Is it part of the learning-to-be-a-photographer process to re-take all of the iconic images that we have poured over in books and museums? How many photos of the falling-down barn in the Tetons does the world need? Do we think that our camera will capture some never before seen viewpoint? If you look through the ads for location-based photography workshops, it would seem that re-creation is a rite of passage. You will never be able to call yourself a "photographer" until you have this (fill-in-the-blank) experience in your portfolio.
Ralph Waldo Emerson said "Art is not to be found by touring to Egypt, China, or Peru; if you cannot find it at your own door, you will never find it." That thought makes things a bit more complicated, doesn't it? You mean I can't book a photo-junket to (fill-in-the-blank) and bring home fabulous pictures that will make me famous? Eh?
Someone recently sent these words to me:
To me there are three kinds of photos :
1) Documentary - I was here and I saw this place, person or thing
2) Snapshot - I was here with so and so and we were having fun.
3) Composed photo - I was here and saw this in this particular way or I was affected this way or want to show how this makes me feel or this is an interesting pattern and my skills allow me to express what I see.
Your photos are in the last category. They allow us to see the pattern in an interesting way (the underside of the colored umbrella - the bands of color and the black ribs), the beauty of a Maine Coon through light and shadow. The sunset with power lines through it. Most people would either skip it or not know how to make it interesting - you made it interesting.
These words give me much encouragement.