Isnt "I think" a personal bias and conclusion?
Of course, thinking is personal. It cannot be otherwise.
But is anything personal necessarily biased?
Can I not be personal yet objective? (in contrast to subjective)
"the art is to let people see things - either intended or not - but of significance, just in and of the image or picture itself."
So isnt this a conclusion made of your own opinion and not mine nor others?
Certainly!
But if you are trying to
communicate this significance, then others have to arrive at the
same conclusion of its significance as you had.
Or else either you have seen something other than that inherent or others are not enlightened enough. And in part the onus and purpose of art and the artist is to bring about such enlightenment. Or you may simply ignore the unenlightened mass and let your work speak for themselves, perhaps after you are dead and gone, eg van Gogh, etc.
As i personally feel it may have just trampled the art of typography within an art work itself.
I think the "art of typography" is something else altogether and it is not the same as "adding words". But really I am not sure what you are saying.
For one it leads your viewer to see something when they could have seen other things."
Is this statement contradicting to what you have said ...
If a picture is at least a thousand words how can you possible say it all? So certainly there are things left out and unsaid, no matter how much is said about it, or seen in it. So there is no contradiction that a viewer sees more than what I can say - or saw - in a picture.
Care to tell me what "BAD ART" is if it wasn't based on a personal preferance and purely on the actual original intent and technicalities of the author?
Lets take a parallel example of music.
There are good music and bad music. There are popular music and there are music that you can listen over and over again and always hear something new and refreshing. The latter is the kind of quality in good art. It speaks to you in some fundamental way that is eternally relevant, edifying and fulfilling. Bad art do not have such a quality.
And these qualities may have no correlation to the artist's intent nor technical skills. The latter are merely hygiene factors and entirely insufficient.