My response to the comments:
DPP-1: The only comment concerned the fact that it was flat and dull, so met the requirement of the title, no comment on the concept of the ghost of a tree - guess it was a poor idea.
DPP-2: This was seen as a good punchy image and interesting. However, I still think the first image was far more interesting as a piece of "art", this is more technical.
DPP-3: Big experiment for me this one, never attempted B&W before, so was pleased to have it described as a very competent night shot - suggestion was made for the following crop:
I liked the second line of windows, but am happy to concede this to greater knowledge and experience.
DPP-4: This was simply seen as not very interesting, although meeting the brief. Not sure how to respond here, I really like this photograph - it is meant to be abstract, a pattern of colour, not truly representative. The problem here is that I cannot really improve it based on the comments.
DPP-5: This was the most disappointing feedback, I really thought this was a good image, tying well into cubism and abstract art. I did not make it as punchy as I could have to keep the contrast down, however, still felt it was interesting. What I find hard is that there was no reference in the response to the artistic versus technical intent, other than that the image had not much of interest.
DPP-6: Possibly the best image feedback and objectively the best of the images - strangely I nearly left this one out. The suggestion was the addition of a person, however, as shooting into a building like this is quasi legal in Germany, discretion was needed.
I do not set out to criticize my tutors comments, I value them and the process of development that they should trigger. What I do struggle with is that in this course in particular it is very difficult to understand from the assignment briefs what is needed. I am beginning to think that this course requires a very technical approach providing images with a much greater degree of cleanliness, avoiding too much reference outside of the direct reading of the photograph. In essence a modernist approach. In this assignment, I think I have attempted something of post-modernism, trying to imbue the photographs with other layers of meaning that depend upon the accompanying text, not simply the image.
Should an image be divorced from the context of the artists intent? Perhaps, but then it does very much depend on why the image was created and how it is used.
The bottom line is that three of my chosen photographs were essentially boring - I accept that and will move on, but first let me present 3 more that would replace those that were seen as dull, images that carry more punch and meaning. All of the additional images were shot as part of the preparation for this assignment, they were discarded at edit, wrongly!
DPP2-1: Low Contrast
Whilst this is a very brightly lit image the contrast is low as all is similarly lit!
DPP2-4 High Contrast
This is a wider view of the same building, the contrast now being built between the silver and blue - I really liked this one, but thought it too boring.
DPP2-5 Low Contrast - replaced with Mixed Lighting
This was on my list for a long time, only rejected very late on - another reflection based image, contrasting the interior artificial lighting with the dying sun in the reflected building.
So, not the greatest assignment, thoughts must now turn to assignment 3 and the descent into darkness!