6 Responses to “we are so young”

1. church on March 1st, 2007 2:08 pm

   well i didn’t know them

2. moutons! moutons! on March 1st, 2007 2:13 pm

   me neither.

3. Murt on March 1st, 2007 4:24 pm

   Ambiguities abound with the no faces policy. If you recall a photo taken in the past couple weeks, which was posted and stayed up on the phlog but contained a recognizable face. It was a shot of a woman along side of her house at the brookside apartments (done by jchoi). The person was easily recognizable especially since her name was in the title! (Neath) Now everyone probably doesn’t know this person but those certainly do in the art department.

   In this photo deleted I do not know these people or their names and I am sure the majority of people on the pholog do not either. If the photo is a blatant face delete it but if it is not don’t. This photo also contained conceptual value hence the title, “we are so young”. The image is of two “young lovers” not entirely understanding love caught in the moment in an empty cafe (this is how I saw it). I would argue if you are going to delete this you should have deleted the other.

   You may respond that the photo by jchoi was not solely about her face. I would agree but neither was moutons. Don’t be biased and use sound judgment when deleting.

   the faceolution will be televised.

4. church on March 1st, 2007 6:34 pm

   oh crap controversy. bring the pain.

5. murt on March 1st, 2007 7:10 pm

   ha ha. I’m not trying to bring drama to the phlogosphere but think that my point is valid. “No faces” is great I have no problem with that concept I just see some holes in the execution of that policy. Cheers to all.

6. grrouch on March 1st, 2007 8:41 pm

   yeah i thought that was lame too, and ive gotten shit deleted that was so blurry it was unrecognizable.

   viva la faceolution!

Leave a Reply