<OK, to me the connection was just the use of lots of more or less incidental lines to build a structure. In Bob´s case, they are mainly diagonals, while Stieglitz used them to split the image plane into fragments. In either case, the structure may not be apparent to a casual viewer, and possibly not even to the photographer himself at the time, but possibly it was a subconscious part of what made Bob> Ah ... yes, in that sense you have it in one. "Incidental lines" as you accurately describe them are something I always relate to in a scene. But then again, for me I believe the background of a picture is at least half of its success. Something in seemingly disorganised patterns registers and - possibly as in this case - is often what makes me take a shot that in other settings I would pass by. Maybe its finding some order there I find the challenge - sometimes I even forget what most people would consider as "the subject". Repeating David's advice to "get closer". I understand that but, cropping in, for me the picture disappears. It becomes just a bloke reading a paper: last year's paper at that. I didn't expect many to like it as is - I put it in the gallery to see if I was the only one. But the chairs, the white lines of the building and even the yellow "you are on CCTV" sign (*) in the background were part of the image I saw. The latter (the sign) I could have easily cloned out but it's part of the absurd clutter of life. Thanks again for looking and thanks for pointing me to Steerage. Bob (*) Is it only in the UK you have to warn crooks that they are being recorded on camera? It's bizarre.
