Convenience Store

Fantastic capture, great colors and vertical composition.

 

Alberto

Glauco: Thanks. Perspicacious. What a great word. Thanks for that, too.

 

 

Cherlyn: Because you travel so much, I'm sure that you have a different perspective than we who are well-rooted in one place. Thanks.

 

 

Joseph P: I always like your pithy comments.

 

 

Linda: You're a rich woman indeed. I'd rather be a rich poor man than a poor rich man.

 

 

Adela: It's so interesting what actually contributes to happiness. I think the U.S. with all our wealth, indulgence, technology, and toys is actually a very sad and stressful place to live.

 

 

Jack: I agree with you. I think our interpretation of photos, particularly those involving other people amounts to pure projection of our own issues and struggles. Honestly, I didn't see this as a sweeping social commentary, but saw this simply as an interesting picture of people living a different life than myself. I'm always glad to hear your view of the artistry (or lack thereof) in a shot. I pay particular attention to the look of a shot, although I think the meaning is becoming more and more important as I take more pictures. Appreciatively...

 

 

Fred: Although I can't say I had a strong message in mind when I took the shot, it became more meaningful when I came home and reviewed some of the pictures I had taken in Jamaica. Ideally, I try to merge aesthetics with meaning. I have been to many shows where the message, often self-important and eccentric, takes center stage and there's little attention to the "look." A spoonful of sugar helps the medicine go down, as they say. A message visually-told has to have some attention paid to aesthetics, or it will lack staying power. Photos and paintings that are most meaningful to me have something visual that intrigues me and keeps me coming back to the message. One day, I will hopefully be a thoughtful enough artist to take my own advice. Here, this was a quick snapshot taken through a bus window. No thought. The message (if there was one) emerged after the fact, like watching a Polaroid develop. I always look forward to your thoughts.

 

 

Claudio: Oil, oil everywhere and not a drop to drink. Living beneath a canopy of sky would be a nice change of pace.

 

 

Alberto: Thanks so much.

I would be disappointed if I thought I was, esthetically speaking, meant to see Convenience Store and Babylon And On, both of which use a similar color palette, sky depiction, and even sense of surreal juxtaposition, similarly. Superficially, they are, indeed, quite similar photographs, in my opinion. But looking at them side by side ought to be provocative in terms of why the visual treatment of content ought to matter. Esthetics as sugar coating?

You're right. Both of the mentioned photos have a similar color palette and have been processed in a similar way, but then they part ways. Babylon was a shot in Scottsdale depicting a pampered, created community that wouldn't exist without a stead influx of water, energy, goods, and money. Whereas, this depicts a community that thrives on somewhat limited resources. The "aesthetic" is similar, the core is different. Well, I take that back, they both came from me and my camera and registered in similar parts of my psyche. Perhaps they are meant to be experienced together, sugary as they are.

 

 

 

I hope you know I ended with the question "Esthetics as sugar coating?" because of what you had said above about "esthetics" and the "look" of a photo, not because I saw anything negative in the way you processed either of these photos. (Normally, I might take "sugary" as an esthetic knock.)

 

I agree with you that the two taken together would work well. I was thinking of your body of work and how this photo relates to it when making my original comment. Context often makes a statement as much if not more than any individual image.

 

Two kinds of "sugar coating" . . .

 

I think you approached and processed the two photos similarly, in a somewhat sugar-coated way, colorwise and skywise. That focused me in on the distinctly different cores or contents. That's what I took to be your message and purpose in posting this photo. Why this way instead of any other? (It's not as important how much thought you gave to it when you actually shot it. It's a street shot, after all, most of which are not thought out at the time of shooting; many of which still have a strong statement inherent in them.)

 

They've been treated similarly, registered in similar parts of your psyche, you'd exhibit them together (me too). All of that makes a relevant social comment. To me, on a certain level, while the approach to these images may have been to sugar coat, this means that the sugar coating actually transcends itself. (That's, to me, where the esthetic lies, not simply in the warmth or coldness of colors or their juxtaposition but in what that temperature and juxtaposition accomplish and how significantly they relate to the content). Somehow, the sugar coating becomes not as sugary as when just seen superficially. It's kind of cool that art (and snapshots) can work that way.

