I think the fact that you're pulling a 'symbolism' argument to justify this shows how poor our educational system is.

People going for symbolism tend to do it in an artistic way. The submission in your gallery (After The Storm) is taken using a lovely camera, and looks like effort and creative thought was put into it.
This? This is what looks like a cameraphone picture, with a badly shooped person on it, that's 320x240. Maybe something happened to the lovely camera. Maybe you're bad at shooping a person on it. Maybe you only possess MS Paint, and don't know how to use it. But I'll be damned if this was artistically, and therefore symbolically, done. Putting symbolism into a work of art takes effort and time.
You obviously didn't put any effort or time into it.

And you knew how offensive it would be. It didn't matter if that's what you meant by it, you knew what you were getting into, and you knew that you might possibly get it removed. If you didn't, you truly don't know much about what you're supposedly symbolizing.

I had to sell my camera to pay the rent, and only have my fiancee's camera phone. The "Toasty" guy from Mortal Kombat was from a 16 bit video game, so obviously it's low quality.

Just because you don't have the most expensive stuff doesn't mean you can't create something artistic. Most oil paintings look like absolute shit up close, too.

For most photography, there is little artistic talent needed. All you have to do is frame the shot in your camera, and click. Post-production is a whole different animal.

For your information, there are others with equally provocative submissions that are still standing.

If there are, show me them. I'm thinking you mean the drawings of Muhammad, but I could be wrong.

No, you don't need to have anything expensive. Most artists work with a #2 pencil and a sheet of computer paper, so that's not what I'm saying. And I don't know why you'd throw that oil painting thing in. This wasn't up close, or zoomed in, or anything, and it looked like shit.

If you seriously think that there is little artistic talent needed for the photography I'm talking about, then I hope you take a serious photography class. Though maybe you have, and they told you that, which would be depressingly sad. Getting an -artistic- photo takes a lot of talent. It involves getting a good angle, a -good- frame, good lighting, and a good subject. Something which apparently went over your head in this one. I've seen people take artistic photos on camera-phones, and this one clearly isn't one.

I could critique it, if you want to know how it's not artistic at all, or at least poorly done, but I doubt you do.

And setting all that aside, try to refrain from posting camera-phone pictures if you want to be seen as professional, and if there's is an issue you feel strong enough to break that rule for, make sure you think it through carefully to make sure everyone will know that it's artistic.


Of course I address all this to someone who's trying to give off the impression of a person who wants to be an artist, or already considers themselves one.

The drawings of Muhammad are among them, yes. Those are extremely offensive to Muslims, but nothing was done.

To prove there are other provocative images:

http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3139353/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3147456/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/752699/
http://www.furaffinity.net/view/3153311/

That's the only thing you responded to from my post? Interesting.

And I hate to break it to you, but the first three can be talked out of, thus rendering them less offensive, because there wasn't physical destruction of anything. "Well, it's just a drawing, it's not that bad." Except for the fourth one, which is -obviously- done for humor purposes. Unlike yours, where the "obvious" message of the thing is you trying to get a rouse out of everybody on this website.

Your picture is of a -physical- bible being torched. That's unacceptable, and offensive. More so than the rest of the images you've posted.

I can't believe you don't get it. I don't even believe in the Bible, or God, and I get it.

The physical aspect simply serves to drive the point home. A simple drawing wouldn't give enough dramatic effect to the very real and physical destruction being caused by religion.

You obviously don't get it.