I hope there's not an assumption that explanatory information, when provided, is necessarily done to make pictures meaningful and interesting. Explanatory information can be meaningful and interesting on its own, accompanying a photo. The photo can still be the photo, with or without accompanying information. It's up to the viewer whether they want to impose that information on the photo and to what extent and whether they want to allow it to supplement, add to, subtract from or otherwise distract themselves from whatever it is they're doing when they're looking at a photo. Those who want to view photos in a vacuum can try as hard as they like, but there will always be a context in which the photo is found. Simply posting a photo in a thread with a particular theme already makes a statement and adds meaning to a photo. What if it does? Life makes all kinds of things meaningful in different ways. If I see a picture of a beautiful sunset and it makes me cry because I just came back from a friend's funeral, have I somehow illegally added something to the photo that makes it more meaningful. Let photos live. Let photographers who supplement their photos with words live. Deal with the morass. It's what God intended.