Jeff, I would use an oxymoron to describe what I make of it; a harmonius pandemonium of colours, items, feelings and social comments. Best, Nassos

 

Great commentary on a worthwhile image. Personally I don' think it works well outside of a social commentary context. Honestly, there is nothing here that is aesthetically pleasing. I think that is a given, and surely you did not intend otherwise. The people are indistinguishable, and the rule about having people split by poles or having trees growing from their heads is being flaunted. As Jack pointed out, there is an irony in the blue sky and bluer tarp. We create what is better than nature now. That has not always been so. The grass is green on the other side of the road. But as we move toward these people, it becomes a barren and uninviting landscape. One without life.

 

As much as I love Gord and his cogent comments, and respect his outrageous intellect, I don't think we can minimize the tenuous existence of these souls. Of course they have no choice but to accept their fate with grudging good humor. They have only madness as an alternative. I suppose that has been accomplished by those on the way to the gallows as well. But underlying this is the fact that these are people that have nothing but unrealistic fantasies as hope. In my country, if I were to say, "I have hopes of getting a good job in the next year," I would not be considered out of touch. Is there anyone here who could remotely dream of such an occurrence in this third world place?

 

What I am so poorly trying to say is that it fails utterly as a fine art image. It cannot tell us anything unless it is placed in a social commentary documentary context. I have lived in a third world country, and while I am not of the opinion that one must have lived an experience to comprehend it, I do think it is pure hubris to be sanguine about the possibilities of such a life

I didn't take your comment negatively at all. In fact, in the big scheme of things, the photo is irrelevant. The discussion it generates is priceless. The photo serves as a ticket for admission to a lively exchange. Photographically, I don't mind a sprinkle of sugar to sweeten a shot. God forbid I become cloying.

This was a patchwork of color. For some reason, it seemed to work. Thanks.

Divorcing ego from the discussion (as hard as that is at times), I agree with you that in and of itself, it's not a pleasing photo. There were elements I liked visually: the brightly colored plastic, the orange shirt, the blue tarp, and the sky. I liked the purse flung up onto the table. I even liked the man's head split by the pole. Usually, that would be a no-no, but in this case, I thought is worked because it preserved his strong silhouette and added some depth. The rest is a big mess, and the colorful clutter of the scene was what I liked. I chose to post this out of about fifty shots I took traveling back to the airport via bus. Most didn't work. This seemed to have some charm. I don't think it works as a fine art image either. It isn't stunningly beautiful, nor expertly composed, nor unique in any real way. It is what it is. Something I experienced and thought about and held some meaning for me.

 

 

And perhaps this meaning shapes and fills out the photo in a way that the aesthetic (to borrow a word from my discussion with Fred) does not. I did a little research. The per capita income here is around $5K, compared to $46K for the US. There is obviously a difference in the standard of living, and these people must make do with far less than we. I agree that it is erroneous to believe the myth of "poor, but happy" or in the idea that "money buys happiness." Many people live hard lives, especially when tragedy of any sort strikes. A hurricane struck Jamaica last year, and folks were still trying to rebuild slowly. Although I saw languid scenes of people hanging out, I also saw many people working very hard in hot weather. My read on Gordon's comments wasn't that he was downplaying others' struggles; I thought he was focusing, rightfully so, on the fact that our pampered and indulged society pays a price in terms of being frenzied and pressured. Our "suffering" is not equivalent to the poverty, disease, and other pressures that many, many people in the world experience. We who are the "haves" have above all else the power of choice to live somewhere else, to take a less stressful job, and to reduce our consumption in all ways. That power of choice is something that few people in the world have. Still, it is easy to get caught up in the modern-day struggle to stay at the top of the heap, and I think we pay for it with anxiety, depression, and many lifestyle related diseases. But that's not the same as starving to death or having one's family being exterminated by a regime or succumbing to disease and starvation because aid after a storm never arrived. I read this morning that between 1.2 and 1.5 million people are at risk for starvation and disease in Myanmar. The government is apportioning 1 cup of rice per day per family. This, while I'm feeding my kids their breakfast.

 

 

I do think that having first-hand experience is eye opening. After traveling to Guatemala several times, I learned and saw that poverty there is not the same as poverty here. There, a whole community of people live and scavenge in the garbage dumps and have absolutely nothing: no government assistance, no food stamps, no foster care...nothing. For me, this was a huge paradigm shift. There is "poor" and then there is "destitute." There is knowing and there is KNOWING. I guess my bottom-line is that in passing through this earth and encountering scenes like the one above, I feel a mixture of gratefulness and responsibility to be aware, to help as much as I can, and to not take more than my share on this planet (although admittedly, I miss the mark more often than not in this last regard).

