I do have a lot of thoughts about it, and I can sketch them out here. I was hoping you could simply expand on what you meant when you said "And the photographer is being revealed a bit too." but that is evidently not to be.
I think that when people say things like that one of a couple of things is going on, sketched out here in a list of of overlapping possibilities:
1) they are responding to an apparent style. What they mean is 'I think the photographic choices made here are distinctive, and I feel I would recognize other work by this photographer'
1a) If the photographer is well known, this expands to a sensation that the photograph carries information about the photographer, but this is an illusion. The style connects the work to the photographer, and memory connects the photographer to things known about the photographer. All the photograph has is the style, nothing more about the photographer.
2) the photograph, somehow, evokes a response in the viewer that feels like "knowing" the photographer. There's a bunch of ways this might happen. None of them actually carries any information about the photographer, the sensation of "knowing" is illusory.
3) the photograph is shot in a way that feels somehow "first person" and places the photographer/viewer in some scene with some evocative material in it. A photograph might reasonably be, one imagines, about "sorrow" let us say. A first person point of view constructed through camera angles and some placement of objects in the frame might make the photograph evoke a notion of "the photographer's sorrow" and thereby lead one to imagine that the photographer is sorrowful. This sort of thing can happen by accident or by design. Regardless, again the sensation of "knowing" the photographer is an illusion.
4) some 4th, 5th, and so things which I have not yet apprehended.
Note that in no case that I have been able to determine does a piece of art in any meaningful way reveal the artist beyond the relatively trivial statement that "I chose to make this".
There is of course one more possibility, which is that talking about how the work "reveals the artist" is a smart-sounding bit of nonsense that sometimes will get the rubes thinking that you're a clever fellow, if they're dim enough.
An very high word count there. I guess it's ok when you do it? Part of the double standard?
Let me deal with the 'dim rubes', as you call them, first. Many very accomplished, famous and respected photographers have all commented on the principle of the artist always revealing himself in the photographs. In spite of your claim, I don't think they all view their audience as rubes.
Next let me say that in fact I did share my meaning of seeing something of the artist in the art. I said it right here: "That's where you see the photographer behind the photograph. To my eyes, he is sharing the joke with the artist, and he wants me to share it with them both. " I don't find that hard to understand, do you?
Three things need to be clear in this discussion - art, artist, and the meaning of revealing something of the artist. If there is no art, and no artist, then the discussion is moot. I assumed an artist and a work of art in my comments. That means I assumed that the artist had a purpose to express an idea, or make some form of statement. It might be anything from propaganda to religious zeal to humor. What matters is the attempt to use a medium as a means to communicate. If someone tells a joke, they are revealing their sense of humor. If someone tells a story about compassion, they are revealing their sense of compassion. If someone writes a love poem, they are revealing their longing for another. The purpose of art is to communicate, and what is communicated is a position, feeling, thought, or story of the communicator - - the artist.
Artist-->desire to say something---->artwork---->message received and interpreted by viewer. If we assume all artists want to be successful, it means they'd love the viewer to "get" something of the message they "sent." Example: when I laugh at the fellow's joke, I am saying, "You have revealed yourself to be a funny fellow." When I cry over the compassionate story written by the artist, I am saying, "You have revealed your interest in compassion." And so on. Is photography an art? Yes. Is it created by artists? Yes. Do they want to communicate something? Yes. If I see something of what the photographer was trying to communicate, have they revealed something of themselves? Yes. Is it mandatory for the viewer to get the right message? Well, no it isn't.
The other day, your mentor Slobodan, asked this revealing question (paraphrase): "Ok, if you can see the artist, tell me what books I have read." Now that summarizes for me the void of understanding about art, artists, and communication. Talk about missing the point!
My take is you also disdain art, artists and really anything connected, as some kind of con job on the 'dim rubes', as you call them. You love craft, you appreciate long hours spend on photoshop, or other decorations, and from what I can see, you never see anything in photography beyond the most surface level of the image. That's my assessment of why you constantly ask questions like this in the way you do. You don't trust the idea that art exists, and might be visible here, and not visible there. You reject the notion that one can judge the difference between a crafted piece and a vision of art. I am not surprised - there is very little talk here of art in photographs. There is plentiful talk of craft. Craft can easily be rationalized - - "I worked 46 hours on this piece!" Ahhh, it is worthy of admiration. OTOH, a magnificent piece of art created by two brilliant slashes of a brush, or some instantaneously grabbed photograph is something you can't trust.