Thanks for the comments everyone. I decided, if you can't beat 'em, make 'em laugh.

@ImagoArticulus - You're right, not very minimalist, but definitely has negative space, in both meanings.

@culberda - You're kidding right? There's photoshop all over just about every image on WS. Mine is just overt, which in this case was the point.

I'm not kidding. I realize there is photoshop all over WS. I use it myself all the time--including for trickery and gimmick in images like the one of me "spitting" featured in this very theme.

But to take a photographic concept like 'negative space' and reduce it to just a joke. It's good once in awhile. I like this image--I thought it was funny and a nice surprise. But if interpretting the theme in a witty or gimmicky way became what this site was all about--rather than exploring photographic concepts... I'd be dissapointed.

I'm not saying this image shouldn't have been posted, or doesn't belong--just that it *IS* sort of outside the theme. I fear the whole site becoming a big inside joke fest because I've seen it happen to other good ideas I was fond of. It isn't a problem yet; I don't really see it becoming a problem, but I thought I'd voice my opinion on the matter nonetheless.

Thanks for reading.

@ culberda (with apologies to the innocent bystanders) - This image is not outside the theme. I've clearly demonstrated "negative space" not only in photographic/artistic terms, but in literal ones as well. That's why the picture is funny.

Why is my photoshopped image not OK, but your featured one is? Did you not reduce the photographic concept to a joke as well? Is hocking loogies into sideways splashes some sort of protected artistic expression while parking negatives in reserved spaces is not? I don't get the double standard.

I submitted 3 pictures to the theme. The first:
http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/negative-space/response/29/
was very straightforward. It was panned for not having enough "negative" and for my poor photoshop job. I thought it had plenty of "negative space," but I admit to the poor photoshop job.

My second submission:
http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/negative-space/response/122/
was clearly tongue in cheek, but once again showed plenty of "negative space." Hell it was even minimalistic and one could argue impactful.

Which brings us to this submission, which after all the back and forth about what is and isn't "negative space," I thought covered all the bases, and was damn funny. You can certainly tell me I'm wrong, and I'll live with that. I am here to learn.

The real problem here is the suggesting photographer's name for this theme. What I've learned by reading many comments here and on the google group discussion is that "negative space" isn't what he meant at all. What he really wanted the theme to be about was "truly minimalist photos that have great impact." In other words, the theme should have been called "Impactful Minimalism." The confusion created by these two somewhat parallel, but certainly not synonymous terms is what has lead to submissions all over the place, and much discussion both within the comments and on the google group.

I myself contributed to some of that back and forth and I realized that I was taking the whole damn thing much too seriously. So, I'm trying to lighten it up a little here because this theme became a joke long before I posted this image.

I'm sorry you've taken offense. I'm even more sorry that you've caused me to write this diatribe. However, you can rest assured, Weekly Shot is not in trouble because of anything I've posted or written. I hope you'll forgive me, because there is much I can learn from a guy who can make such a cool image of a red cherry in front of a red wall. That one truly kicked ass.

I'm not going to further the discussion because I don't think what I'm tring to say is coming accross. I'm not very good at expressing myself in writing.

All I'll will say is that I could have left the same comment on my own photo--no double standard.

I'm sorry I ever commented.

I'm allowing myself to interfere.
Don't be sorry, Dan, this is a very interesting point and I'd like to read further thoughts.
If I understand the point, that is.
Dan, you are suggesting that there is a "good" and a "bad" (vulgar) way to use PS, and a "good" and a "bad" sense of humour. You make an intensive use of PS yourself (I've checked out your explanations about your remarkable post in the "weight" theme), and you put a lot of humour in your pictures, which is always welcome for me. But you think adding big balls to a squirrel is not exactly what you expect (I've also checked out fark- that I didn't know). Am I right?
Now, Jack, I see nothing coarse or vulgar in your picture. I think the pun is funny and that it's a nice twist on the theme. I don't share Dan's fear that WS could become another fark. I'm not on the side of the "purists" either, because art is always a personal interpretation of reality, not a copy of it. I don't agree when someone says a picture is "too photoshopped". The result is either good or bad, that's it.PS is just a tool. You won't say a painting is bad because the painter used acrilic instead of oil. You won't say that Man Ray's solarisations "are not" photography (or will you?). And some very good and very photoshopped pics have been featured (Culberda, Subjectiv...).
Just my two cents.

Great photo!
Great dialog!

This is what it's all about, in my opinion.

Ha! A funny shot, Jack. Out of curiosity, what's the image on the negative?

I think this is wonderful. Had I rated it, it would have received high scores, for originality, and great use of PS, not to mention a cracking sense of humour. Don't let them grind you down, dude!

kadenajack,

I missed this one last week, but I love it! Very funny, and it works IMO.

I just realize in looking back at this that I never answered George's question. If you're still around George, the negative is an image of an OV-10 Bronco in a static display at the 75th Anniversary of Naval Air celebration at Naval Air Station Pensacola. I think that was back in 1987.

Oh yes... I remember this... but ya know what??

WE were all talking!!
Now it's so DEAD.
Bring on the boobs, if that'll get them talking again.
ha ha