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks for the insightful response. I think we pretty much agree on most things.

 

I would like to apologize to Gordon if I sounded as if I was being critical of him. I know him to be a very sensitive, intelligent, guy, and I do not disagree with what he said. I just didn't feel it went far enough. But that same standard could more accurately have been applied to many of the folks that commented on this image. And Gordon's comments were far more cogent than most.

A famous local tv newsman, now deceased used to say, "It is hell being poor." Not sure that you need to do any thing Jeff, the picture speaks for itself. My grandparents were poor and they toiled from sun up to sun down, as migrant workers in this country. I would have never described them as lazy.

David: I can't speak for Gordon, but I don't think there's a reason to apologize for a respectful opinion honestly given. It actually makes for better discussion than the "who can out-polite the other.'

 

 

Manuel: This picture led to an interesting discussion. Some people live truly tragic lives. Others lived pampered and indulged lives. Most of us experience a mix of joy and struggles, me included. The human condition is too diverse to make sweeping statements about who must be happy and who are not. It's hard enough figuring myself out most days. You're right though, being poor is hell.

I am often a contrary guy and I took absolutely no offence that you used my words as an example to make your point. I welcome honest debate as the cornerstone of learning.

I think the most important thing said so far is that none of us has any true idea what it is like to walk in another mans shoes. My point, as Jeff reiterated, is that prosperity and happiness are not synonymous. Nor are poverty and misery. I think that we in the west are exporting a notion of happiness that involves turning all other cultures into an Americanized version of the perfect life. Two cars in the driveway a mortgage a steady job. There seems to be an underlying assumption in all of this, that the North American model of the ideal life is the best option for the third world. Even beyond all the obvious problems that will ensue if every one in the third world mimics our lifestyle, I am not convince it is that great a model to be exporting globally in the first place.

 

I did state that the fiscal inequality of the world is abhorrent and needs addressing. Like Jeff I have seen whole communities in Central America living in abject squalor and it sickens me. Some of this poverty is a direct result of N. American financial interests exporting their ideals. Building sweatshops and luring people from the countryside and into cities with the promise of money and success. Once these people have been divorced from their traditional lifestyle and culture they find themselves completely at the mercy of western culture and we know where that leaves them. I have however seen a lot of people living in the Caribbean who although poor by our standards, do have food and clothing and shelter and a very unstressed existence. If you give them all factory jobs and mortgages and and disassociated them from their current lifestyle. They may have more money but will they be happier.? I honestly do not know, but I think it is folly to make that assumption.

 

David, when you say ;

 

" Of course they have no choice but to accept their fate with grudging good humor. They have only madness as an alternative. "

 

This a gross over simplification of a complex reality. I would be the first to admit that some of my own statements in this thread would also fall into this category. It is too easy for all of us to make broad sweeping statements about other cultures. I did not intend my words to perpetrate the cliche of the " happy poor " I was rather trying to point out that wealth does not equal happiness, which is a statement I stand by.

I do believe that despite the differences that class and culture impose, at the core we are all human and suffer the same foibles. I have seen surly, mean, lazy poor people as often as I've seen surly , mean, lazy rich people, and happy people show up in the crowd everywhere I have ever traveled.

Well said and true.

Jeff, it was important to find out that the discussion continues, and as you say, the photo was a trigger for this discussion ,and I think it is realy important, and not an easy subject to deal with, to say the least. It is so complicated, and all points of view are touching feelings of us, living in the better side of the globe.

 

But poverty and differences of income, and life levels are a phenomenon we can see in the western countries as well ,caused by the massive immigration from the third world many times in a hard risk for life.

 

People seeking refuge by leaving their homeland and culture,people escaping from wars( Sudan,Darfur and others, that we help here in my country)) arriving with nothing more than the cloths they are wearing, is to show that poverty of existence is a miserable situation that people are seeking to change.( even some will not be embittered, as most of their community is in the same situation.)

 

 

I still claim that when resources are so scarce, every change of equilibrium is a disaster, and a terrible one , Burma, is a terrible evidence. I was in Kenya ( Nairobi), I saw the effects of poverty on young people.

