Commons:Featured picture candidates/Image:Recently shot Greenland dog upernavik 2007-07-02 edited.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
[edit]

Recently shot Greenland dog in Upernavik, Greenland

  •  Info created, uploaded, and nominated by Slaunger --Slaunger 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Info See the image page for the full story. -- Slaunger 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Neutral --Slaunger 18:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I don't like the composition, it's also not sharp enough, but I'm also disturbed by the sudden upsurge of dead animals nominated for FP and QI. Dori - Talk 19:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I accept your arguments about the composition and sharpness, but concerning dead animals, have you actually seen the image page description. It is the story of the photo, which bring a lot of value. A story, that was missing IMO in the previous nominations. I understand if you are disturbed, but have you asked yourself why you are disturbed after reading on the image page what this is really about? -- Slaunger 22:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did read the description before voting. If it had the shooter in the frame along with the garbage, then yes it would be illustrating something. As it is, it's just illustrating a dead dog. Dori - Talk 00:41, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I agree it would have been better if the shooter had been there. I just wanted to make sure youe had understood what the photo is about, which you have demonstrated, thank you. -- Slaunger 06:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Plastic bag disturbing, and not very sharp. Acarpentier 21:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I'm OK with your concern about the sharpness, it is not super, because I do not have a super camera. If I may comment on the plastic bag, that actually has a point in the composition. The desd dog is considered waste in the state which it is presented in (please read the image page). And the black plastic bag is waste too, which is waiting to be garbage collected in the exact same manner as the dog is. I may not have been succesfull in demonstrating this as a compositional element in the photo, but it was a scenario that I had never seen the like before, and I think it is very unique on Commons. -- Slaunger 22:09, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose The content of this image causes a strong "anti-wow" effect with me. And I am not a vegetarian... - JDrewes 21:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment I accept that viewpoint. According to the guidelines about value beautiful does no always mean exceptional, and I'd say it is vice versa. that exceptional isn't always beautiful. This photo is certainly not beautiful, but it brings out strong reactions to everyone I show it to, unlike hoverfly on flower pic # 50 (no offense Alves). And when I ask why it is almost always due to a set of cultural (often urban) values which are completely different from the ones prevailing on the location of the photo. And I find it interesting to ask, which set of cultural value are best and why? -- Slaunger 22:22, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Question I'm not sure if "anti-wow" is a good reason. Is it? Anyway I agree with Slaunger on that one... Acarpentier 23:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment - I'm also affected by the crudity of this image though I agree that is not a valid reason for opposing. Mutatis mutandis being shocking is not enough reason to be valuable. The "message" or "story" behind this kind of pictures should be obvious and non-trivial. In the present case looking at the picture is not enough to understand what is behind the ugliness. Alvesgaspar 23:39, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Comment Relieving to see some qualified feedback. I see your point that such a photo should be self-explanatory telling its story by itself without having to read the caption, so to say. Good point. -- Slaunger 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose Sorry, I can't support this. Shocking doesn't equal art, and I don't see anything more compelling than its shock value. If the picture told a story or had an interesting composition I could support. --JaGa 04:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I must stress the point that there is in fact a difference between "shocking" and "disturbing" --Pumpmeup 04:42, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support As the previous ones, this is not only a picture of a dead animal, but of an animal killed by humans. With this dead dog, the photographer shows us the behaviour of our own species. As FP candidates are not a postcards exhibition, and as the picture is technically good enough, I support it. Vassil 20:05, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Oppose I could invoke technical reasons, but have to admit I mainly oppose because I'm shocked... For now, maybe this kind of subjects should be taken in a way not as straight as it is here... Time for us to get used to. Benh 20:45, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment I find the words used by reviewers to characterize the photo so far interesting. They have included shocking, ugly, disturbing and crude. I would like to say that it was my own inital response and emotions at the scene. Since then I have thought a lot about it, and actually I think it is not so simple. First of all, it was my impression that the dog was not traumatized in any way before it was shot. The shooter walked up to it and shot it. It appeared to me that it died immediately without suffering. From the dogs point of view I think this is at least as good as taking it to a vet and giving it a terminal injection. To my mind it also died fairly healthy and fell-fed. It did not have to live for five extra years being over-weight, half blind, and half deaf as many domestic dogs do in my usual environment. The unusual thing about it is that it is done in full public. But these dogs are not pet dogs on the location of the photo. They are working animals, and quite frankly I do not see the big diffence between this and slaughtering pigs, cows and other livestock for human consumption. These animals are killed in an almost similar manner, the difference is we don't see it normally. -- Slaunger 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 As Alvesgaspar has pointed out the story should be self-explanatory, and it is not. -- Slaunger 21:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

Withdrawn => not featured. -- Cecil 13:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Featured_picture_candidates/Image:Recently_shot_Greenland_dog_upernavik_2007-07-02_edited.jpg&oldid=8091322"