The way the model is lying down almost makes the form of a swastika, except for her right arm not being bent. As the swastika is a sign of peace (before the Nazis hijacked it) and the model looks asleep but stirring, you could call it the Broken Swastka
ApocryphantFeatured By OwnerMay 27, 2013Hobbyist General Artist
I love this image... Can't explain exactly why, but it just has an intricate detail and balance. Regarding the title, I have a couple of proposals, but even if no title is applied, it's still a wonderful piece of artwork.
It may be perceived to be similar to the swastika, which is taboo of late, but far preceeded that taboo with much more positive connotations. You could potentially call it 'Sacred Force', which is what the swastika is meant to invoke, or you could call it 'Spiral', because that is the overall shape your body seems to possess. If it were my work to name, though, I would call it either 'Balance' or 'Tao', because it reminds me more of a yin and yang than anything else.
No matter what you choose, it's signature beauty and I'm happy to add it to my collection of favorites!
Really nice !! What about if you name it "the edge of purity" because of the contrast between the Girl who is in her most natural and beautiful expression and the obscurity around her. Also the Girl and the environment do not mix not even the boots or the necklace. Nice work 😃😃
Swastika comes to mind immediately. (And although those have negative connotations, they are still in use by Native Americans in the southwestern US, and have been for centuries, or longer.) But, simply 'Pinwheel' would do. (An adult version) As an aside: this photo shows Albuquerque's downtown Kimo theater, from the 1929: [link] and this one shows a building in Mountainair, NM, form 1908: [link]
The Native American "Hooked Cross" was actually used as a symbol for one unit in the American military, until WWII anyway. It does differ from the Swastika in that the arms bend the opposite direction, but nobody ever notices that.
I like "Spiraling Out Of Control" mentioned above. It's better than anything I thought of.
I was once told that the Nazi swastika rotated in the opposite direction of the Native one, but perhaps they meant the one used in the U.S. military. I've since found out that the Naive American symbol was often represented both ways.
Here is a good idea for a title: Obviously and badly retouched, uninspired, image of a naked young lady with fetish boots to increase the pictures sexual message.
Slightly long, but describes the image well, because it fails to provide with anything else other than that. I would love to see an honest image of the girl (You, is it?). The skin is retouched to a point my brain fails to recognize the silhouette as a human being, how am I supposed to feel attracted to that? All it does is spoil the girls (Yours?) natural beauty, obvious after browsing other pictures in the gallery.
Or maybe this is not photoshop, just the effect of a metric ton of makeup and fake lighting and that was the whole point and I fail to see anything meaningful? If the image was inspired and actually had something behind it other than what I had already described, it would easily have had a title, though.
Horrible Waste or Shallowness - these are my thoughtful suggestions for the title.
Because, in the comment, I suggest that I have little knowledge of the technical aspects of photography? How is this relevant? Do you suggest that nude photography is only for nude photographers?
This does not, by bit, change the fact, that the discussed image is uninspired, cheap and poorly executed. Oh look, yet another model manipulated into 'perfection' not expressing anything other than her own sexuality, which by the act of manipulation, is twisted and artificial to a point in which it is no longer attractive.
If you had kept your critique to composition or use of colour, symbolic meaning, etc., that would be fine. What you do is make specific inaccurate claims about how the photograph was made (so your lack of knowledge is obviously relevant there), and mix those claims with valid critique, comments that imply you have little interest in the type of photography you're commenting on, and utterly subjective personal comments ("how am I supposed to feel attracted to that?" Who cares?). In the end, you make a pointless and rude condemnation of a photograph which is well-executed technically and perfectly typical for its genre of photography. It makes little sense: you could pick almost any fetish-oriented studio nude and say the same things about it, but what would be the point? If you don't like the work, find something you do like and don't randomly insult people who are trying to work together. If I found your drawings "uninspired, cheap, and poorly executed," I would not waste both our time lecturing you about it, I would move on.
'specific inaccurate claims about how the photograph was made' Suggesting that I may be wrong, yes, indeed, very specific (not at all). The point is that the girl looks like a wax figure, not how the image was made. What You are doing there is attacking my words for the sake of an attack, which is funny because You condemned me for the exact same thing, which I did not do. My first comment is actually a critique. But it is obvious that everybody will see it as rude, because I had not sweetened it with compliments. I have nothing good to say about the image.
'If you have nothing nice to say ...' okay, fine, don't move forward, produce you fake meaningless nudes by the dozens, they are perfect, nobody will ever want any other aesthetic experiences.
'Who cares?' Actually, the publisher/creator makes the photographs so that the viewer will find them attractive to look at. 'OH WHO CARES?' - otherwise why would you publish anything if it is not for others to enjoy.
'In the end, you make a pointless and rude condemnation' just because you fail to see the point, does not mean that it is pointless. I condemn spoiling beauty by retouching the image to this point. Badly - that is in fact a matter of opinion and I just happen to be critical and prefer not being lied to by a digital paintbrush.
I did use strong words, but I never insulted anyone. You guys should really learn to take negative feedback.
Oh, come on. You were talking to THE MODEL. Most of your criticisms had nothing to do with her participation in the image, they were insulting the photographer. Your entire message to the model boils down to "I don't like this, so you should make better pictures with a different type of photographer." I can't believe this is how you comment on others' work after six years on DA. Ah, well.