>>3476070>you just look like dumbasses with your shallow and pedantic interpretation of the piece.You're a literal retard if you don't think that the obvious way a piece will be read isn't somehow germane. The text is just as relevant as the subtext, especially in a controversial topic where you know for a fact that the other side will interpret whatever in the least charitable way possible.
>yeah because they're taking them in the comfort of their home not in a cold barren photo set with high powered flashes, Often as not, there's no "comfort of their home". While you do have a point about the strobes, that's pretty easy to deal with too.
>and they only upload the images that look flattering whereas this image obviously was intended to be look wrongI'm willing to bet that it wasn't. I'm willing to bet that they're entirely oblivious to it looking wrong. Almost interested enough to look up and see what they're saying about it.
>and to shock a certain audience.This was going to happen with nude guy plus kid irrespective of anything else.
> there are probably frames of the baby looking docile, and that goes counter to the intended message.We're both making assumptions. Yours are more generous than mine, but either way we're in the dangerous ground of assuming motivation.
>its like none of you have ever worked in a studio before and think this was the only image taken and was chosen to flatter.Up until this post, I haven't really assumed motivation beyond attempting to shock, sooo, swing and a miss.
> theres an obvious disconnect between the adults facial expression and the childs and that is literally the point of the photograph.I won't grant that amount of intentionality until I see proof.