 

New Orleanse disaster of the Katarina, was hard on the people but relatively" easier" to help when the country has the resources and will to help and fast.

 

What I want to say is that poverty, has a lot of more effects where ever it is, disease, crime, high death rate of people, children especially, and it is easier to fight against it ,in the more developed side of the globe.

 

What I see in this discussion is that it can bring more awarness, and the need to help, each of us in his corner. the real aid must be given by governments and organizations. Still the injustice and suffering is very jarring.

What impresses me about this discussion is that there are still sensitive, thoughtful hearts who grapple with these matters. It's so easy to stereotype and simplify people into nonexistence for the sake of a 30 second sound-byte. I didn't mean for this photo to be a portrayal of a stereotype, but of a real slice of life. The photo for all its flaws was a good impetus for a fantastic roundtable discussion on matters near and dear to my heart. So thanks.

Jeff, early on in the discussion, this was your attitude:

 

"Here, this was a quick snapshot taken through a bus window. No thought."

 

And here's where we've wound up:

 

"The photo for all its flaws was a good impetus for a fantastic roundtable discussion on matters near and dear to my heart."

 

This was, indeed, a heartfelt discussion, one that should be taking place throughout the world. Those who participated are thoughtful and sincere.

 

I think the discussion was stimulated by the subject matter of your photograph but I also think it's had little to do with your photograph itself.

 

A quick snapshot through the window of a bus, with no thought (according to you), of a stimulating subject has caused a stir in people. Has the photograph itself added or implied something about the subject matter that might make it more than a snapshot? Snapshots of poor people . . . huh?

 

Here's where I'm confused, honestly. I'm not putting this discussion down by any means. I'm just bringing it back to some questions about photography, questions I still try to answer for myself as my experience increases. The discussion has been predominantly about the subject, not the photograph. Perhaps that's the best tribute to a good unselfconscious photograph, that it gets us right to the point. But then I have to ask what's the difference between good documentary photography and snapshots? The talk has been about poverty, etc., not about the photograph's presentation of poverty or a statement about poverty that is being made or an emotional or expressive relationship to poverty or these people that has been conveyed. At the beginning, I felt spoken to by the photo as much as the subject matter. It felt as though context, its place in your portfolio and your matter-of-fact treatment of it, was making a statement. I was hoping to see your relationship to the subject matter in the image you presented us with. I am unsure now, particularly because of your responses to me and the discussion.

 

Where's Jeff, the photographer, in all this? Is this discussion just about yours and others' political/social personas and opinions? Is there a place for discussion about how we photographically convey those opinions? In what way has the discussion been about photography?

 

One could put up a link to a newspaper article about world hunger and stimulate an in-depth discussion. Nothing wrong with that.

 

But.

 

Is there something here that speaks about or to the subject beyond Jeff's simply being there to take a picture of it?

Fred, it's obviously not a "quick snapshot." Three merchants with faces and backs turned or hidden from our view: we cannot "get" into their world; we can only suppose. A repetition of two stories told by color: the natural "perfect" and bright sky and glowing vegetation against a darker confined area with the plastic blue sky and plastic green wall--impermanent, transitory (almost as if they are being cheated from the real thing)...on the dirt (rocky) road, a symbol of life. The stall is unable to shelter or protect if nature turns harsh. The cover and the legs are vulnerable to the slightest hard wind or driving rain or worse, a symbol of the vulnerability of their world. The merchandise and black purse (against the colors) reinforce this is largely about economics. The angle keeps the viewer removed, not involved in the world, but looking in. How is this a snapshot?

Ask Jeff.

 

(Seriously, thanks for making me be more clear, if I can.)

 

I was being part ironic and part serious, but please be aware that I was quoting Jeff, himself, who used the word "snapshot." I didn't use it as a putdown. I was throwing it back into Jeff's court. I used it in order to provoke more discussion of what, if anything beyond just its subject matter, this photo is about. I felt Jeff being unclear about whether it was just a snapshot or if it actually made a statement or expressed something for Jeff. If the photo, itself, does make a statement, I haven't seen that addressed a whole lot.

 

For example, Jack said, "Any strong social statement would be overwhelmed by the almost surreal nature of the color and composition which was the first thing that struck me."

