Hi Jack .... I agree that it would be nice to know Peter's thoughts. Shel
> [Original Message] > From: Jack Davis > Yes, it is all those things I mentioned. I doubt that it is a set-up to > convey a "2006" message. > Even if inadvertent, I'm still curious as to P.J's thoughts. > Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > There's a lot of there there. You're looking at this with a > > preconception, that mother & child should have some > > interaction. This is the US in 2006, and TV is a major > > factor in the lives and the social interations of many > > people. That the girl looks so blase, and the mom is > > focusing on adjusting the TV, says much about the > > relationship, maybe even more than if they were > > engaged. > > > > The photo as it appears on my screen is not very good > > technically. But it's more real than a lot of saccharine, > > trite work I've seen this past year. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Soft image.(?) No interplay between mother and daughter.(?) > > > Daughter staring at the camera with a disinterested sort of > > >impatient air.(?) Tell me what moved your world. > > > > > > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > I gotta go with what he said. While, technically it's okay, > > > there is nothing in the photo that screams mother and > > > child. It would be much more interesting > > > if they were engaged with each other, either affectionately > > > or even angrily. There's no there there
