The question of why did you take or make this photograph, already announces a major shift in how we have interpreted photography over it's rather short history. As making a photograph, was in and of itself not much of a paradigm in the vocabulary of photographers.

We still do not "make" the photograph, as one would make a painting, or a ceramic pot where the content is a total fabrication. The making in this instance is more akin to how we compose images in our brain, as in memory reconstructions. We create layers of various origins and place these in the context of what and how we perceive reality, but in essence they were all photographic in their origin.

This image is a representation of what would otherwise be a story, as told by ancestors who recreate myths of events that allegedly occurred at some moment in time.

As to my feelings when I made the photograph, the closest I recall, is the freedom I then experienced because I had the tools with which to represent with photographic images situations which had eluded me before.

I have my serious doubts as to what we call the "message" in a photograph. The reason is that any viewer decodes the image according to her or his culture or education, leaving any specific content relegated to the heap of good intentions. As long as the so called "message" becomes decoded according to each his own, we can surely not talk of specific messages with regard to a photograph, thus placing the intentionality of a message within a photograph very much as an open question. Maybe the charm of photography is precisely this lack of possible specificity.