| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/05/2005 12:49:03 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Is this a Dictionary Challenge site or a Photo Challenge site??
Sheesh... Close the books, put them back on the shelf, pick up your cameras, go out and photograph something..... |
Agreed! :) |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 12:58:01 PM · #27 |
It's not a definition site but with the larger the acceptance, of perfectly VALID (correct)definitions, the more possibilities, the greater the variety of images, the more artistic a scope we could can allow as thinking practitioners...
I'm not sure why some people can't understand that.
I suppose my point is to not use Personification or any word to title a challenge if that's not what you mean or of your going to chop off some of it's meaning. Use a different word.
It's like saying "boil your Chicken...but don't use any water"
I know, I know, I know, follow the detail description.
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 13:02:44. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 01:05:10 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Is this a Dictionary Challenge site or a Photo Challenge site??
Sheesh... Close the books, put them back on the shelf, pick up your cameras, go out and photograph something..... |
Is Spazmo99 the personification of exasperation, and hence an example of the true definition? If so, I would award his post a 10. If Spazmo99 had finished his post with...
:-(
then that would have been an example of the wrong definition of personification and he would score 0.
Easy. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 01:16:04 PM · #29 |
This is a good example...
 |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 01:43:39 PM · #30 |
This is killing me...there is a term for the human tendancy to find faces in inanimate objects. Can anybody come up with it?
In the meantime...my take on this challenge:
INANIMATE object - It's there folks, if your object had parents, you get a 1.
The name - I'd prefer anthropomorphism, but I get personification.
The "face recognition word" - hmmm, this is dicey, some people might say this is "human-looking", others might not. I think I'm going to go for something that doesn't have a "face" to it, but still "personifies" a feeling. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 03:37:43 PM · #31 |
I spent hours wandering the desert while in New Mexico in August. Maybe too long. Rocks started to take shape...
My all time favorite, though maybe not personification so much as bodypartification. :)
I'm assuming something like this is where people are going with this?
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 03:42:40 PM · #32 |
Here are two examples of personification IMO from my works.
 
Lee
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 04:20:47 PM · #33 |
I'm going with this one damn-it!!!
hehehehehehehehehehehehehe
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 16:21:51. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 04:38:13 PM · #34 |
| I don't get the flowers shot, but even if I did they are antimate and would get a low score! |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 07:53:31 PM · #35 |
May I throw my two-cents in this pool of photo-philosophers by saying that actually whether the subject is animate or inanimate is not that relevant to the personification. In other words, if you imagine a dog (animate indeed) contemplating poetry, you have personified the dog.
Having said that, the glossaries of literary terms do mention personification in relation to "inanimate objects" or "abstract concepts".
The bottom line is that, imo, challenge submissions should be of non-human-looking objects that remind the viewer of something that is done / felt / thought by human beings only.
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 19:55:32.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:11:00 PM · #36 |
OK, this is what I have decided my scoring will be. All be forewarned:
The object is alive: Score Range 1-5
The object is inanimate, but contains a "face": Score Range 3-7 (lower if the face is "constructed")
The object is inanimate and does not look human (no face, no "arms", etc.): Score range 5-10
You can now return to your regularly broadcast thread. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:28:16 PM · #37 |
i thought it was supposed to be human like?
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
OK, this is what I have decided my scoring will be. All be forewarned:
does not look human (no face, no "arms", etc.): Score range 5-10
You can now return to your regularly broadcast thread. |
texttext
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 20:29:01.
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:35:35 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by queanbeez:
i thought it was supposed to be human like? |
The description explicitly says "Take a photo of something non-human-looking". As I stated before, this is to weed out obvious pictures of inanimate things like wooden mannequins and dolls that are easy to make portray "human characteristics or evokes a human feeling." The challenge is to portray something you wouldn't normally think of as having human characteristics or evoking a human feeling.
In other words, this is a great example of what should NOT be entered:
because Woody is obviously "human looking"...
Message edited by author 2005-10-05 20:43:40. |
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:38:03 PM · #39 |
In general terms, that might be true, but in terms of the challenge it is relevant because the challenge description specifically asks for in-animate objects.
