HeartlineTwist wrote:I'll play your game. Look at the branch holding the acorn. A squirrel CANNOT stand on that.
sure they can. look at the full picture. that branch has a diameter larger than the squirrel within a few inches of the acorn. (not that it COULD) The squirrel could easily hang under the branch and grab the acorn. if it had actual forelegs.
So, they'd have to climb the trunk and reach out for it. Given what I've seen squirrels do, I don't think they can hold themselves onto the tree with just their feet, nor have I ever seen a squirrel hold on with a hand to a tree trunk and reach for something. I realize that's just what the first squirrel is doing, but that's a bit different.
I don't buy your logic, but assuming that's true, how is it different for him to reach for it with one forepaw holding on to the trunk or branch as opposed to holding on to another squirrel?
Finally, we don't know what's at the base of the tree. Could be some dogs or something. The squirrel could jump, but I've only seen squirrels jump from branch to branch, not trunk to trunk.
They can easily jump six feet ON THE GROUND. You're suggesting that they aren't able to jump from a branch to a trunk? or that they would bother to distinguish- oh, can't jump there- that's a trunk?
If there are dogs, or maybe a gator down below, what a darned shame they aren't included in the illustration- that would add so much to the design, pathos, tension, it would probably make me vote for it.
Actually, having looked at the design again, that's ALL a moot point? But why, you ask? Look at the arms. THEY'RE TOO SHORT. There IS no way that squirrel/chipmunk/what have you could reach that acorn from the tree trunk, and it cannot stand on the branch.
I mean, I guess it's a valid criticism, but it has just as much counter-point to it. At that point, I'd say that the shirt succeeds as a conversation piece.
"yeah, I know how stupid this is- the arms are too short. Sure, a real squirrel would just jump across there, pull the branch over into his mouth, and pick the nut. Of course, I know that squirrels are essentially solo creatures who don't work in concert." "huh? yeah, they are cute- not sure why their coloration is that of a chipmunk instead of a squirrel."
what a fun conversation to have, as the wearer of the shirt.
"my mom bought this for me."
I also don't see the logic in cute animals=preschool mentality. Cartoony illustrations lend themselves really well to t-shirt designs. I'm not saying that artistic designs don't have a place on t-shirts, but for every artistic design that actually looks like it fits on a t-shirt, there are at least 10 cartoony illustrations that look better.
I agree that cartoony shirts are a valid design option. I don't think that for every artistic design that actually looks like it fits on a t-shirt, there are at least 10 cartoony illustrations that look better. I don't think that a shirt has to be cute to be cartoony, either.
That said, I don't particularly see myself wearing this design, so I shall withhold my vote, but I don't think that you'd have to be childish to wear this. Furthermore, as a 20-year-old that is firmly in touch with his inner child and works with a bunch of elementary schoolers, I don't see a negative impact to childishness.
well, I didn't mean to argue the childishness case, really. I don't care whether anyone wants to wear childish designs or not. I just think that designs with a glaring hole in their logic ought to have it pointed out.