Photographic Value System

Who is Bunny and what killed him or her?
A long time ago, some literary friends were arguing about what allows readers to get "pulled into" a book of fiction. They were arguing nuts and bolts—one was claiming that Hemingway's simple, declarative style allowed more readers "a way in" to the stories he was telling, because more of them could understand him easily. Here's an example of his prose, in case you've heard of him but never read him:

Manuel drank his brandy. He felt sleepy himself. It was too hot to go out into the town. Besides there was nothing to do. He wanted to see Zurito. He would go to sleep while he waited. He kicked his suitcase under the table to be sure it was there. Perhaps it would be better to put it back under the seat, against the wall. He leaned down and shoved it under. Then he leaned forward on the table and went to sleep.

That's from the short story "The Undefeated."

This was leading to some heated words about "writing down" to the audience and so forth, probably from people who were tired of defending their own more ornate or involved writing styles.

I thought about it, and I decided that what draws me into reading has nothing to do with nuts and bolts at all. It's in wanting to know what happens. What's called "the hook." As soon as I get the hook, that's when the word-by-word, line-by-line reading vanishes for me and I start speeding through it, propelled forward. Here's the beginning of Donna Tartt's The Secret History:

The snow in the mountains was melting and Bunny had been dead for several weeks before we came to understand the gravity of our situation.

Who is Bunny and what killed him or her? Who's the us of "our"? Are they in the mountains? Is Bunny dead and buried or dead and unburied? The first thing that springs to mind is a plane crash leading to a survivalist situation, but at the same time I know that might be wrong. I want to find out all these things. Prose style be damned, I would read on.

(It's a famous one-line opener.)

Intrusions
My wonderful former psychoanalyst, Karen Maroda, who has written many books in her field, feels that everyone has a basic value system. (I got the idea she also feels that many people aren't aware of what their own basic value systems are. But I mustn't put words in her mouth.) My basic value system is essentially psychological—I always return to psychological explanations by way of first principles, as my way of explaining the world to myself.

Photographically speaking—to hop to safe ground—I do have a pretty distinct value system. I like pictures that get me to engage with the subject. For all my apparent preoccupation with it, technique is a means to an end for me. It's secondary, not primary. Like prose style. So I like technique that doesn't call attention to itself—more specifically, I dislike technique that pulls my attention away from engagement with the picture.

I'd like to discuss two very different photographs, both of black females, one a young woman, one a girl. Here's Scottish photographer Leanne Boulton's "Silver Lining." It's pretty simple, straightforward picture, a portrait in the genre of "people on the street," and could be effective in context. Here the young woman is girded against accidental contact in many ways: sunglasses hide her eyes, earbuds allow her to either not hear or pretend not to hear, her hair is hidden by a cap, her hands turn inward and seem to literally hold her own torso, her expression is blank in the mask we adopt in public that says don't mess with me, nothing to see here, pass on by. Even in the angle of her head we get the idea she's not looking at us—that is, at the camera—from behind those sunglasses.

Of course, all this could be exactly what the photographer is examining and wants us to look at. I'm not criticizing.

Airless
Understand, I'm not the authority over anyone but me, but I have a right to encounter photographs as myself and to honor my own reaction—one of my basic principles is embodied in a phrase I wrote decades ago, "I have a right to respond to art as if my encounter with it matters to me." So what I say only applies to me and my own reaction.

However, everything about the technique here, to my eye, intrudes. The tonal scale has that distinctly depressed midrange so common in digital. I call it (as shorthand) "airlessness"—that is, it fights against showing us a sense of atmosphere. It does this by making all the middle values darker. The light ends up not looking real—the light that might have been there got sucked out of the scene by the oppressive tonality. I can't tell what time of day it is except from clues. The background, though readable as context, is unpleasant because the bokeh is jangly and jumpy. It gives the picture an unsettled feeling. Detail is way too hyped-up—back in the days when I hung around with a lot of wannabe Ansels, a friend privately called the style "zippy-zappy zoner sh*t," and the phrase has always stuck in my mind as something to avoid. Of course we're long past the popularity of the Zone System, but Photoshop makes similar looks easier and faster to achieve. In this case the zippy-zappy look draws my eye to meaningless details, such as the fake-fur lining of the coat, the fabric lanyard around her neck that holds her her ID and the words on it. (Have you ever been sitting somewhere bored and find yourself reading gratuitous words that happen to be visible nearby, just because they're there? It always gives me the feeling that I've allowed a particle of junk to enter my brain against my will.) The zipper, the half-seen necklace, all the "cranial accessories" as Mitch Hedberg once called all the stuff we wear on our head. Even the photographer, with her title, seems to be drawing our attention to...the coat lining, which is emphasized by the excessive local contrast.

