So there is no social or political comment to be gathered from any photos posted in this thread. Nothing worthwhile here?
Wow, you're in full drama mode, aren't you!
Seriously, Don, you'll have to work harder than that to read any comment of the sort in what I wrote. I was talking about the discussion regarding "New Topography", more specifically, Arthurwg comments, i.e., the "movement" as it appeared following the original exhibit.
The point here being that if you want to be true
to the original meaning of New Topography, i.e., photographs of a man-altered landscape, you have to show both the landscape
and the alteration. Again:
if you want to be true to the original meaning.
I was also pretty clear in my post (did you read it all the way?) in mentioning that the original meaning of "New Topography" has been replaced by another meaning, from "man-altered landscape" to "man-made landscape", that is, one in which there is no longer tension between the natural (or wilderness) and the artificial.
Now there are some really fine pictures in that style, and many in this thread. That some embed in their New-"New Topography" social or political comment is quite possible, although little of this has been mentioned in the thread by those who posted photographs. The only thing is that, for obvious reasons, that social and/or political comment will be different than the original one.