The difficulty of judging a photograph, and any work of art, has led most of those involved (teachers, journalists, art critics, gallery owners) to start from the artist's intention, in short, what they wanted to say, what kind of photograph they wanted to create, and to judge whether they ultimately achieved it. This would be absolutely correct in applied photography. Applied photography implies a goal. In reality, however, in art, the intention rarely aligns with the outcome. As Picasso said, we all start with something and end up with something else. In other words, the result surprises even the artist themselves. And that is what is important. The process between the initial intention and what emerges should have undergone a truly significant abstract transformation that occurs with the presence and mediation of the artist. Therefore, I would never ask a photographer showing me their work what they wanted to say, what they wanted to show, or even what they think they showed with what they did. Because the artwork should say much more than what the artist possibly had in mind. This great difficulty, in photography, becomes even greater because it is absolutely capable of supporting an argument, a message, by its very nature. That's why it is the quintessential tool of advertising. Of course, if in olden times advertising itself was the opponent of art, today advertising has become one with art. It's something I disagree with, not despising advertising, but simply because advertising does not accommodate abstraction, transcendence, metaphors. Precisely in advertising, the original intention must be applied with reverence and result in an outcome that reflects the initial intention. Conversely, in art, the outcome must be a surprise relative to the initial intention.