avec art
Junior Member
🗨️ 3,727
👍🏻 3,061
March 2014
|
Sharks & Art, by avec art on Mar 18, 2019 15:04:47 GMT 1, looks awesome, nice placement
looks awesome, nice placement
|
|
Carl Cashman
Artist
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,775
👍🏻 3,147
August 2017
|
Sharks & Art, by Carl Cashman on Mar 18, 2019 15:24:25 GMT 1, They look great
They look great
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Mar 21, 2019 13:11:37 GMT 1, Did a few more sharks here.
A couple on the side of the dive shop. One on a bamboo fence. And a shark intervention of an existing tag of local artist Striko.
Did a few more sharks here. A couple on the side of the dive shop. One on a bamboo fence. And a shark intervention of an existing tag of local artist Striko.
|
|
moron
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,711
👍🏻 1,051
September 2017
|
Sharks & Art, by moron on Mar 21, 2019 13:55:16 GMT 1, Sharknado
Sharknado
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Mar 24, 2019 12:25:08 GMT 1, Think my shark invasion on the Island is complete now. Proper vandalism with 5 sharks at the local lighthouse.
Think my shark invasion on the Island is complete now. Proper vandalism with 5 sharks at the local lighthouse.
|
|
ferg
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,351
👍🏻 1,301
January 2013
|
|
|
|
Masong
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,223
👍🏻 2,887
March 2017
|
Sharks & Art, by Masong on Mar 24, 2019 16:29:04 GMT 1, Not urban art but a friend of mine has just got in to charcoal drawings. I thought he captured the mood well.
Not urban art but a friend of mine has just got in to charcoal drawings. I thought he captured the mood well.
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Apr 6, 2019 5:14:32 GMT 1, Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs. Received an email from National Geographic last week: We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender. Title: Men holding their cock
Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs. Received an email from National Geographic last week: We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender. Title: Men holding their cock
|
|
stradled
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,062
👍🏻 187
April 2007
|
Sharks & Art, by stradled on Apr 6, 2019 7:08:50 GMT 1, Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs. Received an email from National Geographic last week: We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender. Title: Men holding their cock Congrats, very nice photograph. Where can we see some of your other ones?
Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs. Received an email from National Geographic last week: We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender. Title: Men holding their cockCongrats, very nice photograph. Where can we see some of your other ones?
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Apr 6, 2019 11:38:55 GMT 1, stradled
Thank you! My Instagram is : dive_jedi You can find it here: www.instagram.com/dive_jedi/
Just photos and paintings. No selfies.
|
|
Chris JL
Junior Member
🗨️ 1,766
👍🏻 1,852
March 2017
|
Sharks & Art, by Chris JL on Apr 6, 2019 23:30:17 GMT 1, Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs. Received an email from National Geographic last week: We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender. Title: Men holding their cock
Congrats, well done!
Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs. Received an email from National Geographic last week: We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender. Title: Men holding their cockCongrats, well done!
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Apr 7, 2019 4:04:16 GMT 1, Thanks, Chris JL !
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Apr 7, 2019 12:46:43 GMT 1, Made a new mural on the main boulevard in Maasin, Philippines.
Eagle Ray - 4 layers.
It's a dyptich - LOL !
Made a new mural on the main boulevard in Maasin, Philippines. Eagle Ray - 4 layers. It's a dyptich - LOL !
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,796
👍🏻 6,762
June 2009
|
Sharks & Art, by met on Apr 10, 2019 4:51:49 GMT 1, Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs. Received an email from National Geographic last week: We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender. Title: Men holding their cock
Great news. Congratulations to you.
Hopefully, part of the deal is that National Geographic sends you plenty of complimentary calendars in time for Christmas 2019.
__________
In case they're of interest, two comments regarding the photograph's title:
1. Here we have singular (concrete) objects of plural subjects. Your title is also correct, but to my ears it sounds a bit better with "cock" in the plural:
Men holding their cocks
It's comparable to the pluralised objects in "The men sacrificed their lives" or "They lost their minds".
That said, both options result in slight ambiguity as to intended meaning, i.e. all the men together holding a single cock, or each man in the group holding more than one cock.
2. Although I understand why the humour makes it so tempting to use such a title, query if that's really the tone you wish to set for your photo. One risk is that it could be perceived as trivialising the blood sport of cockfighting / Sabong.
If the image related instead to, say, dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning, would you consider using a pun as the title, even if it were very funny?
Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs. Received an email from National Geographic last week: We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender. Title: Men holding their cockGreat news. Congratulations to you. Hopefully, part of the deal is that National Geographic sends you plenty of complimentary calendars in time for Christmas 2019. __________ In case they're of interest, two comments regarding the photograph's title: 1. Here we have singular (concrete) objects of plural subjects. Your title is also correct, but to my ears it sounds a bit better with "cock" in the plural: Men holding their cocksIt's comparable to the pluralised objects in "The men sacrificed their lives" or "They lost their minds". That said, both options result in slight ambiguity as to intended meaning, i.e. all the men together holding a single cock, or each man in the group holding more than one cock. 2. Although I understand why the humour makes it so tempting to use such a title, query if that's really the tone you wish to set for your photo. One risk is that it could be perceived as trivialising the blood sport of cockfighting / Sabong. If the image related instead to, say, dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning, would you consider using a pun as the title, even if it were very funny?
|
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Apr 10, 2019 12:58:46 GMT 1, Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs.
Received an email from National Geographic last week:
We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender.
Title: Men holding their cock
Great news. Congratulations to you. Hopefully, part of the deal is that National Geographic sends you plenty of complimentary calendars in time for Christmas 2019. _________ In case they're of interest, two comments regarding the photograph's title: 1. Here we have singular (concrete) objects of plural subjects. Your title is also correct, but to my ears it sounds a bit better with "cock" in the plural: Men holding their cocksIt's comparable to the pluralised objects in "The men sacrificed their lives" or "They lost their minds". That said, both options result in slight ambiguity as to intended meaning, i.e. all the men together holding a single cock, or each man in the group holding more than one cock. 2. Although I understand why the humour makes it so tempting to use such a title, query if that's really the tone you wish to set for your photo. One risk is that it could be perceived as trivialising the blood sport of cockfighting / Sabong. If the image related instead to, say, dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning, would you consider using a pun as the title, even if it were very funny? Dear met, thank you for your elaborate way of calling me a hypocrite. Much appreciated.
Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs.
Received an email from National Geographic last week:
We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender.
Title: Men holding their cock
Great news. Congratulations to you. Hopefully, part of the deal is that National Geographic sends you plenty of complimentary calendars in time for Christmas 2019. _________ In case they're of interest, two comments regarding the photograph's title: 1. Here we have singular (concrete) objects of plural subjects. Your title is also correct, but to my ears it sounds a bit better with "cock" in the plural: Men holding their cocksIt's comparable to the pluralised objects in "The men sacrificed their lives" or "They lost their minds". That said, both options result in slight ambiguity as to intended meaning, i.e. all the men together holding a single cock, or each man in the group holding more than one cock. 2. Although I understand why the humour makes it so tempting to use such a title, query if that's really the tone you wish to set for your photo. One risk is that it could be perceived as trivialising the blood sport of cockfighting / Sabong. If the image related instead to, say, dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning, would you consider using a pun as the title, even if it were very funny? Dear met, thank you for your elaborate way of calling me a hypocrite. Much appreciated.
|
|
tonys
New Member
🗨️ 428
👍🏻 346
July 2012
|
Sharks & Art, by tonys on Apr 10, 2019 14:32:03 GMT 1, Not sure if this is the right thread, but it's certainly shark related....
I bought this last year, a real stunner by Ricky Lee Gordon.
Not sure if this is the right thread, but it's certainly shark related.... I bought this last year, a real stunner by Ricky Lee Gordon.
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Apr 12, 2019 11:04:08 GMT 1, Pretty cool when Snik, Penny, Martin Whatson, SNUB23, James Bullough, DILK1, Nuno Viegas, NolArt and My Dog Sighs like your wall. But so much for Snik's 15 minutes of fame in Philippines.
A Whaleshark passed by….. Hope they like this one as too!
Pretty cool when Snik, Penny, Martin Whatson, SNUB23, James Bullough, DILK1, Nuno Viegas, NolArt and My Dog Sighs like your wall. But so much for Snik's 15 minutes of fame in Philippines. A Whaleshark passed by….. Hope they like this one as too!
