HOME | DD

vishstudio In reply to Aploex [2009-11-15 23:14:15 +0000 UTC]

would love to see it

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

Aploex In reply to vishstudio [2009-11-15 23:19:21 +0000 UTC]

k working on it

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

vishstudio In reply to airlux27 [2009-10-01 12:42:12 +0000 UTC]

he is a violent guys, he is military and you know what? they kill people.But there is a space for elegance and beaty in every man.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

airlux27 In reply to vishstudio [2009-10-02 00:16:40 +0000 UTC]

Ok, I can understand beauty and elegance in every man...., but the freakin' uzi machine gun is NOT a thing of beauty. Here in the United States..., it is responsible for much destruction and sorrow. I don't have a problem with the human male as an Art form..., but personally..., you can leave the uzi-machine gun out of the picture...The photographer, however is very good!!! Peace...

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

vishstudio In reply to airlux27 [2009-10-02 11:49:18 +0000 UTC]

actually its not uzi its AK-47
I dont thionk that a photographer can change world or people..we only can somehow decorate violence

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

airlux27 In reply to vishstudio [2009-10-02 17:54:20 +0000 UTC]

Ok, it's an ak-47 which can slice a man, woman, or child in half with a trigger-burst of the finger...!!! Where is the beauty in that? Anyway, I'm a peace-loving artist and see no need to promote violence around the world...Every body knows about that subject already!!! How about true strength in the male art form???? I'm all for that!! The rest of your portfolio does reflect that though. The last I heard..., out countries are not at war...!! Peace comrade!

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

wanderlustartist In reply to airlux27 [2009-10-03 19:04:52 +0000 UTC]

And another thing, AK-47's can be used for rapid fire, but they're best at single kill shots. Ideal for taking out multiple targets in a room quickly.

An Uzi is a much smaller gun, built for rapid fire only. You often see them in bad 80's terrorist movies. They have the tendency to jam and overheat, so they are rarely used by the military.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

airlux27 In reply to wanderlustartist [2009-10-03 20:22:10 +0000 UTC]

Right..., a weapon in the right hands and, if legal..., makes it right!!! I'll agree to that, like in a million years or so...! Although I'll agree that uzi's are highly over-rated..., but popular on the streets, nonetheless!!! I choose my camera, and notepad instead..., are you for shooting me for my choice of non-weapons??? There is a time and place for target practice,,,just not aimed at me or mine, is all!!! Thanks for the military lesson. If somebody needs it,,, i'm sure they will beat it out of you!!!! I come in peace!!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wanderlustartist In reply to airlux27 [2009-10-03 20:54:39 +0000 UTC]

I am not a member of the NRA, put your daisies away! I'm a writer, I need to know about things of the world so I can paint an effective picture with words. I don't like guns or projectile weapons of any sort, because it takes away responsibility for your actions. You can't really blame the launching device for what the projectile does. I say, bring back swords! A sword is an extension of your body and your will, when you act, so does the sword. Plus it forces men to face their enemy. Maybe then, we'll discover that we are all brothers on the battlefield meeting our end over religious hatred and oil.

👍: 0 ⏩: 2

soproni In reply to wanderlustartist [2010-06-09 12:32:13 +0000 UTC]

Actually, it's an AK-74. And being a soldier and killing can be an art, just not a very pretty one. Swords are pretty cool, but I don't think it will make us "discover that we are all brothers on the battlefield meeting our end over religious hatred and oil." Man has fought for thousands of years with swords and it didn't seem to bring any "discoveries".

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wanderlustartist In reply to soproni [2010-06-17 04:56:29 +0000 UTC]

yes but the sword is the extension of your body, it moves as you move, a death blow is felt as vibrations along the blade. no such feeling comes from firing a projectile, you can give up responsibility to the bullet or missile. back when swords were used, there was a brotherhood, a sense of honor between warriors. even if you were enemies, you preferred to use your sword to battle and to die

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

soproni In reply to wanderlustartist [2010-06-17 13:32:44 +0000 UTC]

Nice thought, but you obviously don't know anything about military brotherhood, or history for that matter. I'm sorry I have to sound like such a dick, but theres really no other way to say it. You talk about killing with a sword as if you've used one. There have been many times in the last century where both sides respected each other (look up the origins of the nickname "devil dog"). What about the crusades? Do you think either side respected each other? Who's to say (its not like we can ask a veteran), but if I had to take a guess I'd say no. Brotherhood comes from common suffering and honor comes from the situation, not the weapons.

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

airlux27 In reply to wanderlustartist [2009-10-03 23:10:12 +0000 UTC]

OK,,, i was just wonderin' why you jumped in on messages to that Russian dude who poses with weapons. I was paying him a compliment for the portraitures..., not the weaponry...!!! I am a life-long student of the martial arts..., one cannot offend me about self-defense as a sport and an art-form..., but weapons of the genre of firearms..., all i can say man..., is you can count me out!!!

👍: 0 ⏩: 0

wanderlustartist In reply to airlux27 [2009-10-03 19:00:08 +0000 UTC]

Wow, dude, chill out! I'm sorry to tell you this, but how a soldier is trained to move is riddled with art and beauty, it's a dance, designed to be swift and quiet and also stable if you happen to be on uneven ground. Look at his feet, imagine him moving forward. Watch his eyes. This is a dance, it will save him if he does it well.
Peace is a noble cause, but do not condemn an artist because he portrays a soldier doing his duty! This image does not promote violence, I see no death or blood, it does show the beautiful forms of a soldier in a hunt.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

airlux27 In reply to wanderlustartist [2009-10-03 20:15:03 +0000 UTC]

OKAAAY, I'm chillin..., just not willin'! I agree with you about your description of this portrait..! Honestly..., but the theme is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there and there's nothing much anybody can do about it!!! I'd rather watch Sesame Street..., and I live in a country that allows me that right! Just as long as that soldier isn't coming our way, is all... Seriously..., peace!

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

wanderlustartist In reply to airlux27 [2009-10-03 21:06:11 +0000 UTC]

Sesame Street, yes, great show, I loved it better before Elmo, when Mr. Hooper was still alive. Anyways, the Muppets are not known for non-violence, remember Crazy Harry, the guy who blows stuff up? Or there's the boomerang fish guy. Bunsen and Beeker were both known for all kinds of destruction, along with Gonzo. Do you honestly believe Jim Henson was trying to glorify war and explosives?

The tools of destruction can be used to entertain and for the purposes of art. There are movies about war, some to glorify, some to show the horrors. Would you go out and burn every copy of "Apocalypse Now" because it depicts soldiers using firearms? If you had that thought, then you're missing the point. By attacking this image in the first place, you are using your greatest weapon, your mind. I do not fault you for that, I just love a good argument.

👍: 0 ⏩: 1

airlux27 In reply to wanderlustartist [2009-10-03 23:15:22 +0000 UTC]

I meant that i would rather watch Sesame Street than watch the military channel, is all!!! "You want the truth..., you can't handle the truth...!") I'm not a push-over, dude!!!(Just not thrilled about firearms!!!) lol Actually, i'm really a musician first and foremost, and a good one at that...

👍: 0 ⏩: 0