[Zig]

Thank you for your spot-on thoughts Jules: have included the unmarked image as reference now. Also, I'd agree that much of this is tailored or skewed towards landscape considerations, and it was with that thought that I submitted the post....yet I'd warrant that much also pertains to other studies and portraits. In many succesful studies or portraits there are considered placements of objects, iterations of tone and planes.
I'd also suggest emphatically that many successful "landscapes" are not merely representational captures, but explorations of mood and comments/reflection upon the photographer's or the "human" condition; likewise, many portraits work also as social or political statements, explorations of "individual and the universe", and a host of other things. I reckon for that very reason, my own "landies" are only rarely photographically representational...instead, I'm aware that often I attempt to merely make use of what is physically "there", in an attempt to communicate that which visibly "isn't".
I was also about to slap my forehead and say, of course, I forgot to mention a strong subject...but as I think of this I'm not sure how true this is...? I reckon a viewer's attention can be captured in other ways than via a subject...I've seen many textural explorations that are seemingly subjectless, yet engage the viewer in different ways and ask different things of the viewer such as a consideration of what the photographer is trying to say(which might be above and beyond the immediate artistic context within the image).