Or maybe the title's just a handy label. I'm not interested in the coat lining, in any event.

Just for fun I processed the JPEG as if it were my picture, and I tried to de-emphasize the coat lining. (I tried to contact the photographer for permission to show you my version, but she—perhaps wisely!—didn't reply. She's a good photographer, by the way—see for instance her 16 Questions, about a color photograph that's quite successful. She can't help it if one grumpy old former custom printer over in America happens to be allergic to the B&W technique she's chosen. Can't please all the people, etc.)

All of this might be intentional on the part of the photographer, but it all colludes in making the photograph unappealing for me. YMMV.

Natural
Now compare that with an even simpler shot—formally just a headshot—"Michelle [Happiness]" by Stefan Elf, who might be from Sweden given what little I can find about him. (His website doesn't load for me.) His Photostream shows a much less accomplished and less directed photographer. Leanne Boulton is much more intentional and directed. But as a single image this picture is coherent, integrated, and has much more life. It seems to show a real moment. It engages me in that it seems like a particular moment, and it makes me want to know more about what surrounds this moment—who is this, why is she happy, who is she responding to, what's outside the frame?

I'd be willing to believe that if there were eight frames shot, this one was the one, and none of the others would do.

Technically nothing distracts. There's nothing rote or static in the pose. I like the slight awkwardness—here the slightly off-kilter composition just adds to the sense of immediacy, of the picture's individuality if you will. I don't get the sense that this is just one more exposure among a bunch of similar but slightly different exposures. In "Silver Lining" all I sense is the transaction—"May I take your photo?" "What would you like me to do?" "Just stand there"—followed by six or eight frames from which none truly stands out. Can we help but note that all the young woman's efforts to go unnoticed have gotten her noticed? The best-laid schemes. (I'm being too hard on "Silver Lining," you perceive, just to make my points.) In "Michelle [Happiness]" nothing about the technique intrudes. The depth of field is fine, the tonality is natural, the light is plain, detail is neither unpleasantly etched nor ostentatiously suppressed. To me there's an effortless sense of wholeness about it.

That sense of naturalness, coherence, and integrity is what I like in photographic technique. It should be like ballet dancing—all the effort put into it is only meaningful if the result looks effortless.

I'm me and you aren't
Anyway, this whole thing is just to say—I'm only going by my own value system. Yours might vary considerably. You might hang out with different friends who value different things. You might think every picture is all about how exaggerated and vivid the detail can be, and you might not even think about representing natural light at all—the idea might not even be on your radar. You might be a B&W-hater (they're out there in digiworld.) I don't know. My values aren't the only values, they're just mine.

We are who we are, as viewers as in every other sense.

Mike

P.S. I believe I have the right, according to Fair Use, to publish both of these pictures here—Fair Use specifically allows for works to be quoted for the purpose of commenting on or criticizing them, and that's surely what I've just done. But on the other hand, we're a photography website, and we support photographers, so I like to get permission. I often do receive permission when I try to contact people through Flickr or other sharing sites—just not this month. And sometimes not even next month. Once, a guy took eight months to respond. By then I had long forgotten why I wanted to show his picture in the first place. It's awkward, in other words.

Book o' this Week:
Black in White America 1963–1965 by Leonard Freed, a new reprint of this classic from the Civil Rights era. I got to meet Leonard Freed once. <—This is a portal to Amazon; also available at the Book Depository for global delivery with free shipping.

Original contents copyright 2021 by Michael C. Johnston and/or the bylined author. All Rights Reserved. Links in this post may be to our affiliates; sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.

(To see all the comments, click on the "Comments" link below.)
Featured Comments from:

John Camp: "As you said, YMMV, and mine does. I think the first shot is terrific, and I'm more interested in this kind of work than any other kind of photography, except perhaps some portraiture. That first shot says everything about the world we now inhabit, and it's like a latter-day riff on Edward Hopper—this young woman is as isolated and alone as Hopper's characters, while at the same time she's passing through a busy world. The earbud and sunglasses and hand gestures are classic; she's in her own world, tight, defensive, possibly hostile. The second shot, I would treasure if it were a shot of my daughter. But it's not, so to me, it's a nice snapshot. In cases like this I think YMMV should be changed to EMMV—everybody's mileage may vary."

