John, as I tried to explain to Paul, I obviously didn't communicate very well in that first post - it's more a question of whether the photographs work for me as a whole or whether they just strike me as using a novel technique to not much effect. A few of them really work for me as a whole, with the technique adding to them and helping make them work. But a lot of them don't.
To me, having people in photos as sort of ghosts, with some portions of them clear and still and other parts moving and barely discernible, is more of an interesting technique than a deep artistic statement. You can use it to create interesting art, but a lot of times it's nothing more than a sort of novel technique, until the novelty wears off. When I first had a camera with Olympus's amazing 5-axis IBIS system I did a bunch of this type of shooting, not all in B&W and without a particular message or statement in mind. A few of them ended up being photographs I really liked as photographs, with the motion and ghosting and portions that were just still enough at the right moment to stand out as somehow more real or permanent really working with the overall subject matter and compositions. One or two of them may have even made statements, although they were "found" statements, nothing I set out in advance to "say". But there were a whole lot more of them that just seemed like an interesting technique without adding up to anything as photographs. And when I look at these photographs that Paul linked to, a few of them really work for me as photographs, with the technique enhancing the image. But a lot of them don't - they just strike me as a novel technique used to the point where the novelty has worn off and the photograph has to live or die on it's overall merits and FOR ME, a lot of them don't.
I also can't make photographs or look at them with a desire to communicate or discern an intent, or an attempt at a statement. If a photograph or group of photographs strikes me as making a strong statement, it strikes me. If I have to go looking for it and thinking about what the artist was "trying" to say, the artist has failed to say it clearly enough. Clearly enough for me at least. But art is in the eye of the beholder, and I am but a single beholder for whom a few of these work and a lot of them don't.
I do agree with Paul's statement, though, that there's a big difference between viewing a very controlled gallery or museum exhibition and viewing a document dump on the internet. I might have a very different feeling about these if viewed in small groups in a gallery or museum. Or I might have had a different feeling about them if I'd viewed them on a different day in a different mood. I am a single beholder, but I may behold differently at different times...
-Ray