I was rooting through a box of books in the garge this morning (I have an allergy to sleeping it seems) and I found a book of Jim Morrison's poetry. There was a quote on the back cover (not exact): "Listen, real poetry doesn't say anything. It opens doors an the reader can walk through any one that suits him."
I like that and I would like to think that my photography works the same way.
While knowing the intent of the photographer can be very helpful in interpreting the image or understanding it, I would disagree that the intent should have to be told to the viewer. The photo, I think, should say this on its own with absolutely no explanation from anyone. I learned this early on when I got serious about writing. I got tired of having to explain my stories or other works to people who didn't understand. I complained about this to my creative writing teacher (12th grade) and she said "You stories should explain themselves for the reader. The only questions your readers should ask you are the questions you want them to ask." This stuck with me and dramatically improved my writing.
When I was doing photography in a news capacity it became essential to make each photo tell the whole story on its own. I didn't want to make someone wade through 500 or a thousand words on a story- I wanted them to look at the photo and know exactly what the story was about, or ask themselves "What is this story about? That picture is interesting. I think I'll read this one."
My photography since then has been a mix of Steve's ideas of expression and depiction. I think I express myself through photography by depicting those scenes I find emotionally moving. I do not feel that contrived scenes are my bag. I would rather walk up on a weird scene and take photos of it than make a weird scene and take photos of it. Reality is so much more entertaining than fiction... if you pay attention...