if i might be serious for a moment [but just for a moment]...
what's all the fuss about avatars? i understand that some people chose to use pictures of themselves, cartoon characters, icons, pictures of gorillas, lena horne [that is lena horne, isn't it?], bikes and whatever to represent themselves. i'm just surprised at how some people take these so seriously as representations or depictions of other users.
i mean, it's one thing to be attached to your own signature image -- like a trademark -- and doubly so when it is actually a photograph of yourself [forgive the bad grammar]. it's another thing to treat the image chosen by another as a convenient short-hand representation as the person.
look at it this way: a picture of me is not me. it is a picture. it has a completely independent meaning. it is no more an accurate representation of me than an icon or a cartoon character. it signifies my post [which is not me], and that serves only to situate it in a narrative of me [which, again, is not me] in the context of the forum. conversely, if i use an image of me as my avatar, that is not me either.
the bottom line is that whatever image i chose, that image is not me. it signifies an instant in my bikeforums narrative.
all of this is to ask: does anyone really take avatars that seriously?
an art deco stick figure on a stylized bike