Can you elaborate on this? I'm genuinely interested in your point of view. I don't see that wall as a worthwhile element in the scene. But I'm open to seeing differently. After all, I was not there (but nor were any other viewers).
Perhaps mine is just a common perspective that needs broadening. But to me the elements and relationships I would have tried to capture are as follows.
- The boy. We can't see him shiver and, in fact, he doesn't really look cold. But his cross-armed stance (probably because he's cold, eh?), chin down a bit, and one leg forward suggests a street urchin who fears little. A common travel doc subject but always good for a bit of interest.
- The mural. Street art like this is an expression of the neighborhood. This is obviously something that someone devoted much time toward painting.
- The boy is about the same size as King Kong. Plus, he's standing on some grungy makeshift steps making him even closer to Kong, almost as if he's posing next to his vicarious portrait. Kong even appears to be looking down at him. The boy's posture now plays an even greater visual role with Kong. You've also used an heroic angle suggesting that you wanted to portray this relationship even more strongly. (That makes the overbearing presence of that wall at left even stranger.)
So those elements and relationships really leave me wanting to see the boys against that mural in the same pose and position but from a straighter angle that reveals more of the scene to the right, and perhaps more of the general scene. The opportunity to display incongruity here seems much greater. I don't give a rats about the "blue wall", but I'm open to being educated. Really.
Hello Ken,
The mural, the wall,and I were all incidental. But what really struck me was the co incidence of the boy's name. The object of this picture is not just a display of aesthetics ( though I strive to achieve my best in that) but also share an interesting experience. Street photography is hardly ever 'perfect'. There are bound to be elements which exist beyond the scope of a full explaination and that is the charm of it.
We hardly have any street art. This is an advertisement for a cement company but that is inconsequential too. For me it is the combination of all elements coming together, some making sense and some raising questions.
I see the picture telling story of a boy who believes he's as strong as King Kong, yet he's at a cornerstone of reality. The blue wall for me IS the background, not King Kong. For me the mural is the boy himself. He's small with a big attitude, that is what the picture is telling at its face value.
My narrative only justifies its presence in this particular forum. There is discordance in what 'really' happened ( his shivers, and his nailpolish) and his appearance. If I hadn't mentioned it, nobody could've known.
Finally that this picture sucked you into a discussion whether the blue wall is a necessary element or not makes it even more successfull. I believe pictures or paintings should not be fully comprehensible. If things explain readily they become boring. One of my favourite songs is 'Black Dog' by Led Zepplin and there is not even a passing reference to a dog in it, let alone black.
If the blue wall is disturbing you, then the picture fails for you, but I think It works for me as a logical background to the boy's image.