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Apr 13, 2019 12:29:11 GMT 1, Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs. Received an email from National Geographic last week: We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender. Title: Men holding their cockGreat news. Congratulations to you. Hopefully, part of the deal is that National Geographic sends you plenty of complimentary calendars in time for Christmas 2019. __________ In case they're of interest, two comments regarding the photograph's title: 1. Here we have singular (concrete) objects of plural subjects. Your title is also correct, but to my ears it sounds a bit better with "cock" in the plural: Men holding their cocksIt's comparable to the pluralised objects in "The men sacrificed their lives" or "They lost their minds". That said, both options result in slight ambiguity as to intended meaning, i.e. all the men together holding a single cock, or each man in the group holding more than one cock. 2. Although I understand why the humour makes it so tempting to use such a title, query if that's really the tone you wish to set for your photo. One risk is that it could be perceived as trivialising the blood sport of cockfighting / Sabong. If the image related instead to, say, dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning, would you consider using a pun as the title, even if it were very funny? My apologies for my late response. Besides diving and painting murals I am also occupied organising a bullfight here and kicking the occasional puppy. So I hope you understand I am rather busy.
Thanks again for your elaborate post.
I especially enjoyed the way you started by complimenting me, making me feel all proud and appreciated by a respected forum member. Then moved on to an effort to make me insecure by questioning my spelling.
Even though :
a ) you are fully aware I am not a native English speaker and not highly educated.
b) there was not any confusion due to my spelling about what I was saying.
And ending it all by going for the kill by unmasking me as the hypocrite that I am.
It was quite the emotional rollercoaster ride, all packed in a single post. My hat off to it!
I have had a long hard look at myself due to your post and came to realise that I appear to have more bias against chicken. Although I am a strong advocate against shark fin soup I do indeed enjoy the occasional chicken soup. Unconsciously I appear to be the chicken equivalent of a racist.
Not sure of the the technical term, perhaps I am what you would call a poultrist….
My compliments for knowing I am in the Philippines and even took the effort to google the local term for cock fighting. Well done indeed. Allthough I am a bit disappointed you didn’t figure out I am located in the Visayas, where Tagalog is generally not spoken. Instead they speak Bisaya here, so the correct term in this case would have been “Buwang”. But I digress…..
There are indeed many forms of human cruelty against animals. Most common forms are eating meat, wearing leather shoes or using medication or shampoo tested on animals.
Are you suggesting I should refrain myself from making jokes about leather chairs as well?
What surprised me most is that an individual as yourself that is very specific about details and not shy to hold others accountable on them would use “dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning” as if they were the same kind of animal cruelty. Where in fact dog fighting and bear-baiting would fall in the category of spectator “sports”, which also includes bull fighting and a Dutch tradition called goose pulling. Shark finning most certainly is not. That would be fit much better in the category of shooting rhino’s for their horn or killing elephants for their tusks. Which will lead to the extinction of those species if we do not stop it soon. Ironically these are all used in special useless potions to give men an erection. Or should I not make any ironic remarks as well on the matter?
So that does raise the following questions:
1 . Are you not aware – however gruesome they all are – that shark finning does not really fit in a list wtih cockfighting and bear-baiting?
2. Or were you perhaps so blinded by the opportunity to call me a hypocrite that you overlooked a few details yourself?
Not really street art - or sharks - more street photography. But might be worthwhile to know for those kind members that have been supporting me by buying my photographs. Received an email from National Geographic last week: We are happy to inform you that your photograph has been selected for the 2020 NatGeo Calender. Title: Men holding their cockGreat news. Congratulations to you. Hopefully, part of the deal is that National Geographic sends you plenty of complimentary calendars in time for Christmas 2019. __________ In case they're of interest, two comments regarding the photograph's title: 1. Here we have singular (concrete) objects of plural subjects. Your title is also correct, but to my ears it sounds a bit better with "cock" in the plural: Men holding their cocksIt's comparable to the pluralised objects in "The men sacrificed their lives" or "They lost their minds". That said, both options result in slight ambiguity as to intended meaning, i.e. all the men together holding a single cock, or each man in the group holding more than one cock. 2. Although I understand why the humour makes it so tempting to use such a title, query if that's really the tone you wish to set for your photo. One risk is that it could be perceived as trivialising the blood sport of cockfighting / Sabong. If the image related instead to, say, dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning, would you consider using a pun as the title, even if it were very funny? My apologies for my late response. Besides diving and painting murals I am also occupied organising a bullfight here and kicking the occasional puppy. So I hope you understand I am rather busy. Thanks again for your elaborate post. I especially enjoyed the way you started by complimenting me, making me feel all proud and appreciated by a respected forum member. Then moved on to an effort to make me insecure by questioning my spelling. Even though : a ) you are fully aware I am not a native English speaker and not highly educated. b) there was not any confusion due to my spelling about what I was saying. And ending it