To Die For

I don't get it.
 
Perhaps it's one of the new government warnings on alcohol abuse...

Drink this.... End up like that!
 
I've got it. The goat/sheep was scuba diving across to Mull and then.........that's where my inspiration runs out. Nice whisky though.
 
I get it. The head costume on the right is (1) what you might appropriately wear whilst tippling it, or (2) what you feel like during / after tippling it, or (3) what might appear to you in dream during the night after tippling it and before the hangover kicks in on waking. Right?

Given that the bottle looks empty it's a wonder that the image is in focus!
 
Last edited:
I'm not taking the p***, Charles.
I seriously don't understand the pic.
What's your interpretation of it?
 
I don't get it either and it doesn't look like Art to me. But then art is in the eye of the beholder so maybe I'd better go to Specsavers.
 
Hi Lads.
Nice to hear you find the shot a bit perplexing - just take what you will from it.
 
Hi Lads.
Nice to hear you find the shot a bit perplexing - just take what you will from it.

Ah, the cry of the lazy "artiste". Sorry Charles, I don't mean to be rude, but it's the artist that's meant to come up with the interpretation, not the audience. It's his or her job to communicate, and I'm afraid this one doesn't.

Of course some plonker will come along and tell us how your image "speaks to me about the rebellion of youth against the old guard, imparting feelings of warmth while cooling the soul, and invoking memories previously forgotten, previously deliberately buried", and you'll be delighted, but that'll just be mutual ego massage. Obviously you'll then be able to dismiss the rest of us as uneducated, unseeing plebs.

Art can be obscure, and can challenge viewers, but if there's no message intended, there's no challenge in finding one. Any random combination of subjects, colours, shapes or whatever will do.

If you can't tell us what you're trying to communicate, then there's nothing TO communicate, and it's not art.

Umm, nicely focused, and well exposed though :)
 
Last edited:
PS, if your image was simply meant to look nice - no message but nice to look at - it'd still be a form of art, but I'm afraid it doesn't do that either. IMHO the goggles just spoil a group of what could otherwise have been quite attractive objects.

You've put this in the creative section. Given that piling a load of stuff up and taking a picture of it isn't creative, what is it that you feel justifies putting it here, rather than, say, still life?

(Do we have a still life section? Maybe we should!)
 
Without any context it just comes across as an effort to gather together some unrelated objects in a contrived attempt to be obscure and cryptic. At best, it looks - as someone said above - like a still life rather than a creative work.

If there's real meaning to be drawn from it, it needs more context.
 
Yes simon. Not a political animal. but thought I'd express my thoughts in my own way.

Mark - I'm no artist, but I think everyone should be able to mess about with whatever ... give it ago.
Interpretation is in the eye of the beholder and will be totally subjective, unless they are following the "sheep."
 
It is a rather weird still life with a slightly strange perspective.
Still life pictures have been made by artists for yonks
this one is not one of the better ones.
 
You feel "horny" after a few shots maybe.........

Or you've waited for the wife to get ready that long you've died off!!
 
Ah, the cry of the lazy "artiste". Sorry Charles, I don't mean to be rude, but it's the artist that's meant to come up with the interpretation, not the audience. It's his or her job to communicate, and I'm afraid this one doesn't.

Of course some plonker will come along and tell us how your image "speaks to me about the rebellion of youth against the old guard, imparting feelings of warmth while cooling the soul, and invoking memories previously forgotten, previously deliberately buried", and you'll be delighted, but that'll just be mutual ego massage. Obviously you'll then be able to dismiss the rest of us as uneducated, unseeing plebs.

Art can be obscure, and can challenge viewers, but if there's no message intended, there's no challenge in finding one. Any random combination of subjects, colours, shapes or whatever will do.

If you can't tell us what you're trying to communicate, then there's nothing TO communicate, and it's not art.

Umm, nicely focused, and well exposed though :)


Well it bloody well spoke to me and it said ... go and fill a glass with scotch - now!


So I did. :D
 
Oh good.

I struggled with it until I saw the Union Flag.


That helps, knowing that. Just did not see the union flag. I didn't immediately see it when you mentioned it either.
 
Cheers all.
I've no more to add to this. Make what you will of it - Sláinte !
 
Back to the image::
The flash has killed it bouncing off the goggles and bottle shoulder.,..

As asked what is the photo meant to be saying from your perspective?
 
lol...

if we can't appreciate it as art, or at least see some measure of intent, do we have to critique its technical failings....or not bother at all ?

not much about it bothers me technically although the distortion pokes me in the eye, but it wasn't shot as a technical exercise so it seems like an irrelevant observation :)
 
lol...

if we can't appreciate it as art, or at least see some measure of intent, do we have to critique its technical failings....or not bother at all ?

Only if it bothers you. Being art doesn't exclude it from technical crit though IMO.
 
Only if it bothers you. Being art doesn't exclude it from technical crit though IMO.

Well I suppose without context your posted work is left to the viewer to decide what critique is appropriate.
 
Back
Top