I don't get it. The car looks like it might be interesting, but there's not enough of it in the frame for this to be a picture of the car. The guy is mostly obscured, so I don't think it's a picture of him.
If there's a larger gestalt here, if this isn't a picture of some thing at all, I'm not still getting it. There are several points of interest, but nothing of very much interest. My first reaction was "oh, a cabbie" and the upon inspection "no, I don't think so. Maybe a hot-rodder?" and that was pretty much where I stopped.
I normally wouldn't comment on someone's critique. Everyone is entitled to their opinion - works for me. However, your post presents an opportunity to talk about something important which doesn't come up much here in this particular section of the forum.
I posted that photograph as a bit of an experiment, because most (not all) of the photographs here are traditional landscape with traditional references. And of course, that's just a smattering of what is going on in the general photographic world at large. So, I tossed this into the mix with some purpose.
The point of discussion, which was demonstrated in your critique, was that of the photograph existing as a whole, and not existing as a named thing or set of named things. Notice how you processed this in your critique -- is it a car? Is it a guy? Is it a cabbie? Is it a hot-rodder? And in the end, when you couldn't satisfy the naming convention, you gave up that it must be nothing of interest. What you didn't come to, is that it is a "just a photograph" all contained within the edges, and needs no name, or no named thing. That's why I purposely left it "untitled" so as to NOT suggest any type of named thing at all.
Photographs of named things - canyons, mountains, rivers, rocks, puppies, strollers, snails, beaches suit very well our internal drive to categorize and recognize the world. In a strict sense (not photo genre) they are documentary. But cameras don't care what the name of anything might be. They record what you point them at without prejudice. And that, as it turns out is an incredibly powerful feature of photography that is useful in art. It means the product can be "the photograph" itself, of itself, and by itself with no named reference within. The 'thing' then, doesn't have to be a mountain, car, cabbie, door or dog, but it's "just a photograph." Neither does that mean it is "nothing." It is obviously something.
Stopping our minds from naming, is a different way of seeing the world. Names carry assumptions, bias, prejudice and all the rest. That's the reason we name - to fit the world into our expectations so that each moment of vision is not an alarming scene. When you say "cabby" to anyone in the world, they will have a set of biases about that word. But seeing without naming, is a different view all together, that can bring different kinds of communication between artist and viewer. Painters often used abstraction to attempt this view. That's one way to do it. But photography has the really unique ability to abstract without being intentionally abstract. Abstract can mean "expressing a quality apart from the object." This happens to be a major capability of photographs, which is incredibly hard in painting.
A photograph can be "just a photograph" it is its own named thing. Thanks again for your critique, I found it useful.