Thanks Karen and Matej. The light in the gallery is in fact very pink - a strange unnatural light it seems to me, for such a place.
The picture on the wall, is a bit of torn fabric mounted on white board under glass and was part of a large exhibition which completely failed to move me, so bored with the presentation, I wandered around looking for things to photograph.
It is interesting Matej, that you interpreted this as longevity versus transience. That is fine with me, but I saw it more as a contrast between the deadness of the pretentious art hanging on the wall and the vibrancy of the living breathing spectator passing by. In my version, the girl is turning away from the art rejecting it the same way I had.
My title refers to my bemused sense of what constitutes modern art.
Attached is the original uncropped photo which reveals a second spectator and more of the room.
I like the idea in this photo; the static, lasting piece of art, and the moving, temporary audience.
The crop is just right.
The pinkish tone doesn't particularly appeal to me, I think there is a bit too much of it. Obviously the wall painting couldn't have been altered, but perhaps waiting for someone differently dressed, with less bare skin, would give the photo more contrast colourwise. Of course, this entire pinkness issue is a matter of taste, so the important thing is whether YOU like it.
Was the piece on the wall covered with glass? I think I see reflections there - perhaps a polirising filter would serve well to get rid of those.
0 
{K:24381} 5/10/2003