I have been a member here for over 6 years and frequently looked at the critique forum. This is the first time that I have seen a member's image treated in such a manner. I can tolerate someone tweaking an image but "desecrating" it as you have done goes beyond what is acceptable. In Scotland we have a name for such a person that does strange things. He is an eejit.
This is highly interesting.
I'll tell you why.
My idea about this manipulation was about the father doing something odd - standing on his head - and thus evoking interest and astonishment in the youngster.
Also the term "ambiguity" - something containing one and the other in the same moment was part of this process - the father standing and suddenly standing upside down.
The interesting thing is what has being done out of this editing by the discussion - being a hanging man and things like this.
I personally had absolutely no intent to desacrate anything - actually I liked the image as it already was.
It also appears to me, that the understatement in my post "
I allowed myself to correct some tonalities ..." could have made something clear which unfortunately has evaded you.
My edit was more a humoristic answer to the critics, like:
"Now - is this ambuguity enough?"
"Now - do you finally have the extraordinary you so desperately desire in an image?"
But as it is - once something is created people do with it what they want and the artist (I consider myself here as an artist interacting with the work of another artist) plays no role in it anymore.
Cheers
~Chris
EDIT: Couldn't you just say I'm an idiot?
Clear and precise in the full conscience of knowing the right thing and judging it all properly?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
eejit
ˈiːdʒɪt/
noun
informal
noun: eejit; plural noun: eejits
1.
Irish and Scottish form of idiot.
"don't stand there like a gormless eejit!"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------