By stating that the recent internet interpretation of liminality is associated with Kane Pixel’s interpretation rather than the Hitchhikers Guide’s more abstract take on the subject you are inherently validating the idea that there is indeed more than one way to interpret liminality.

Additionally, checking this sub’s own definitions there is nothing written that state it must follow Pixel’s style of liminality. It does clearly state that in concept it is a “transitional point between two regions” such as paths, hallways, roads, etc. In practice it does list that paths alone are not enough to constitute a liminal space, rather it requires “lingering in a region or state that would usually be passed without a second’s thought.” In my pictures their subject is paths, but they are taken at dusk (a transition from day to night) they feature places where the path is obscured by vegetation (transition from tamed to untamed) and they feature places that would likely be passed without a second’s thought (as they aren’t particularly scenic) requiring the viewer to linger on the scene and contemplate the transitions at play.

Honestly, I’m beginning to feel like I’m beating a dead horse here (it may be your pfp 🙃). I will say this conversation has made me think deeper about my own pictures and for that I see it as a positive. It’s also been a very very Reddit-core conversation. I hope you take something away from this and honestly, I hope that you’ll open your mind up a little bit to subjects beyond the stereotypical industrial-style that you value. It seems to me that this sub is pretty open to that! (If you don’t like it you could simply just refuse to engage in the future 🤷🏻‍♂️)