What isn't being said here is that Slobodan early on agreed with my short "executive summary" of this photograph. Here he says, "Thank you for the "executive summary." It told me all I needed to know. There is a compliment ("beautiful" - thank you) and there is criticism ("plasticized" - thank you again). And I agree with both." He has repeated his agreement more than once. I gave him his due straight away before moving on to any in-depth comments. And, that due was positive.
There's an irony in all this whining about elitism now. The first few photographs I posted, had several of the 'gang' here waiting to salt their comments with "snapshot" - the oldest, and most pretentious put-down possible. Every comment had to have "snapshot" worked in. Now, as I refer to this photograph as a pretty picture, the outrage is full-throated, and the indignant accusations of elitism are non-stop.
Here was the arrogant, and simply crude RSL on his very first comment to me, "Guy, Sorry, but what I see is one high-school type snapshot and two environmental portraits -- no street photography. You need to go to a library or bookstore, pick up a book of Cartier-Bresson's photographs, and study it."
And a few days later the chief complainer here, Slobodan said of my photograph, "The lesser the photograph, the more bloated the justification?"
Now, they are all indignant that I didn't fawn over this uninteresting photograph. I am an elitist. This is a classic double-standard. I'd suggest reading what I wrote for the many other photographs that I have critiqued here. Dozens, I think.
I have a well considered set of criteria for what I think makes an interesting photograph. Others have theirs. And just as we get to post whatever kind of photograph we want here, I think we can also post whatever kind of critique we want here. There are no objective standards for either.