Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Donde Estan.JPG
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Image:Donde Estan.JPG, not featured[edit]
Info created by Uri R - uploaded by Uri R - nominated by Uri R -- Uri R (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)- Info Popular demonstration commemorating the "disappeared" in Chile on September 11, 2004 in the Santiago de Chile cemetery, in front of the monument for the disappeared.
Support -- Uri R (talk) 20:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Oppose Nothing standing out from this picture. A more dramatic scene would illustrate better the still open wounds from Pinochet's regime. --S23678 (talk) 17:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Comment Don't get me wrong - I am not here to lobby - vote as you understand. However, I see a dramatic event in this picture: first, the sign, portraying an individual, is a strong contrast to the list on names of the disappeared on the monument in the background. This contrast gives a name and face to each laconic name on the stone, and at the same time puts the individual in its numeric context. the fact the monument is not shown in full only strengthen this effect. Second, the directions in the scene create a fictive-highly real dialog. The face on the sign, as the names on the monument, are facing the demonstrating audience. Thus, a silent dialog is created between the appears and the disappears, between the living and the dead, between the picture and the viewer. To me, the picture captured a dramatic moment, a silent one, which shoves the political into the viewer's face through a hint of violence, through the non-evident tension of the moment, through the different dialogs it documents. Again, this is what I see in it. Thanks, Uri R (talk) 22:41, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Every picture speaks to the viewer. I admire the way you analysed the picture, you saw it at a very deep level, and it made me look at your picture with a different eye. I will however keep my vote as it is, and I will explain you why by doing a comparison with movies, paintings and books. Some movies have been analysed very deeply, such as this one, by making sometimes connexions to historical/religious figures or events, making the movie more deep than just a mix of sound and images. Same thing for paintings, where some people take huge amounts of time analyzing the meaning of every little details to make theories about the "real meaning" of the picture. Same thing for books (I think you understand the pattern). But the big thing about these analysis is that, in the end, they are personal. No mather how other are analyzing a movie in it's deepest, as a person, you either like or don't like the movie. The painter may have wanted to transmit an emotion to the viewer, but it's to the viewer to do his own analysis, and to draw it's own conclusions and emotions without having to read the detailed description from the author. You saw all the connexions you talked about, but I saw a normal shot framing a portrait, a monument and some randomly disposed people. After a careful look at your picture (from my first vote), I did not saw the emotions you saw because my interpretation was different. In no way I want to say that your opinion is wrong, it's just different than me. --S23678 (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Many thanks for your comment. I agree that interpretation is subjective, and I am sorry I could not make you see it through my eyes, regardless to the vote. Thanks again, Uri R (talk) 00:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
- Every picture speaks to the viewer. I admire the way you analysed the picture, you saw it at a very deep level, and it made me look at your picture with a different eye. I will however keep my vote as it is, and I will explain you why by doing a comparison with movies, paintings and books. Some movies have been analysed very deeply, such as this one, by making sometimes connexions to historical/religious figures or events, making the movie more deep than just a mix of sound and images. Same thing for paintings, where some people take huge amounts of time analyzing the meaning of every little details to make theories about the "real meaning" of the picture. Same thing for books (I think you understand the pattern). But the big thing about these analysis is that, in the end, they are personal. No mather how other are analyzing a movie in it's deepest, as a person, you either like or don't like the movie. The painter may have wanted to transmit an emotion to the viewer, but it's to the viewer to do his own analysis, and to draw it's own conclusions and emotions without having to read the detailed description from the author. You saw all the connexions you talked about, but I saw a normal shot framing a portrait, a monument and some randomly disposed people. After a careful look at your picture (from my first vote), I did not saw the emotions you saw because my interpretation was different. In no way I want to say that your opinion is wrong, it's just different than me. --S23678 (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Not enough contrasts, "milky" --Alipho (talk) 18:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
- Support--Mbz1 (talk) 04:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose not enough quality -- LadyofHats (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose Washed out blacks. –Dilaudid 11:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
- Oppose No "wow", nothing special and the colors are no good. --Aktron (talk) 20:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
result: 2 supports, 5 opposes, 0 neutral => not featured. Benh (talk) 20:30, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
