image. A zillion backstories could be assembled around this shot. Don't like the title because it vitiates the considerable tension it is possible to construct by just viewing.

Ferd Berfle Win ¤ $ at 11:28 EST on 2005-Dec-17 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

What is it what you are trying to show here, I myself do not prefer to see those kind off images... You better keep them for your self if you like them.....!

Fonzy v S ¤ at 13:24 EST on 2005-Dec-17 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

So I guess you are suggesting that I should shoot pictures according to your preferences ,Fons van Swaal?Does that make sense to you?I have a better solution.Why dont you look at images that you would like to see and keep your idiotic comments to yourself...

Hakan Aker HoF ¤ at 14:33 EST on 2005-Dec-17 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

What's your profession to make such a comment Steen ?

Hakan Aker HoF ¤ at 15:02 EST on 2005-Dec-17 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

It is a long, long and dare I say quite irresponsible leap to suggest that this photo evidences any mental pathology, except perhaps, Rorschach-style, that of the beholder. The fulsome reactions above take leaps into diagnosis, accusation, and suggestions of censorship that just aren't warranted IMO. What is the basis of the revulsion? Refutation or denial of death? An assumption that this is necrophiliac or criminal or prurient or voyeuristic? These reactions can only be based in inferences of meaning accreted to this photo by the observers, since the photo itself contains absolutely no narrative string of its own. The image seems to me purposely ambiguous as to whether this is a real human or a statue (though close examination reveals in the fusion of the toes and the texture of the "skin" that this is not real), but whether real or not, the shot has undeniable power. If this is a photo of a deteriorating statue, are your reactions then any less real? I think not. Rather, I think this photo is touching quite disturbingly on some deep-seated points within us all, and invites us to pull them out and observe them, which it has obviously done very, very effectively.

Ferd Berfle Win ¤ $ at 16:12 EST on 2005-Dec-17 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

very nice photo

tony vitola ¤ at 17:04 EST on 2005-Dec-17 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Thank you Ferd

Hakan Aker HoF ¤ at 19:13 EST on 2005-Dec-17 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Hi Bram I was not trying to be shocking.Its just an image...not a city morgue.

Hakan Aker HoF ¤ at 19:50 EST on 2005-Dec-17 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Look Steen, i could have writen a long comment and try to explain what the image intended to...and i could have given you many examples from art books about similar/parallel works but you were being disrespectful.And i dont appreciate that.

Hakan Aker HoF ¤ at 20:02 EST on 2005-Dec-17 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Aren't images (art) meant to evoke an emotional response ? Else why would the image be created.

It is an interesting image - exploring the depth in oneself.

Steven Barrymore ¤ $ at 02:52 EST on 2005-Dec-18 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Apology accepted Steen.No hard feelings either...

Regards,H.

Hakan Aker HoF ¤ at 10:27 EST on 2005-Dec-18 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

I want to add this to my comment after you told me it is an idiotic comment. You ask for an (see Critique Level) "Dead Honest Critique" What is idiotic by telling my Dead Honest Critique I have on this image.? If you feel in any way that I have been attacking you then you should not ask for Dead Honest Critique, and just post your images without giving anybody the opportunity to make comments. No hard feelings here but idiotic is a little off line. I just told you that I myself not prefer to see those kind off images and in my opinion you could better keep them to your self. This is my view off it and does not mean that you not can post those kind off images... So wake up and do something on your Critique level or accept if anyone makes critiques ....!

Cheers,

Fonzy v S ¤ at 13:49 EST on 2005-Dec-18 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Fons, with all due respect, you are out of line. You're certainly entitled to your opinion and to express it, especially under the commonly accepted MFT customs of the Dead Honest Critique. However, it's one thing to say, "I don't like it," and another completely to tell a member to keep his photographs to himself, especially when you've given no foundation whatever for your objection. A well-reasoned and fully explained argument for why you find an image offensive could logically lead to a request to refrain from posting such images, but you've done nothing of the kind. It's small wonder given your belligerent delivery that it was met with hostility by the photographer, and you've little cause to register indignation now, though Hakan probably regrets calling it "idiotic."

Ferd Berfle Win ¤ $ at 15:26 EST on 2005-Dec-18 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

It sure created buzz. So one could say that it's merit has been proven.

Dislike - like. World and MFT would be dull if everything would just be of the latter.

Juha Makkonen ¤ at 16:53 EST on 2005-Dec-18 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Fons, I think we have a different understanding .MFT is a public site and its not your homepage thats why i have difficulties to understand why i should post images according to your taste/preferences.Its true that I prefer Dead Honest Critiques but what was your "dead honest critique" about this image?I should not post it here and "keep it to myself"?Well i'm saying you are not in a position to decide that.

Hakan Aker HoF ¤ at 19:37 EST on 2005-Dec-18 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Hakan,

We don’t have a different understanding about MFT the side is public and off course it is not my homepage. What gave you the idea that it was my homepage?

Your understanding about my comment is wrong..... I quote you "why i should post images according to your taste/preferences" nobody told you to do so! This site is to post pictures of any kind. The maker of the image makes it possible to the viewer to make comments or critique. That is what I did, maybe the chosen words where not right.

I have the feeling that I stepped on a few toes here..... Also I think there is a miss interpretation on the words I wrote. I just said and I quote: "I myself do not prefer to see those kind of pictures" I don’t think this needs an explanation but still I do. I don't like to see ( what I think it is) dead body parts. Maybe it is not a person but a statue that is laying there I don’t know , but the first impression I had is as said above....

I quote: "you better keep them for your self if you like them" Maybe those words where chosen wrong. You “better” does not mean that you are not entitled to post but it is an expression of somebody’s feeling.

At last , the reaction from you to say it was an idiotic comment. You self ask for comments and there fore you can expect positive or negative critique. I think you should never replay with this “ an idiotic comment” , better ways are there to criticize. Again I had no intension to harm you in any way.

I hope you have some nice Holidays, and wish you all the best. I hope this discussion is closed now…

Regards,

Fonzy v S ¤ at 08:45 EST on 2005-Dec-19 [Reply]

NO SUBJECT

Fons, I m sorry about the "idiotic" comment.I agree that this discusion was way too long also I wish you a Merry Christmas in advance Peace,H.

Hakan Aker HoF ¤ at 09:24 EST on 2005-Dec-19 [Reply]