Please don't let this turn into the likes of the thread on artist statements.

Is it arrogance? Figuring if the viewer does not "get it" then that is their problem. Is it lazyness? Do we just not think about it?

In the thread on charging too much Brooks makes mention of the "story" of the image or the artist. I have been doing a lot of thinking about this lately as I had a conversation with a painter where the "story" came up a lot a couple weeks ago.

I have seen painters talk for a long time about their paintings and why did what they did. I have never seen or heard of a photographer do this. I am sure they are out there.

A painter I respect greatly came into my classroom and saw a photograph I took. He asked about it. I thought he did not see what the subject was, stupid me. He wanted the story and he even phrased it that way after I told him what the subject was. I hardly remembered taking the image I told him that. He told me he thought I was more serious about my art than that. After some discussion I came to realize that the story is extremely important, not just BS put on paper or in a talk to sell the images. Over the last coupple of weeks it has become the why of the image, and if I cannot communicate it to someone how can I expect someone to "get it" on their own.