 

Had I been the photographer, I would hope that this comment (if I'm reading it correctly) had missed the mark. If, on the other hand, I felt it rang true, then it would have identified to me that the photo, itself, missed the mark and wound up being about color and surrealism instead of about people and poverty. Instead, Jeff identified with Jack's words and Jeff added, "Honestly, I didn't see this as a sweeping social commentary, but saw this simply as an interesting picture of people living a different life than myself." What's the difference between that and the way any tourist taking a snapshot when on vacation would talk? And what would be wrong with that if that's what one wanted? It is clear that Jeff handles a camera better and knows how to post process better than most tourists. Is that post processing just for its own sake, just to make the picture look better, and not to enhance the statement? I don't think we have to make a value judgment about these two approaches, but they would surely be very different approaches to photography.

 

As I said in my earlier comment, my own bias is that I tend to think "statement" and "message" are part of esthetics and that's not just about words, it's about pictures.

 

In this kind of photo, if a strong social statement would be overwhelmed by the so-called "artistic" or "esthetic" considerations, then the artist may have failed. I know I would want these artistic considerations to *serve* the subject and the statement (which I originally thought they did), not overwhelm them. If, as I think Jack is suggesting, because of the brilliance of the "artistic" elements, the social statement is to be seen as secondary or nonexistent, something seems "artistically" awry. To me, if these elements don't serve meaning and a statement in such a human image, they are more in the realm of craft than art.

 

Because the discussion never really got back to what Jeff thinks this photo, itself, is saying, I am left wondering if, indeed, it is just a snapshot with good technique, color, and composition or if it is something more. Honestly, I did not wonder about that when I first saw it and prior to the discussion.

I agree with you. Even if it has been identified by Jeff as a snapshot, unconsciously the photo (that imo is more a photojournalism) made a statement.,and knowing his previous work , it fits. Even if he did not think of it in the begining or when he uploaded it, we talked before that when a photo is uploaded it gets its own life and the viewer can interpret it according to what he brings with him when he evaluates it. The photo was interpreted nicely by you and others for its photographic merites and was as well a trigger for this discussion that was related to its contents..

 

 

Just some thoughts off the top of my head. This shot was taken on the way back to the airport, through a bus window, with my shutter speed preset, and me happily snapping away at anything and everything along the road that struck my fancy. In the moment, I was not intending to take pictures to convey a particular story or to be photojournalistic. I was merely documenting for myself where I had been and what I had experienced.

 

 

When I looked through the photos on this trek back, I noticed that many of them were atrocious (and will never see the light of day)--blurry because of motion, dark because I didn't have time to monkey around with shutter speed/aperture, and poorly composed because of where I was sitting on the bus. A few stood out as meaningful and as having potential, this photo being one of them.

 

 

When out and about, I try to be respectful of people, and I didn't want this to be perceived as a stereotypical shot with a trumped-up meaning. There's a whole genre of "here's a homeless person," "here's a tragic figure," "here's some poor person who is odd enough or different enough AND unlucky enough to wander into my line of sight so I can exploit them with my camera." (overly dramatic and overstated). For that reason, I downplayed the meaningfulness of the photo to me. That being said, I was struck with how poor many of these people are, how different their lives are from mine, and how the weather, the clothes, the makeshift/make-do aspects of their lives are so different from my own carefully crafted, carefully calculated, carefully choreographed life. I didn't want for this photo to be mistakenly interpreted as an attempts at social commentary that perpetuates an unnecessary stereotype, even though there may some grain of truth embedded somewhere within. In a way, this became a projective test, and many of the generated comments were deeply felt, thoughtfully worded, sensitive, and complex--a far cry from stereotypical thinking. I was quite touched and happy by the comments. The photo seemed small and unimportant in comparison to the discussion it generated.

 

 

But back to the photo itself, Jeff the photographer is also Jeff the person, one and the same. I think the same sensitivity that makes me respond to social issues also makes me respond to beauty and order in the world. Even on these "snapshots," I spend time in the post-processing to make sure that the aesthetics are well-managed. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. The photo may begin as a snapshot, but the final product typically has a lot of work and thought that goes into it. That's part of the art for me. As Jack mentioned, perhaps in some cases the colors became so candy-coated that they get in the way of an underlying message. Here, I liked the blue tarp against the blue sky. Artificial versus real, as Donna pointed out. I liked the brilliant colors of the plastic and clothes. I liked how the bits and pieces of Western artificiality intrudes and tries to overthrow the life that was, as Gordon pointed out. I liked the questions: Are these people happy? Are they sad? Do they wish they were me? Do I wish I were them? These aren't statements of social commentary as much as my own individual psychology.