all by going for the kill by unmasking me as the hypocrite that I am. It was quite the emotional rollercoaster ride, all packed in a single post. My hat off to it! I have had a long hard look at myself due to your post and came to realise that I appear to have more bias against chicken. Although I am a strong advocate against shark fin soup I do indeed enjoy the occasional chicken soup. Unconsciously I appear to be the chicken equivalent of a racist. Not sure of the the technical term, perhaps I am what you would call a poultrist…. My compliments for knowing I am in the Philippines and even took the effort to google the local term for cock fighting. Well done indeed. Allthough I am a bit disappointed you didn’t figure out I am located in the Visayas, where Tagalog is generally not spoken. Instead they speak Bisaya here, so the correct term in this case would have been “Buwang”. But I digress….. There are indeed many forms of human cruelty against animals. Most common forms are eating meat, wearing leather shoes or using medication or shampoo tested on animals. Are you suggesting I should refrain myself from making jokes about leather chairs as well? What surprised me most is that an individual as yourself that is very specific about details and not shy to hold others accountable on them would use “dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning” as if they were the same kind of animal cruelty. Where in fact dog fighting and bear-baiting would fall in the category of spectator “sports”, which also includes bull fighting and a Dutch tradition called goose pulling. Shark finning most certainly is not. That would be fit much better in the category of shooting rhino’s for their horn or killing elephants for their tusks. Which will lead to the extinction of those species if we do not stop it soon. Ironically these are all used in special useless potions to give men an erection. Or should I not make any ironic remarks as well on the matter? So that does raise the following questions: 1 . Are you not aware – however gruesome they all are – that shark finning does not really fit in a list wtih cockfighting and bear-baiting? 2. Or were you perhaps so blinded by the opportunity to call me a hypocrite that you overlooked a few details yourself?
|
|
met
Junior Member
🗨️ 2,796
👍🏻 6,762
June 2009
|
Sharks & Art, by met on Apr 17, 2019 1:11:25 GMT 1, Great news. Congratulations to you. Hopefully, part of the deal is that National Geographic sends you plenty of complimentary calendars in time for Christmas 2019. __________ In case they're of interest, two comments regarding the photograph's title: 1. Here we have singular (concrete) objects of plural subjects. Your title is also correct, but to my ears it sounds a bit better with "cock" in the plural: Men holding their cocksIt's comparable to the pluralised objects in "The men sacrificed their lives" or "They lost their minds". That said, both options result in slight ambiguity as to intended meaning, i.e. all the men together holding a single cock, or each man in the group holding more than one cock. 2. Although I understand why the humour makes it so tempting to use such a title, query if that's really the tone you wish to set for your photo. One risk is that it could be perceived as trivialising the blood sport of cockfighting / Sabong. If the image related instead to, say, dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning, would you consider using a pun as the title, even if it were very funny? My apologies for my late response. Besides diving and painting murals I am also occupied organising a bullfight here and kicking the occasional puppy. So I hope you understand I am rather busy. Thanks again for your elaborate post. I especially enjoyed the way you started by complimenting me, making me feel all proud and appreciated by a respected forum member. Then moved on to an effort to make me insecure by questioning my spelling. Even though : a ) you are fully aware I am not a native English speaker and not highly educated. b) there was not any confusion due to my spelling about what I was saying. And ending it all by going for the kill by unmasking me as the hypocrite that I am. It was quite the emotional rollercoaster ride, all packed in a single post. My hat off to it! I have had a long hard look at myself due to your post and came to realise that I appear to have more bias against chicken. Although I am a strong advocate against shark fin soup I do indeed enjoy the occasional chicken soup. Unconsciously I appear to be the chicken equivalent of a racist. Not sure of the the technical term, perhaps I am what you would call a poultrist…. My compliments for knowing I am in the Philippines and even took the effort to google the local term for cock fighting. Well done indeed. Allthough I am a bit disappointed you didn’t figure out I am located in the Visayas, where Tagalog is generally not spoken. Instead they speak Bisaya here, so the correct term in this case would have been “Buwang”. But I digress….. There are indeed many forms of human cruelty against animals. Most common forms are eating meat, wearing leather shoes or using medication or shampoo tested on animals. Are you suggesting I should refrain myself from making jokes about leather chairs as well? What surprised me most is that an individual as yourself that is very specific about details and not shy to hold others accountable on them would use “dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning” as if they were the same kind of animal cruelty. Where in fact dog fighting and bear-baiting would fall in the category of spectator “sports”, which also includes bull fighting and a Dutch tradition called goose pulling. Shark finning most certainly is not. That would be fit much better in the category of shooting rhino’s for their horn or killing elephants for their tusks. Which will lead to the extinction of those species if we do not stop it soon. Ironically these are all used in special useless potions to give men an erection. Or should I not make any ironic remarks as well on the matter? So that does raise the following questions: 1 . Are you not aware – however gruesome they all are – that shark finning does not really fit in a list wtih cockfighting and bear-baiting? 2. Or were you perhaps so blinded by the opportunity to call me a hypocrite that you overlooked a few details yourself?
