I do.
Just not to give me a dictionary definition. My question was what "ridiculous" refers to: the image, your reaction to it, my reaction, my friend's reaction (if you read my blog)? In other words, is the image ridiculous, or what's in the image, or what I see in it?
I don't see a distinction between 'the image', 'what's in the image' or 'what I see in the image'.
From a purely technical and objective aspect, one could describe all photographic images, without even looking at the images (except through an analysing device), as a collection of a certain number of blobs (or pixels) of different shades and color.
If one looks at an image, then what one sees exists only in one's mind. The sensation and perception of color exists only in a person's mind, and all impressions and opinions, likewise, exist only in the mind of the person expressing the opinions. Whilst others may share the same opinion and agree with a particular verbal description of the image, they are not actually seeing the same thing precisely, because every individual is different in some respect, due to genetic disposition, upbringing, education and general experiences.
Now we've cleared that up, I shall attempt to describe why I think your image is ridiculous, but first I should mention, for the benefit of the 'ad-hominem attackers', that because I think your image is ridiculous does not mean that I think
you are ridiculous.
Whenever a person expresses an opinion on any topic, that opinion is always an expression in part, of the character of the person expressing the opinion. The two are inseparable.
If I were to select some images that represent my view of the foolishness of humanity, I'd include your shot of the Mannequins. Do you need more?
