I have gotten everything from giggles to anger and don't know why...t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), July 02, 2000

Answers

To me it looks like he's cradling a bird.

Emotion: Amusement

-- Edward Kang (ekang@cse.nd.edu), July 02, 2000.

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.

-- Larry Szoke (lszoke@icom.ca), July 02, 2000.

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.

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 here... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), July 02, 2000.

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.

Interesting picture, and well done.

-- Jim MacKenzie (photojim@yahoo.com), July 03, 2000.

Well 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.

-- Jeff Spirer (jeff@spirer.com), July 03, 2000.

re: Jim's interpretation... oh.

I guess my lack of critical distance kept me from anticipating that one. wow. I never even considered that the human might be interpreted as masculine. How 'bout that. Gosh. Silly me... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), July 03, 2000.

hands

I too thought the human form was masculine by the large masculine blood vessels in the wrists and hands. Rather plain fingernails too. Interesting vision Tom. I like it because it is one of the few images that is truly different from what is normally seen here on most photo forums. Nice job. Aside from the obviously perverted artistic sense you purvey here(with sly grin), where did the idea originate? Full fledged as an image or piece meal from hands, and then vegetable, slowly working it's turgid ghastly perverted form into the hands of the human for it's own pleasures. Oh! The sensuality of it all. I've got to go now. Oh! Pervert! Oh! Jjjmaes

-- james (james_mickelson@hotmail.com), July 03, 2000.

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.

Glad you enjoy the image, James, and it's good to hear from you... t

-- tom meyer (twm@mindspring.com), July 04, 2000.