Thanks for the kind comments Doug, John, Cem, Jim. The old photo of the girl is indeed timeless, as Jim points out. The name of the photographer is lost in history but he/she most likely had a studio in Thunder Bay, Ontario. The photograph was pretty battered and needed quite a bit of Photoshop restoration.
The image is part of a series, Cem and John, some of which are on earlier OPF links:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=20939#post20939 and
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3804.
Those images are as follows.
All the images in the series have a psychological theme: What is the person thinking and feeling behind the mask of a fairly neutral facial expression? They all coalesce technically because of B/W presentation and the inclusion of scanned objects (the young woman by the cars is a scan of a plaster-of-Paris statuette).
Although I adhere loosely to the doctrine that "art should stand on its own", Doug, that doesn't mean a photograph is not art if it benefits from text - the 'art object' then becomes the image plus text. There's lots of precedents for that view. Is multimedia not art because it combines different components? I agree with you that such debate is doomed. My take is that what we call art provides an interpretive context that the image maker may hint at, but in the end it's the viewers discretion.
Thanks again
Mike