Listening on a national radio program interview this morning to journalist Clive James on what he considers to be art added an element for me of the notions or indicators of originality and aesthetic impact in a work. He considers vitality to be a key to such success. I think he refers to the ability of any work (I assume he refers to writings, painting, photography, architecture, design, a new car form, whatever) to be vital, to be able to remove any other preoccupations and thoughts you may be having from your mind as you become aware of its presence. This criteria avoids, or at least overlays (without removing entirely) the usual criteria we apply of composition, emotion, symbolism or any other usual appreciation benchmarks. I have had some of my images reacted to by others where they are surprised or pleased by the result, without sometimes realizing why. Is this an example of such vitality? Here below are two images that may be examples. http://www.photo.net/photo/10193910 http://www.photo.net/photo/17759667 I could show others, maybe better ones, but I am more interested here as to what you may think of James's criteria of vitality? Is it a factor in your appraisal of photographs. Does it affect your appraisals of the art of others, or your intentions or approach in your own photography? Vitality can take different forms, perhaps also on different levels of intensity or kind. Do you think, on the contrary, that it is usually not very relevant as a criteria?