Chris Hunt: "Question I asked myself while reading this post—so how would you feel about the two photos if the styles were swapped?"

Mike replies: Well, the tl;dr version of this post is that the technique of "Silver Lining" impedes or obstructs my ability to contemplate and appreciate what it shows, while in the second picture the technique seems (to me) to get out of the way. So if the styles were reversed I'd like the first better and the second worse.

In fact, after reading your question, I imagined the second photo with the look of the first imposed on it, and even though I was just seeing it in my mind's eye it actually kind of upset me a little.  :-)

Dave (partial comment): "Re: Who is Bunny and what killed him or her? I prefer the 'Bunny' prose to Hemingway's. Hemingway's example is too full of sentences with nearly the same length. It's just harder to get into a flow when I'm always encountering a period to stop my progress. Additionally, Hemingway has harsher words (hot, Zurito, kicked) which makes it seem more staccato sounding than the 'Bunny' excerpt.

"Re: Intrusions, the photo example with the harsh look surprised me. I had read the entire post before clicking on the photo links. Most digital photos on the web must have that look because I had to think about the points you made before realizing that indeed parts of the photo really were too sharp. The second photo is simply terrific. Great work by Stefan Elf!"

Comments

[Robert Roaldi]

About literary hooks. The Toronto Star Sunday edition used to have an Enigma page, consisting of puzzles, reader submission games, etc. One of them was to write opening spoofs of famous novels. I can only remember one at the moment:

Tale of Two Delis: It was the best of wursts, it was the worst of wursts.

[SteveW]

I've always kind of felt we use language to describe our values. The languages of psychology and religion are two of the dominate forms of language to do so. But any language that we choose can describe values I think, just as you described these photos. (I'd not confuse the language itself with the values themself, if that makes sense).

Thoughtful stuff. Thank you.

[Julian]

“When the phone rang, Parker was in the garage killing a man.” -Richard Stark. I forget which Parker novel this opens.

[Nikhil Ramkarran]

Hook, plus art: “I am an artist,” Wit said. “I should thank you not to demean me by insisting my art must be trying to accomplish something. In fact, you shouldn’t enjoy art. You should simply admit that it exists, then move on. Anything else is patronizing.”

Sanderson, Brandon (via his literary proxy). Rhythm of War (The Stormlight Archive) (p. 920). Tom Doherty Associates. Kindle Edition.

Sorry, not sure that is particularly relevant, but it just makes me laugh every time I read it.

[Rob L.]

In context with the pictures immediately before and after 'Silver Lining', I like the shot more - the isolation that you pointed out is drawn out even more with the surrounding subjects directly engaging with the photographer. Still not a fan of a the tonal palette but there's a story there.

That said - maybe it's a photo-j background, but I love the spontaneous more than the staged. It's a great leveler - a skilled photographer is prepared for serendipity so often can capture these moments - but an amateur that loves the subject has a good chance to get something amazing with some effort. Being a Cub Scout leader, I see several really amazing shots by parents every year, as they catch that magic moment. Facebook isn't ALL bad, for letting me see those.

[Dave Millier]

Mike

I like the way you write, there is an effortless about the way you come up with a theme for a post, then wrap that theme with seeming digressions that eventually come together to support the theme. All the bits end up being interesting. It's a good style.

Talking about style, I found your critique of the images fascinating and useful but...

Although the images featured people, they were not similar. Street photography (with the exception of rare contradictions), tends to be quite messy, and loosely composed as a result of most such work being a kind of "grab" shot. It's rarely work that looks "tight"; it's too off the cuff for that.

The photo of the little girl is a portrait, a different genre, a different look and a different set of challenges from street. It may be a spontaneous portrait (probably is) but often the challenges of a family candid (if that is what it is) are less than shooting street shots of strangers. It's not surprising one exhibits one set of qualities and the other a different set.

I think it would be more interesting to see you apply your insight to a pair of street shots or a pair of portraits, shots with similar challenges where the differences are down to the decisions the photographer has made.

