Maybe. It's possible too it would take something away. As it is we're left to wonder and we would of course lose that.

As I recall, Feynman made a comment in one of his autobiographies about an argument he had had with an artist friend about the beauty of a rose. His friend was frustrated with Feynman's reductionist approach to everything including the rose. Paraphrasing Feynman: "How does knowing more about how a rose works take away from its beauty?"

I wonder if Feynman understood that naivety is a thing you can lose or if he understood that but did not see any value in naivety, mystery.

Perhaps a counterpoint to Feynman: "When I Heard the Learned Astronomer".

I think not. I enjoyed looking for details, for example how a backpack is clean in one photo and dirty in the other. Not knowing the details let's the viewer ponder and compair with more curiosity and intrigue. It sets a mystery.

art is not editable. but I believe that cameras are not prohibitivly expensive, corners where many comuters pass are likely close to where you are, and your time is your own, so feel free to produce another similar art piece, with anotations of your choice, and in 8 or 9 years you can publish it. have fun!

"From 2007 to 2016 Funch carried out his project 42nd and Vanderbilt in which he captures the same person twice, mid-commute, leaving the viewer to wonder if they were photographed days, months, or even years apart."