 

 

Is this a deep photo? Is this a pretty photo? Is this a cluttered photo? Is this a necessary photo? Well, it all depends.... For me, I thought it held some aesthetic and narrative interest. But that's just me. As Pnina stated, it's open to interpretation by whoever happens to take a look.

Thanks for going a little further with this.

 

Yes, of course photos take on lives of their own.

 

My point . . . you could have put up an awful, blurry, underexposed, poorly-composed photo of poor people in an island or third-world country and that, too, because of subject alone, could have taken on a life of its own and generated a deep discussion. How many times have what you, yourself, recognize as exploitive photos of homeless people generated very sensitive and sincere discussions? Those discussions don't make the photos that stimulated them any less exploitive.

 

I've been asking what it is about THIS photo that makes it worth discussing and that stimulates us, beyond just the subject matter of poverty itself. I think that lays in the consciousness of your statement, the non-exploitive approach you chose to its presentation. Yes, it was projectivist in that you very capably left room for discussion for people to bring personal experience and emotion to this. But that doesn't mean it was unconscious. It is immediately and very consciously not exploitive, tender, colorful, and caring, and that's why it fits so well into your portfolio and speaks with your distinctive voice.

 

To me, finally getting to the non-exploitive aspect of this photo gets to the photographically interesting part of it. Of course, the discussion is important and fascinating. But its effectiveness as a photo goes beyond that, in my opinion, and it's not just because it magically takes on the life we all give to it. That would miss what we can learn as photographers here, that we the creators have an effect on that life it will take on. You're a good photographer with a sensitive vision.

 

I don't see it as you having downplayed the meaningfulness of the photo to yourself. As you stated, you applied the processing you did so as not to overly dramatize or exploit the people or the subject. Underdramatizing can add an important layer of meaningfulness. That's what I was saying in my original comment. That's what I think Donna was pointing to in her assessment. That is a strong kind of social commentary. Most people who take photos of homeless people in black and white and oozing with supposed pathos are exploiting and, although they think they are, they are NOT making social commentary. You truly are, I believe. To me, your esthetics here are precisely your social commentary. I can't see them as separate.

I think the photographer/artist has processed this snapshot into something attractive and colorfully interesting enough to draw our attention. Then, elements present make us associate to poverty and then our social conciousness takes over and discusses for several reasons; number one: most of us pretty much know each other here and know we can respond to and discuss this type of subject freely, will get feedback and learn from others here. Perhaps if this image was blurry or left to its snapshot characteristics it would invoke this type of discussion but mainly because of number one.

 

I feel it is Jeff's work, similar to what Fred has stated, that draws crazy, questioning, inquisitive souls like us together. Not saying that you are crazy Jeff, but your work certainly draws inquiring minds. I come here to your portfolio knowing this is the kind of interesting exchange I will find.

 

If I went to someone's portfolio that shot predominately insect macros, seascapes, etc. and I came across this image, I doubt I would find this type of discussion under it. And, if this image, were blurry or snapshotted and posted on the critique/rating forum, I would be surprised if it would attract this type of discussion.

 

Through your intuitive and stunning body of work as a whole, that you share with us, it is that we come here. Then we see a single image that made to look appealing to yourself and that same spirit comes through and draws us out to express what we feel but likely do not say often enough.

 

I'm writing this as I watch the Hornets basketball game so it may not be as relative as I think it is to this discussion.

 

Kirk

"Jeff the photographer is also Jeff the person, one and the same. I think the same sensitivity that makes me respond to social issues also makes me respond to beauty and order in the world. "

 

I think that it is what was reflected in the photo. When you are visiting another country, you as a photographer with a practiced eye, will photograph your impressions of the surrounding, and will not separeate your being a photographer from your being the sensitive person you are. It is inseparable. I don't think it was a stereotype photo , but a genuin photo that took your attention even while in the middle of being in the moving car. We as viewers that know your work , and follow it were attracted to its contents, as a photo that has a composition, colors, people, and an inner narrative that touched us beyond the visual contents of it.The LIFE of/in the photo touched us to respond, and thats why it was the trigger for the discussion.

 

"To me, your esthetics here are precisely your social commentary. I can't see them as separate."

 

Me too.