Crossed wires in this exchange. You leapt to conclusions based on false assumptions about my intent.
The purpose of my earlier post was straightforward and twofold:
(i) congratulate you on the acceptance of your photograph for the National Geographic calendar; and
(ii) volunteer considered views (meant to be helpful) on the photo's title — in case that title would also be printed in the calendar.
As with all my posts, these are points I'd make to you or another addressee if we were having a drink together at the pub. I would say the same thing to a friend or family member if they found themselves in the same position.
__________
To clarify my original comments on the photo title, I can spell everything out:
1. "cock" or "cocks"
There was no English mistake on your part. It was already emphasised that both your title and its plural variant are correct. And both result in a certain ambiguity as to meaning. This is down to a grammatical grey area called subject-complement agreement. You can read about it on the following web page:
www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/what-is-subject-complement-agreement
With "cock" being used as a concrete (i.e. non-abstract) object in your title, the plural form just sounded better to me. And since I'm a native English-speaker who often spends time thinking about words and sentences, I figured this vantage point would be useful to you. As far as I'm concerned, the remark was innocuous, almost mundane.
2. A pun for the title
My comment on using a pun wasn't about hypocrisy. The idea — now ironic and all the more cogent — was to emphasise how the reactions of some National Geographic readers might be at odds with your own intention. Given the photo's subject matter, one could imagine a jokey title perhaps being met with a degree of upset.
A focus for me in this instance was the context of National Geographic as an institution, and the sober tone a reader might expect from printed photo captions in that publication.
To give the argument immediacy and allow its strength to be quickly recognised, analogies were offered. These included shark finning, an issue of concern to you. Note that I don't equate cockfighting with shark finning. From an ecosystems-conservation perspective, and in terms of the magnitude of each practice, they aren't comparable. But they do both involve animal cruelty. And it's this contentious, emotive element that could influence how the title of your photo is perceived — along with you as the photographer.
Now, if you're comfortable with the possibility of such controversy, then there isn't a problem and my comment becomes redundant. I simply felt it important to ensure you had actually factored in the risk when making your choice. Our right to do something is distinct from the social or professional repercussions for doing it.
[Regarding humour generally, the position held by me has always been consistent: Anything goes, provided it's funny.
High on the list of comedians I enjoy are Frankie Boyle, Chris Morris and the late Sam Kinison. Even serious matters are capable of being raised and dealt with many ways, including through dark or crude humour. And people should be free to joke about any topic — god (their own or somebody else's), cancer, genocide or whatnot — without obstruction from the Thought Police, or the hysterical fringe of what's now referred to as outrage culture. I've previously posted along these lines, e.g. here and here.
Enforced political correctness would be the death knell of some of the best insightful comedy. For that matter, it would also be the death knell of a large proportion of erotic and sexual fantasies. In one of her TED Talks, accessible here, the wonderful Esther Perel stated "Basically, most of us will get turned on at night by the very same things that we will demonstrate against during the day."]
