Tom Meyer
, Jul 02, 2000; 04:10 p.m.
I have gotten everything from giggles to anger and don't know why...t<p><IMG SRC="http://tphotosite.homestead.com/files/CrookneckWoman.jpg">
Edward Kang , Jul 02, 2000; 06:31 p.m.
To me it looks like he's cradling a bird.
<p>
Emotion: Amusement
Larry Szoke , Jul 02, 2000; 08:08 p.m.
My mind raced to guess what type of picture would come up as I read
your caption before hand. My initial and only response (aside from
the technical admiration) was amusement. The models abdomen, (I
surmise the model is female?) the upper left corner and the left side
of the squash are the brightest areas of the image. This tends to
draws my eye away from her hands. I really like the black areas they
bounce my view back to the hands every time I kook for a way out of
the frame.
If this is part of a series, Womans take/Mans take, I wait for more!
Your vision carries enough depth to keep my head swimming for many
repeat visits to your posts.
Keep them comming.
Tom Meyer
, Jul 02, 2000; 10:48 p.m.
Thanks, Larry. I declined to burn the top edge at left, in order to
keep the eye active in the frame. Otherwise a static circular
movement would produce subconcious vertigo, centering on the
squash/hand circle. It is actually a straight print, neg by window
light. <p>Yes, the human is a woman. Gender of squash is unknown,
although it has a vaguely masculine configuration and a seed bearing
constitution (smiley face goes <i>here</i>... t
Jim MacKenzie , Jul 03, 2000; 12:40 a.m.
I think it's obvious :)
I think the phallic symbolism of the squash, and the way it's being held by the model, looks much like a young male performing an autoerotic act. That's why you're getting so many comments.
<p>
Interesting picture, and well done.
Jeff Spirer 

, Jul 03, 2000; 01:02 p.m.
Well <i>I</i> could tell the correct gender of the human, for a
change :-) I think it is the gender-bending nature of the shot that
makes people react. But reaction is good - better to motivate anger
or giggles than have viewers pass by with no reaction.
Tom Meyer
, Jul 03, 2000; 02:46 p.m.
re: Jim's interpretation... oh.<p> I guess my lack of critical
distance kept me from anticipating <i>that</i> one. wow. I never
even considered that the human might be interpreted as masculine. How
'bout that. Gosh. Silly me... t
Tom Meyer
, Jul 04, 2000; 12:09 a.m.
Two beautiful forms presented themselves and I had a big north window
and a comfortable chair. She was an artist and had no use for long
nails. <p>
Glad you enjoy the image, James, and it's good to hear from you... t