I disagree with seperating your experience with the image.To responding only to a small two dimensional rectangle.If you keep thinking that way you will force the eyes of your heart into a box.It is like saying you must live with the senses of this world and not be moved by the larger boundless soul.To encourage the viewer to see beyond these walls through suggestion,allegory or similitude is the beginning of art.In my photography I let the experience move through me.And try to find a synergy of elements that can make one move beyond that frame.To be a functional reductionist is as dry as packaged dehydrated soup.No nourishment in that.
The movement is not distracting. It is the point of the picture. I never saw the small courtyard you mentioned. You seem to be reading your own experience in making the picture into the picture, Kal. You also did that with the scales in the preceding image. You knew there were scales there and a courtyard here because you SAW them with your own eyes. But you camera did not see them the way you did, so we are blind to them. You must always separate yourself from the process of making the picture, and respond ONLY to the image, not to the actual experience. This is one of the biggest challenges you face, Kal.
Is the movement in this case too distracting? I liked the incongruity of frozen vs still, (I had not thought of the standing on the Sofa), but the main thing I saw was the incongrous place the sofa was, in a small courtyard in the midst of the slum area..