Great news. Congratulations to you. Hopefully, part of the deal is that National Geographic sends you plenty of complimentary calendars in time for Christmas 2019. __________ In case they're of interest, two comments regarding the photograph's title: 1. Here we have singular (concrete) objects of plural subjects. Your title is also correct, but to my ears it sounds a bit better with "cock" in the plural: Men holding their cocksIt's comparable to the pluralised objects in "The men sacrificed their lives" or "They lost their minds". That said, both options result in slight ambiguity as to intended meaning, i.e. all the men together holding a single cock, or each man in the group holding more than one cock. 2. Although I understand why the humour makes it so tempting to use such a title, query if that's really the tone you wish to set for your photo. One risk is that it could be perceived as trivialising the blood sport of cockfighting / Sabong. If the image related instead to, say, dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning, would you consider using a pun as the title, even if it were very funny? My apologies for my late response. Besides diving and painting murals I am also occupied organising a bullfight here and kicking the occasional puppy. So I hope you understand I am rather busy. Thanks again for your elaborate post. I especially enjoyed the way you started by complimenting me, making me feel all proud and appreciated by a respected forum member. Then moved on to an effort to make me insecure by questioning my spelling. Even though : a ) you are fully aware I am not a native English speaker and not highly educated. b) there was not any confusion due to my spelling about what I was saying. And ending it all by going for the kill by unmasking me as the hypocrite that I am. It was quite the emotional rollercoaster ride, all packed in a single post. My hat off to it! I have had a long hard look at myself due to your post and came to realise that I appear to have more bias against chicken. Although I am a strong advocate against shark fin soup I do indeed enjoy the occasional chicken soup. Unconsciously I appear to be the chicken equivalent of a racist. Not sure of the the technical term, perhaps I am what you would call a poultrist…. My compliments for knowing I am in the Philippines and even took the effort to google the local term for cock fighting. Well done indeed. Allthough I am a bit disappointed you didn’t figure out I am located in the Visayas, where Tagalog is generally not spoken. Instead they speak Bisaya here, so the correct term in this case would have been “Buwang”. But I digress….. There are indeed many forms of human cruelty against animals. Most common forms are eating meat, wearing leather shoes or using medication or shampoo tested on animals. Are you suggesting I should refrain myself from making jokes about leather chairs as well? What surprised me most is that an individual as yourself that is very specific about details and not shy to hold others accountable on them would use “dogfighting or bear-baiting or shark finning” as if they were the same kind of animal cruelty. Where in fact dog fighting and bear-baiting would fall in the category of spectator “sports”, which also includes bull fighting and a Dutch tradition called goose pulling. Shark finning most certainly is not. That would be fit much better in the category of shooting rhino’s for their horn or killing elephants for their tusks. Which will lead to the extinction of those species if we do not stop it soon. Ironically these are all used in special useless potions to give men an erection. Or should I not make any ironic remarks as well on the matter? So that does raise the following questions: 1 . Are you not aware – however gruesome they all are – that shark finning does not really fit in a list wtih cockfighting and bear-baiting? 2. Or were you perhaps so blinded by the opportunity to call me a hypocrite that you overlooked a few details yourself? Crossed wires in this exchange. You leapt to conclusions based on false assumptions about my intent. The purpose of my earlier post was straightforward and twofold: (i) congratulate you on the acceptance of your photograph for the National Geographic calendar; and (ii) volunteer considered views (meant to be helpful) on the photo's title — in case that title would also be printed in the calendar. As with all my posts, these are points I'd make to you or another addressee if we were having a drink together at the pub. I would say the same thing to a friend or family member if they found themselves in the same position. __________ To clarify my original comments on the photo title, I can spell everything out: 1. "cock" or "cocks"There was no English mistake on your part. It was already emphasised that both your title and its plural variant are correct. And both result in a certain ambiguity as to meaning. This is down to a grammatical grey area called subject-complement agreement. You can read about it on the following web page: www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/what-is-subject-complement-agreementWith "cock" being used as a concrete (i.e. non-abstract) object in your title, the plural form just sounded better to me. And since I'm a native English-speaker who often spends time thinking about words and sentences, I figured this vantage point would be useful to you. As far as I'm concerned, the remark was innocuous, almost mundane. 2. A pun for the titleMy comment on using a pun wasn't about hypocrisy. The idea — now ironic and all the more cogent — was to emphasise how the reactions of some National Geographic readers might be at odds with your own intention. Given the photo's subject matter, one could imagine a jokey title perhaps being met with a degree of upset. A focus for me in this instance was the context of National Geographic as an institution, and the sober tone a reader might expect from printed photo captions in that publication. To give the argument immediacy and allow its strength to be quickly recognised, analogies were offered. These included shark finning, an issue of concern to you. Note that I don't equate cockfighting with shark finning. From an ecosystems-conservation perspective, and in terms of the magnitude of each practice, they aren't comparable. But they do both involve animal cruelty. And it's this contentious, emotive element that could influence how the title of your photo is perceived — along with you as the photographer. Now, if you're comfortable with the possibility of such controversy, then there isn't a problem and my comment becomes redundant. I simply felt it important to ensure you had actually factored in the risk when making your choice. Our right to do something is distinct from the social or professional repercussions for doing it. [Regarding humour generally, the position held by me has always been consistent: Anything goes, provided it's funny. High on the list of comedians I enjoy are Frankie Boyle, Chris Morris and the late Sam Kinison. Even serious matters are capable of being raised and dealt with many ways, including through dark or crude humour. And people should be free to joke about any topic — god (their own or somebody else's), cancer, genocide or whatnot — without obstruction from the Thought Police, or the hysterical fringe of what's now referred to as outrage culture. I've previously posted along these lines, e.g. here and here. Enforced political correctness would be the death knell of some of the best insightful comedy. For that matter, it would also be the death knell of a large proportion of erotic and sexual fantasies. In one of her TED Talks, accessible here, the wonderful Esther Perel stated "Basically, most of us will get turned on at night by the very same things that we will demonstrate against during the day."]
