Well said, Cheryl.

At the risk of highjacking this thread, I'll try to direct attention to a crtic "of the first order", someone whose critique I would welcome and be grateful for; Clement Greenberg.
I had not read him for some time now ... and refreshing my memory reminds me of how he did stand head and shoulders above the "usual ..." sorry, but the only fitting description I can think of is "incoherent" crowds of critics. Googling for Clement Greenberg works well.

Now ... with pre-aplogies ...

An Epiphany:

In this last hiatus from the scene (broken hip + rehab) I read Alyssa East's book, Dogtown: Death and Enchantment in New England.

In it, she discusses the work of the "Black Mountain Poets" and more specifically, Charles Olsen, who established a new branch (genre?) called "Projective Verse" - rejecting writing according to the classical or "academic" principles - meter, line, form and meaning. He favored writing "open" verse according to the poet's breath, the sound of language, the openness of the page, or "field", and letting content dictate form.

For me there was only a very slight "bridge" between poetry and photography - or for that matter - ANY art.

I have studied the "rules" for many decades ... and suddenly I am confronted with Olsen's main idea:

"Poetry (photography) is not meant to be contained structures; they are meant to project and transfer their subject's energy to the "reader"."

It has taken a while to absorb such a massive change to my "vision" - but my vision HAS changed!