Looking at this morph I was certainly shocked to see the similarities. My first reaction was, not shockingly, a politically charged one. I thought the artist was trying to put across a particular message. I saw it as a piece that was alluding to the statement [meant] that nothing has really changed from Bush to Obama. In my mind the picture in the middle really rang true to this belief because it looked so much like both of them. With that said, it is my second reaction that I’d like to delve deeper into because I feel like it may be closer to the truth.
Personally I don’t believe that the artist thought one way or the other while creating this image. I think the reason it is so fascinating is because it really plays on the emotions and beliefs of the individual viewing it. I saw it as a statement that nothing has really changed, but this is strictly because this is my belief. I projected it onto this vague morph and saw what I wanted to see. Someone who is a supporter of Obama would say that they believe it is depicting a change for the good. Ultimately I believe the morph itself isn’t trying to send a particular message, rather it is trying to draw forth the beliefs of the viewer.
In regards to this class I believe Professor Hodges chose this piece because of its vagueness. In class many of us were raising our hands and stating our interpretations. Through our answers it was pretty easy to pick a part our political view points. The two pictures that Professor Hodges posted on the blog furthered this belief since they both played into the two most common interpretations. Ultimately I think the artist and Professor Hodges use this piece for the same reason. I believe that reason is to get a response from the individual viewing it that is indirectly personal.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
Hey Professor! Great to be back in the comment section. As always, feedback is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
-John
Thank you too!
I added this post to the John Gross category and took it out of Uncategorized.
The green notes are informal phrases that can easily be replaced with simple verbs. Use informality as a tactic like any other, John; don’t waste it on cliches or catch-phrases that detract from clarity.
Correct the red notes. You can remove the red when you’ve made changes. Other colors are advice you can ignore.
Feedback provided, —DSH
Hey, John. Good to see you back!
P1. What are “the similarities,” John? Do you mean that morphing their photos made it easier than you thought possible to visualize Bush looking like Obama? or Obama looking like Bush? Where beforehand you had thought of them, visually, as not at all alike? That’s not a political reaction, but it was purportedly your first. Your second was that you thought the artist meant that as leaders the two men are not much different. The image in the middle that looks like their illegitimate offspring does without words ask the provocatively question: are these guys more alike than you thought? For me, whatever you say next, if those were your first and second reactions, they sound pretty close to a truth already.
P2. This is a sound position, John. Whatever the artist’s intentions, they’re irrelevant to our reactions. We’re in charge of the meaning of the image. But that’s not the same claim as: the artist had no intentions. You’re not required to speculate on what those were (you in fact speculate that they didn’t exist), but it would be tough to prove there weren’t any. Even more picky of me, you end by giving the morph itself intentions: The morph is trying to draw us out; it’s not sending us a message. This may just be figurative language on your part, but be careful that when it truly matters you don’t waffle this way. (“The law is trying to create a division between the truly disabled and the fakers,” for example, when it’s the lawmakers, if anyone, who are trying to do so.) Highlights are for grammar or syntax problems.
P3. I guess you could call that vagueness, John. Or you could call it flexibility. You could say it exposes our point of view by eliciting an interpretation that’s more about our feelings than about the truth of the image. Because the image has no truth itself. Your last sentence is brilliant. And you’re right. I did choose the image (and create those supporting interpretations that divide the most popular reactions) to evoke personal reactions.
I should devote a little mini-lecture to “both.” Remind me if I fail to follow through on that, please, John. It’s easy to use wrong, as in: Both men resemble each other. The correct usage is: The men resemble each other. Another correct usage would be: Both men resemble their wives.
Anything here of value for you?