Perhaps a Part 2?

[David Dyer-Bennet]

It's not doing the photo any favors that Flickr is displaying "Silver Lining" enlarged from 319px × 213px to 744px × 496px. ("Michelle [Happiness}" is less damaged by 499px × 336px scaled to 500px × 336px, perhaps surprisingly.)

But my first reaction to my on-screen view of "Silver Lining" is simply "that's not sharp enough". It's that modestly-unsharp level that I used to try to save sometimes (and to my eye shows signs of attempts to sharpen unwisely to fix that). I suspect her outfit presents an interesting range of textures, if the photo weren't so hashed as to make looking at it closely enough to see texture unpleasant.

Whereas the photo of Michelle can quite reasonably be invoked as a poster for happiness. It has the common not-really-open eyes, but it's photographed from a low enough position that you can still tell there are eyes under the lids, which is pretty much necessary for this photo.

[Dave]

Mike,

In re: Who is Bunny and what killed him or her?

I prefer the "Bunny" prose to Hemingway's. Hemingway's example is too full of sentences with nearly the same length. It's just harder to get into a flow when I'm always encountering a period to stop my progress.

Additionally, Hemingway has harsher words (hot, Zurito, kicked) which makes it seem more staccato sounding than the "Bunny" excerpt.

In re: Intrusions

The photo example with the harsh look surprised me. I had read the entire post before clicking on the photo links. Most digital photos on the web must have that look because I had to think about the points you made before realizing that indeed parts of the photo really were too sharp.

The second photo is simply terrific. Great work by Stefan Elf!

One thing I dislike about digital photography is sitting at the computer to make changes. I do enough of that at work. I just make the basic changes if I can't stand how it looks and then leave it alone. With film, I never had to worry about white balance. The printing machine would make corrections automatically, even if you screwed up and used tungsten film outdoors.

[Richard Skoonberg]

Great hooks in books and plays are so important and they have always intrigued me, too. Here are two of my favorite examples:
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez
"Many years later, as he faced the firing squad, Colonel Aureliano Buendia was to remember that distant afternoon when his father took him to discover ice."
The opening line from Hamlet keeps it simple, "Who's there?" Who was there? King Hamlet's ghost seeking revenge.

[James Gaston]

Not photography but you mentioned books so I feel the need to trumpet George Saunders' latest, "A Swim in a Pond in the Rain." It's seven wonderful short stories (Russians, my favorite) encased in Saunders' entertaining observations on writing and the writing process. A fascinating discussion with examples and even some homework.

[Jamie Pillers]

I had a look at Boulton's Flickr photostream just now. The photo you selected is one of a variety of approaches to street photography by Boulton. I'd call this image just one piece of a whole body of work. The image you've selected is a scene I see quite often on the streets and thus consider it a useful description of part of the American street scene.

[Nick]

It's interesting, because I had precisely the opposite reaction! The sharp clarity of the first image gave it a sense of immediacy and reality in my mind. In the second image, some of the technique used there (the intentional lack of sharpness, the desaturated color) was offputting to me, like someone trying a bit to hard to be casual.

My wife and I both do photography as a hobby, and while we agree on a lot, we often find ourselves on completely opposite sides of a given image. Just the other day, I took a picture that I had planned to convert to B&W, but I wasn't thrilled with it. My wife took one look at it, thought it was fantastic, and all but insisted that I leave it in color!

[c.d.embrey]

I'm consistent with with my likes/dislikes. No matter if it's art, literature or music, show me something new or different. Please do not bore me with same-old same-old.

Hemingway could be a parody of himself https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Imitation_Hemingway_Competition At his best Hemingway was a powerful writer.

Most child snapshots and street photography is same-old same-old—seen one and you've seen them all.

Leanne Boulton's Silver Lining isn't just another mindless cliché. Composing the subject walking towards the short side shows intent. BTW she used a Canon EOS 5D Mark III with an EF24-70mm f/2.8L II USM. No fly-on-the-wall shot here, the subject definitely knew she was being photographed.

[John Robison]

What I first noticed was a blurry Scotty in the background, taking some shore leave from the Enterprise engine room.

[Bill Tyler]

In the Hemingway excerpt, that "himself" seems out of place. It's poor grammar, and breaks the flow the passage seems intended to have. In an odd way, it's analogous to some of the technical issues in "Silver Lining".

