"Obey thy sister"

What do you think ?

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/nFCK​Ky

Not sure if the subject matter is the hand, the kid, or something implied. His tone seems a bit off as his check looks yellow and his forehead is a bit blue/green. More of a snapshot.

Honestly? It looks like you were snapping a shot of the boy and accidentally got someones hand in the frame. Have her in the frame to give more context.

Also, its awkward to me that she is pointing with her pinky finger. Can't quite get past that...

I see what you were going for here and I like the reaction he is giving to his sister.

But if you had not mentioned the sis in your title, it would be impossible to figure out what is really going on. Get her in the frame and you may have something.

He looks like Harry Potter!

Thanks for comments !

venom3300 wrote in post #16918905
Honestly? It looks like you were snapping a shot of the boy and accidentally got someones hand in the frame. Have her in the frame to give more context.

Also, its awkward to me that she is pointing with her pinky finger. Can't quite get past that...

TBH, this was intended, although probably didn't come out that well. The moment I saw this in the frame, I for some reason immediately thought of the Michelangelo's "Hand of God" ("The creation of Adam"). Seemed funny at that time.

Ethosb wrote in post #16918899
Not sure if the subject matter is the hand, the kid, or something implied. His tone seems a bit off as his check looks yellow and his forehead is a bit blue/green. More of a snapshot.

The green is probably the light reflected from the foliage above. I'll check the WB, thanks.

Bazinga wrote in post #16919010
He looks like Harry Potter!

Daniel Radcliffe, who plays Harry Potter, looks just like the photos of my dad from when he was in his 20s, they could be twin brothers .

It looks like she is going to "help" him by picking something out of his teeth prior to a shot.

Amamba wrote in post #16919453
TBH, this was intended, although probably didn't come out that well. The moment I saw this in the frame, I for some reason immediately thought of the Michelangelo's "Hand of God" ("The creation of Adam"). Seemed funny at that time.

Okay, I get it. That's sort of what I thought you were maybe going for at first, but I couldn't really tell.

Anyway, if that concept is something that you are interested in, I'd advise just keeping the concept and doing it a bit more deliberately this time. A few comments...

1) Michelangelo's painting evokes an intimate connection with god. Not only is god reaching out to Adam, Adam is also reaching out to god. This is important, because otherwise simply pointing a finger at someone is kind of an offensive gesture. Rather than imparting life into man, this is just sort of god pointing at man and man laughing about it. Despite a small degree of similarity, the entire gesture of pointing has been changed to the point of not really having any connection to the original.

2) Now, yes the meaning of the gesture has been changed. That's not inherently a flaw, I suppose that could be used to good effect for parody or satire. However, that fails to translate because this is only BARELY recognizable as an homage/parody of Michelangelo's fresco. The only real similarity is someone pointing at someone else. If you're gonna parody or homage something, then I think there should generally be a more clear indication that that is what you're doing. The original fresco had a certain symmetry that is entirely lost in your image. Within that symmetry there was still an imbalance. God is clothed, he is surrounded by a bunch of angels (or whatever), and it has been noted that the vessel he is riding is meant to reference the human brain. By contrast, Adam is naked and young and alone. God is portrayed as old and wise and powerful, while adam is portrayed as young and green and naive. There is a clear "father/son" thing going on in the original, where in yours all of that is entirely lost. And it's really hard to even tell that you're referenceing Michelangelo since you've done away with the symmetry and you've done away with a similar thematic imbalance. If one can't identify it as an homage or parody based on theme, and if one also can't identify it as an homage or parody based on composition, then it's just really hard to identify it as an homage or parody. And in this case, identifying it as an homage or parody seemed to be the point, so that comes off as just a failure to effectively communicate.

3) But let's move beyond that and accept that it is an homage or parody. I still have a problem. My problem is that I can't quite tell what you're trying to say about the work that you're referencing. You can't just make a parody of something for no reason, the act of parodying it has to say something about the thing that is being parodied. And I think that's one of the biggest things wrong with this. Even when I take it at face value that you are referencing Michelangelo's works, I can't tell what you're trying to say about Michelangelo's works. Granted, that's not to say that I often just don't get it. But the thing is, even if I just don't get it, I think you'd be doing yourself a favor by making me feel stupid. Like, I've seen lots of works that I genuinely had no freaking idea what they were about. But if it looks deliberate enough, I'm more likely to shrug my shoulders and say, "I don't get this, but the artist obviously paid a lot of attention to detail. This work was superbly constructed and composed and lit, so I'm just gonna give them the benefit of the doubt and assume that they know what they're doing and that I just don't get it." The problem with your image is that in addition to me not getting it, it also looks like a snapshot. It just doesn't look deliberate. And that's sort of the nail in the coffin. I mean, I've taken esoteric images of dog poop and piles of intestines, and yeah...lots of people "won't get it". But the thing is that "viewers don't get it" is often another way of saying "the artist had nothing to say." If nothing else, at least trick your audience into thinking that you have something to say by making the image look so deliberate that they have to assume that you're doing what you're doing intentionally.

4) Anyway, I like the concept of referencing other famous works of art. I'm a fan of Joel-Peter Witkin, and he's famous for doing that. His work is also stuff that a lot of people don't "get". But I think one of the clear differences is that even if he is just being esoteric as a way to disguise a lack of anything meaningful to say, his images are so well constructed that it's impossible to ignore his skill. It's not that he gets weird in order to disguise a lack of skill, the skill is apparent. If he can make mutilated bodies look good, then it stands to reason that he can make ANYTHING look good, so there must be a deliberate and well-thought out reason for why he chooses to use that skill to photograph things that most people find repulsive. Referencing other works is a valid and interesting idea. But it has to come off as deliberate, or the meaning has to be clear otherwise the meaning and intent just gets lost. I like the idea of this, I'd just advise doing it over again with a bit more intent and planning.

"You're a wizard Harry!"