I thought that might be the most likely reaction. I had persuaded myself that the picture was about shapes and colours and that her shape fitted into that better than including her face. It was quite a challenge in here as the passageways between stalls were very narrow and there was always something in the way (no excuse). I used live view a lot to help see over and under various objects. Seconds later and this would have been a non-picture.
This has a lot going for it with the color and interesting shades and all, but my first reaction was also wanting to see the lady's face in the gap between the shades.
The deliberate obscuration of the lady's face hit me immediately. Then the wondering why because that kind of compositional tool is normally associated with a strong message, social, political or similar. I don't get that message so the question remains why? (Only looking at the image not your comment)
I would love to see her face as well (no strong message). I still feel that the orange shape of her upper torso, in contrast to his large round head, fits into the overall composition but recognize that her mystery is not enough.
I find that this becomes a color abstraction with some identifiable subjects that push-pull your understanding, especially if I sit back and squint at this image on my monitor. I think that the profile of the man's face brings it all together.
A miss for me too. It's all down to the face of the lady in orange. It's a shame as all the other elements work well together and there are tiny snippets of interest in a number of places: the lampshade holder bottom right being a good example.
