I find it interesting that so far people have found what I've said about my photos to be just as interesting as the photos themselves. And I guess that makes sense as it adds to the story. Some photos work because you really have no clue as to what they are; and others work because you have an idea as to what's going on but you can't quite figure it all out; and still others work because it's all laid out there plain as day. My adding text helps to lay it all out.
On that note, I've had the idea of applying photos to luminous plastic rectangles and typing on the back of them, adding to their story (be it real or imagined), and I think that will work well. I'd originally wanted to do glass, with the photos encased in glass, but I haven't really researched that yet.
And I've always kind of toyed with the idea of making photos more than just sheets of paper, but solid things that you could handle. And adding something (story/text) to the back of it then clearly gives it more depth than just something that hangs on the wall. It would be an object that had feel and weight.
Anyway, this photo was taken in Union Square, NYC. I like the way all of the paintings have the same blue background. And I like the mix of personas: Mr. T, Tupak, Bob Marley, Barack and Michelle, Bruce Lee, etc. The other thing I find interesting is the combination of the colors to the left, the red awnings and red truck, and the blue and green of the recycling and trash bins. I don't think that the blueness of all of the paintings would work without some kind of colored anchor to keep it from becoming a big blue blob. And the green sweater of the girl that's passing through works as well too.
I've also cropped the top off of it, which gives it a bit more of a panoramic feel that helps it feel more real. Which is an interesting idea. We don't really see in squares or mostly square rectangles, we see the world in a more panoramic way. Why aren't more photos done at least a little bit wider?