Well, I tend to agree with Bobtrips. What I've been trying to do here is isolate the 'technique of creating tension by excluding a part of the image in such a way that it adds to the general interest of the photo'.
I'm trying to make a distinction between the subjective appreciation of the whole image (do you like it or not?) and the recognisable application of a tension producing technique, whether it is successful or not in a particular viewer's opinion.
Howard may be of the opinion that the hair obscuring one eye in the girl portrait does not produce tension, so for him this tension producing technique, deliberately employed by the photographer (I assume) has not worked. He says, 'no big deal, I expect her right eye to be the same as her left eye. No mystery here.' Fair enough! But we don't really know that, do we! Let your imagination run riot and I'm sure you could think of a hundred plausible reasons why the hair is covering that eye.
Looking at Victor's recent examples, the Dubai Towers are just boring. There's no sense of a 'technique' being used. It's just a snapshot with a camera that didn't have a sufficiently wide angle lens to take in the whole tower.
Same with the monument in London. To make this photo really interesting (of course it's already a lot more interesting than the Dubai Towers) you need a wide angle lens shot from slightly above the climber which includes the whole monument, receding into the distance, with the traffic and people below appearing as ants.
The child's windmill is in another category. This has got tension, but not because of what is excluded. It's basically a rather garish semi-abstract that derives its tension from a clash of colors and shapes. There's a tendency to either like it or hate it. Personally, I would not have this on my wall, but I recognise there's tension there.
Could be I'm spouting complete rubbish. Maybe I should get back to less elusive matters, such as commenting on lens performance.