In the spirit of howlers, let me just pick a few lines more or less at random:
This new rule is in clear conflict with the very essence of photography, which is that ALL photographs are both self-explanatory, self truthful, and self-contained.
Simply asserting that photographs are both [sic] self-explanatory, self truthful, and self-contained doesn't make it true, and this is a point of view with which virtually everyone who's thought about art at all disagrees with. No art is self-explanatory, it exists (at least) in a social context which is required to make it meaningful. "Self truthful" doesn't seem to mean anything at all. I can be self-truthful because I contain systems, like ethical ideas, ideals, and so on, and I can choose to act in ways that conflict with (not self-truthful) or are aligned with (self-truthful) those systems. In order to be self-truthful, a photo must contain something to be truthful to, as well as something which can be truthful or not be truthful to it. This seems like rather a lot to ask of a picture. Perhaps RG simply means that the various ideas and tropes in the image should be aligned and pointing in the same direction? A lack of self-contradiction? If so, this is simply wrong. Sometimes the point of the image is the internal contradiction. Self-contained is true only in the most literal sense, art without, for instance, a viewer is as best pointless and at worst not art at all.
More to the point, the photograph is an explanation of time and space itself.
Does this even mean anything? I kind of thought the general theory of relativity was an explanation of space and time itself, but I'm not really seeing how a photograph could be.
A thing which can't explain itself can not therefore be a photograph.
Again, not really understanding what this could mean. Does he mean "a successful photograph"? Or is he asserting that a photographic print that doesn't explain itself is something other than a photograph? The use of the word "therefore" appears to be simply for weight, since this is just the contrapositive of his silly assertion that photographs are self-explanatory. In short, he's repeating himself, using Logic Words, to make it seem as if he's making an argument instead of just being repetitive.
But that statement doesn't carry with it the idea that every viewer will understand or accept the explanation offered in the photograph.
Now this means something, and is a reasonable thing to say. Is this what this entire mass of words has been driving towards? I honestly cannot tell.
The photograph IS...whilst the viewer APPROACHES.
Certainly a photograph IS. Sometimes, a viewer APPROACHES. But a viewer also IS. More importantly, what does this distinction of verbs have to do with anything?
One wonders if RedwoodGuy is a philosopher. This is precisely the kind of word salad that Nietzsche and those guys are so fond of. In general, Nietzsche's writing doesn't mean anything, and when it does produce a sentence that accidentally means something, that something is wrong. RG seems to be a step up from there, since of the sentences that seem to actually mean something, several of them are right.