Photographers often fear that their work will not be understood. It's a comprehensible, human, and logical fear. However, we must set it aside. Because if they make the mistake of explaining their work verbally, they negate half of its virtues, leading the viewer in only one direction. This makes the work of a professional photographer opposite to their own photography, which should remain abstract, transcendent, personal, offering the viewer the possibility to enjoy it from their own perspective. Ideally, a group of viewers enjoying a photograph should experience it through different paths. Often, photographers make another mistake, not always out of ill intent but usually due to inability, to accompany their exhibitions with biographies that are unrelated to their specific identity. It does not benefit them to ramble about their beliefs or their life activities, which will obviously be more extensive if they are older, as it shows that they are struggling to invoke the biography to help them communicate with the viewer. The biography should contain elements that help the viewer approach the photograph, if they are helpful. No more details from the photographer's life are needed than those concerning the viewer. The viewer does not confront the artist as a person but as a creator behind the work they see. We do not need to know about the author's life, except out of curiosity or literary interest. The life of the author is his books. Finally, this context includes other weaknesses and fears of photographers, such as their excessive concern for the "presentation" of the photograph. A photograph must respect its simplicity and its poverty as a medium. I think, without being absolute about it, that it cannot bear the weight of music, poetry, a rich frame, or a grand presentation. It would be like denying what it truly is, namely a very small and simple trace, forcing you to take it seriously to see all that it conceals.