I get very disturbed when reading art criticism with the reviwer going off the deep end talking about what the photographer was thinking etc. It is perfectly fine if they are quoting the photographer whose work is receiving critical inspection. It is also fine to add actual fact to such a review.
Often am I convinced that the reviewer does not have a clue as to about the work receiving criticism. I also dislike the tendency of some reviewers to use esoteric terminology instead of plain language.
I am also not a fan of photographers who use words to add substance to the photograph as if to add by verbage burning, dodging and toning.. They are some photographers who, when writing about their work, seem to be wholly qualified to be writing fiction.
Just the photo without a great deal of pretentious baloney suits me just fine.
The fact that I know nothing about Leonardo's intentions regarding Mona Lisa takes away nothing from my appreciation of it. All though it would be interesting to know for whom he made the painting, whether or not Moma Lisa was a real person and other information.