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Apr 25, 2019 14:23:21 GMT 1, Flat Shark Friday (almost anyway) Done with this stencil for now.
X - RAYS
Flat Shark Friday (almost anyway) Done with this stencil for now. X - RAYS
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Apr 28, 2019 12:08:49 GMT 1, Finished another mural here at the main boulevard today.
Thresher Shark in WJP Logo - Kings Day colours
Finished another mural here at the main boulevard today. Thresher Shark in WJP Logo - Kings Day colours
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on May 8, 2019 14:46:16 GMT 1, Finished another mural today
Eagle Rays - restaurant wall of Southern Leyte Dive Resort
5 layers of spraypaint - twice.
Finished another mural today Eagle Rays - restaurant wall of Southern Leyte Dive Resort 5 layers of spraypaint - twice.
|
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on May 21, 2019 15:23:14 GMT 1, Finished a new mural today.
I. Am. Oceanic.
Finished a new mural today. I. Am. Oceanic.
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on May 24, 2019 7:52:49 GMT 1,
This is not a painting or mural (yet!) , but I thought I'd make some T-shirts of it.
Much cooler then an Obey-shirt - and definitely much more exclusive.
Euro 25 + shipping only !
Thresher Shark - by WJP
This is not a painting or mural (yet!) , but I thought I'd make some T-shirts of it. Much cooler then an Obey-shirt - and definitely much more exclusive. Euro 25 + shipping only ! Thresher Shark - by WJP
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on May 25, 2019 12:59:12 GMT 1, One T-shirt sold to a kind member. Thanks again for the support!
Who else wants a super cool WJP hand cut shark T-shirt ??
One T-shirt sold to a kind member. Thanks again for the support!
Who else wants a super cool WJP hand cut shark T-shirt ??
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Jul 13, 2019 15:57:48 GMT 1, The stuff you find when you clean up your attic.
Hand cut stencils from around 1982 - 1983....
The stuff you find when you clean up your attic. Hand cut stencils from around 1982 - 1983....
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Jul 21, 2019 23:01:42 GMT 1, Finally did some painting again!
Eagle Rays 3x 4 layers of spraypaint on canvas
Finally did some painting again! Eagle Rays 3x 4 layers of spraypaint on canvas
|
|
Dive Jedi
Junior Member
🗨️ 6,194
👍🏻 9,453
October 2015
|
Sharks & Art, by Dive Jedi on Aug 3, 2019 17:25:25 GMT 1, Found these old parts while cleaning up the attic.
Forbidden Fruit Spraypaint on Apple G4 side
Found these old parts while cleaning up the attic. Forbidden FruitSpraypaint on Apple G4 side
|
|
tab1
Full Member
🗨️ 8,519
👍🏻 3,679
September 2011
|
|
|
|
Sharks & Art, by fonebone45 on Aug 5, 2019 22:30:13 GMT 1, A mural in Toronto done for SeaWalls. Seems appropriate for this thread. I believe Nick Sweetman is the artist along with Bacon, but he didn't sign this one.
A mural in Toronto done for SeaWalls. Seems appropriate for this thread. I believe Nick Sweetman is the artist along with Bacon, but he didn't sign this one.
|
|