Originally posted by ssan:
May I throw my two-cents in this pool of photo-philosophers by saying that actually whether the subject is animate or inanimate is not that relevant to the personification. |
|
|
|
|
10/05/2005 08:43:34 PM · #40 |
ok thats what i thought, but he through me off with the arms and face thing. there are things that have a face but are not human like. i'm on the right track!
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by queanbeez:
i thought it was supposed to be human like? |
The description explicitly says "Take a photo of something non-human-looking". As I stated before, this is to weed out obvious pictures of inanimate things like wooden mannequins and dolls that are easy to make portray "human characteristics or evokes a human feeling." The challenge is to portray something you wouldn't normally think of as having human characteristics or evoking a human feeling. |
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 09:30:47 AM · #41 |
| Would using an animal, which is non-human, but not inantimate, as a subject be a complete mistake? |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 09:49:32 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Carmelynn:
Would using an animal, which is non-human, but not inantimate, as a subject be a complete mistake? |
Yes. We've already discussed that the dressed-up-dog, although "personification", doesn't meet this challenge because it is an animate object. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 09:50:31 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Carmelynn:
Would using an animal, which is non-human, but not inantimate, as a subject be a complete mistake? |
in·an·i·mate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (n-n-mt)
adj.
Not having the qualities associated with active, living organisms. See Synonyms = dead.
Not animated or energetic; dull.
Grammar. Belonging to the class of nouns that stand for nonliving things: The word car is inanimate; the word dog is animate.
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 10:04:49 AM · #44 |
;}
|
|
|
|
10/06/2005 02:13:01 PM · #45 |
Not to beat a dead horse (a non-human, inanimate object! grab your cameras!), I agree with Mr. Clarke about the difference between personification and anthropomorphism.
When I earned my BA in English Lit. (which by no means makes me an expert, but I'm just saying what I know...), Personification was taught to mean representing an abstract idea or quality in a human form (e.g. "Jealousy reared it's ugly head"), whereas anthropomorphism meant to give human-like qualities to non-human beings, objects or nature (e.g. "the snowman seemed to eye me jealously as I passed by in my warm winter coat").
I guess the distinction, and it is a fine one, has been lost through the years.
Message edited by author 2005-10-06 14:14:15. |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 10:40:26 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by EddyG:
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
Perfect example of anthropomorphism - the personification of an animal. |
I agree that is one eample personification. But not appropriate for this challenge, since a dog is an "animate" object. To me, the challenge can be summarized as: Take a photo of an inanimate (non-human-looking) object but yet still shows human characteristics or evokes a human feeling.
The "non-human-looking" clause is very important, as it is intended to prevent people from using "woodies", dolls, etc. since that would be way too easy. |
Oh i agree this image wouldn't have fit the challenge because a living dog is not inanimate (nor is a tree imho) i was just aiming to put a picture to the word personification. I specifically meantioned the antropomorphism because to me that states that it is an animal and therefore not inanimate but i guess that was a dumb assumtion on my part that others would think that way ;) |
|
|
|
10/06/2005 11:14:22 PM · #47 |
I hope to see a lot like this cause if its just a bunch of rocks and trees it will be even more boring than the coffee house challenge.
//www.scholastic.com/titles/peeling/index.htm
The challenges are getting so dry due to the anal retentives and their non-flexible, uncreative, dictionary definition interpretations of something that should be fun.
|
|
|
|
10/07/2005 01:14:37 AM · #48 |
| I have been on a roll lately...I like my entry (although it's not a shoe in) and it is definitely not a rock or a tree (BTW, people, trees are not inanimate...unless they are dead). |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 01:19:51 AM · #49 |
| ...so the tree branch removed from the tree would be okay, right? |
|
|
|
10/07/2005 02:02:23 AM · #50 |
| So basically, non-human looking means even objects like a cloud that is shaped like a human still won't meet the challenge, because it's still human looking. It can only portray characteristics like f.ex. feelings, not actually look human. Am I understanding this right? |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 04:19:26 PM EDT.
