Hi Rob
I'm afraid the implications of what you said are lost on me. Would you mind explaining what you mean?
No problem.
The motif - the subject matter - table, cloth, fruit/alternative food, chair and often another included image is so much a standard for every painter doing the obligatory still life. I have one, and have seen at least three others by one painter I know very well; if you bother to trawl through a variety of artists' websites you will see it occur over and over again. It's probably a standard art school requirement!
(That's not a criticism of your photograph - I very seldom bother criticising anything I see here - to me it's just second-guessing and a waste of mutual time. You learn zero from such comments beyond the fact that some like and some do not, and yet others want to express their supposed superiority. There are sometimes some outstanding commercial photographs displayed on LuLa, and I do comment there because the photographers know what they are doing and have no need of other people's advice - they just show for the interest of other professionals.)
I can only guess that's what Graham was referring to with his comment about it being difficult to analyse your photograph as photograph exactly because of the motif which, I imagine, he also sees very much within the painter's traditional oeuvre.
In a way, it's the basic problem facing all artists/photographers, however much they attempt to divert the fact: everything has, to some extent or the other, been done to death. It might have been done to death centuries ago, but the means of propagating that news didn't exist, and so the supposedly 'new' had a fighting chance of being seen as such by those removed from prior exposure. It used to be, pre-tv, that commedians could tell the same jokes for years as they went from theatre to theatre: the immediacy of television killed many of them off for that reason: they were perceived stale second time around.
Rob C