Thomas de Groot wrote:

> 
> Yes indeed, and I am sure Mike was exploring just that. 

I'd bet he wasn't! :P

But the point for me is that once you put an image out there it is open 
for anyone to interpret in any way. It functions independently 
uncontrolled by either artist or critic.

The thing I took issue with was my sense that, in your critique, you'd 
strayed into a position that no meaning was possible because you 
personally didn't see any meaning.  And that became your criteria for an 
up or down vote on the general success of the image.

Now my own sense of the picture is similar to yours.  That it appears to 
be a cutesy grab shot of a pet and without any indication of why I 
should see it in any other way, the unusual use of the DOF provides some 
visual interest, but not much and not for long.

Given the expected intention of such images, it even looks technically 
clumsy. Its look could have resulted mostly from the camera's 
autifocusing.  But, once 'hung on the wall', we must assume that the 
artist wanted it that way.  Editing and selection are a big part of 
photography.  So there is some responsibility, I believe, to get past 
habits of seeing and speculate on other possibilities.  That is part of 
my fascination with images, anyway.

And poor Mike, this is all rather beside the point considering the shot 
was ancilliary to his original posting. But I enjoyed the conversation. 
  Thanks to Mike for being a good sport about it.

-Jim

Post a reply to this message