[John Robison]

Also, I don't know who Bunny is/was but I'm quite sure that Bunny died on a dark and stormy night.

[Timothy Auger]

The Boulton picture seems to suffer from two problems: local clarity applied with a shovel to the main figure, to the extent that she looks almost 'Photoshopped' on to the background; and the background itself is overcooked, and fights the main figure. There's something odd about the background blur too. Every post-processing step applied to this shot needs to be dialled down by half. Of course all this is my interpretation and I may be wrong ...

[Bill Skones]

A vote for the first image. It is certainly in the contemporary style and makes a statement with the coat lining, but I suspect the young woman was making a statement with the coat lining. An interesting photo with lots to look at. Personally the technical details don't bother me much (I am a terrible proof reader.) The second photo is a nice portrait, but nice portraits tend to be boring unless one has a relationship with the subject. I think that is sometimes a weakness of the portrait style you advocate in your previous post.

[Chris Hunt]

Yes, YMMV indeed. Were the styles reversed I think I'd still be drawn to the second picture due to the distinctive subject, but on further reflection beyond that initial glance would be disappointed with a style that didn't match (or clashes with) subject. I probably have spent too much time in downtown urban areas - the first picture doesn't really register with me regardless of rendering technique.

Mainly I was musing on your point and wondered to myself how much the subject can override my preferences on style. I guess it really all does come down to YMMV.

[Bear.]

I'm with Mr Camp entirely. Would your opinion be different if you found out that the first photo was not digital but had been produced on film? Put another way, to what extent are you basing your dislike upon preconceived notions as to what you think B&W photography should look like from your film experiences as opposed to what it is actually saying?

BTW I've never understood this whole bokeh thing. I understand if an OOF area distracts from composition, etc.; an image (or part of it) is either in focus, or not; intentionally, or not; and the focus/OOF either adds or detracts from the image, or not. But the whole "quality" of bokeh thing? Meh. If it's OOF then the way the OOF area is rendered is NOT intended to be critical examined. Really, how can anyone even care?

My favourite opening is that of the Big Sleep by Raymond Chandler - which (for me) says it all and nothing more. "It was about eleven o'clock in the morning, mid October, with the sun not shining and a look of hard wet rain in the clearness of the foothills. I was wearing my powder-blue suit, with dark blue shirt, tie and display handkerchief, black brogues, black wool socks with dark blue clocks on them. I was neat, clean, shaved and sober, and I didn't care who knew it. I was everything the well-dressed private detective ought to be. I was calling on four million dollars."

[McD]

Silver Linings looks unnatural and very cold to me, disturbingly so. Was that the intent?

[Don Craig]

Re: Silver Lining. This is a discussion we get into at Camera Club sometimes, where a photograph has indirect significance but we’re not allowed descriptions or titles, so those not in the know don’t get it. The woman is Black, and she lives and works in Glasgow. This is a new and hopeful migration that began in the 1960’s into what at the time was a highly bigoted whites-only inner city. This photograph needs to be considered in that context. Pretend Robert Frank took the photograph with modern equipment, and then complain about his misuse of the zone system. And yes, Frank was a better photographer, but still...

[longviewer]

I read 'the Jester' by Michael J Sullivan soon after its 2014 release. Now I've read pretty much everything he has written - 'hook' indeed!

free book/audio download - https://riyria.blogspot.com/p/thank-you-for-your-interest-in-my.html

Warning: it's a 'fantasy'/buddy story so definite mileage variance :^)

[JOHN B GILLOOLY]

The two pictures: I'm not that bothered by the treatment of the first shot but there just isn't much there for me in terms of the "street photograph." It's nice. She has a strong face and there is a fashion element. But in the end it's a person on the street walking, isolated a bit with shallow DOF. You can sit down with your back on a pole and shoot this all day - I've done it for 30 minutes here and there. But something extra-ordinary needs to happen to turn it into a great photo. Could be strange and unique character, a wild reaction, some juxtaposition of people and things.

The second shot - I agree with John Camp here, but maybe enjoy it a bit more. It's a nice shot of your kid. A nice genuine moment that gives some insight into a personality, an age, a moment in time. I like it for that, even though she's not my own kid. I like that genre.

[Michael Farley]

I prefer critique. Too many negative connotations for criticize.

[John Y]

Hi Mike,

It’s invaluable to get this kind of critique you gave to these 2 photos. I’ll be seventh heaven if someone can look at my photos and tell me how and why they hate the tones and the compositions. (Any tips how to get critique?)

[Rube]

It just goes to (maybe) prove your point: I don't like either shot particularly.

Rube

[Speed]

One is a photograph of a young woman at a moment in time. The other is a photograph of a young woman in her (and possibly our) world.

[David Smith]

I wonder if you are reacting more to the content of the pictures: the welcoming, open face of the child, vs. the wary expression of the young woman being 'ambushed' by a street photographer (this is of course speculation, but that's what it conveys to me).

I kinda sorta see what you are saying about the dark tonality of the picture of the young woman ... except I don't trust the rendering of some random flikr jpeg on my display, or anyone else's, super-fancy calibration be damned (full disclosure: mine ain't).

We don't know if the photographer was trying to underscore a mood and perhaps over-egged it in post, or it got lost in jpeg translation. Whatevs, eh?

I don't particularly like either picture though, I find them both pretty meh as examples of their respective genres.

"I tried to contact the photographer [...]." -- If I had a nickel every time. There's this tendency for photographers to comport themselves as unavailable, unaccountable and 'above-the-fray' to riff raff like you and me -- I've experienced it myself on multiple occassions, and, exceptionally, I have received lovely and intelligent responses from some few.

Suffice to say, ignoring queries and feedback (good or bad) ain't a good look.

[Luke]

Wow. The Bunny example reminds me of actors I don't like, who always make me think: "I'm pretending to be my character now, I'm acting out the lines".

The Hemingway example reads like real life. I don't even notice the choppy sentences, and I want to know what happens next.

The Bunny sentence just makes me think: "here's a hook I have crafted, so you will want more". It is way too obviously crafted to achieve effect.

I don't feel Hemingway is "writing down" at all. It takes skill to make the words get out of the way, and let the story happen.

[Dogman]

Actually I like the technical quality of both photos referenced. But, jeez, one of the things I really enjoy about digital B&W photography is the great tonality of images instead of the detail-lacking high contrast often seen in film images. Now shooters want to emulate film with software that really makes their photos look awful in a lot of cases.

I recall using Tri-X because it had a good range of tone, processing it in highly diluted Rodinal with a careful measure of sodium sulfite to get a thin negative that printed with a wide range of tones on #3 paper without a huge amount of grain. I was never a great printer but I liked the look. For newspaper assignments, it was speed that mattered. We processed Tri-X in a deep tank of DK-50 (affectionally referred to as "DK-grain") full strength for a couple of minutes. The negatives were usually pretty wretched but we could get a print out quickly that reproduced well on newsprint. It's odd to me that today people bust their buns and spend their money to make the photos look like the latter.

[John Krumm]

This makes me think it's time for another round of "How I Process Digital Photos To Get The Black and White Tones I Want" posts. I always learn a lot when you do that.

[Rodolfo Canet Castelló]

Once I see haloes in one photograph, I cannot look anywhere else. I must asume it’s a compression artifact or else “Silver lining” is unprintable for my taste.

[David Dyer-Bennet]

If I click through to the Silver Lining photo from the photographer's photostream I get a much less hashed version than I do following the link from the article here. Most of my negative comments do not apply to that version.

[Kye Wood]

You describe the subjects as black females. If they were mexican or asian, presumably you would have identified them by those terms too.

It's strange that if they were white anglo saxon women, they would just have been female. No?

Just an observation and not a criticism Mike.

[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qArvBdHkJA
--Mike]

[-et-]

One more example of a first page "hook":

"On my 75th birthday I did two things.

I visited my wife's grave. Then I joined the Army."

From "Old Man's War", by John Scalzi.

- Tom -

[Brian]

This kind of article is why I read you every day, and "patreon"ize you.

Thank you.

[Clay Olmstead]

Boulton's Flikr photostream shows a range of techniques, which tells me that the exhilarating / upsetting quality of the Silver Lining photo is being used to support her intention.
That begs the question, "Why?" To reflect the subject's mood? To amplify the viewer's perceived reaction? To make us stop and look, so we will wonder why someone would dress to attract attention, then shut herself off from the outside world?
The ambiguity raises this photo above the ordinary and makes it art. The discussion raises TOP above the ordinary and makes it essential.