I would rather talk about the images. The art. The feelings.
I would think you can get all of that from most museums they all have lectures from time to time.You might also take some workshops designed for retouching and post processing your images they are geared for Feelings.
That, talking about the images and the feelings, is a pursuit that ultimately ends in stalemate: our feelings belong to us and we have no intention of letting anybody else steal them, and substitute their own in our heads and hearts. I've been aware of that all my life, which has made it both easy and difficult at the same time.
You will, if interested in something to any degree or depth, derive more joy from learning about the
people whose oeuvre you may enjoy, than expecting them to give you definitive facts and figures about things they themselves only manage to achieve through instinct and talent. Can you describe why you love somebody, something or even why you get an emotional high from one photograph by snapper X but not from some others of the same provenance? I can no more account for the feeling behind one snap I have made, the thing that caused me to go click! than can anyone else. And on top of that, the more often you do it, the more automatically you find your subjects and the less likely you are to question why this yes, but that no: you just recognise it as this is another one I want to shoot. Expecting any third party, via group photo therapy, realistically to inform you of the snapper's thought process at the time of making the image is patently absurd.
If there's a downside to that automatic mental instruction it's that you can end up doing much the same shot for the rest of your life without really being entirely aware of the fact, though it's sometimes close to the surface of your consciousness. Maybe that's part of the explanation to the unprocessed rolls of Winogrand as well as of Maier; it may not have been entirely a matter of finance but also of the absolute knowledge of what those unprocessed clicks would provide: the motivation was eventually fulfilled by the act of the click, with nothing further required from that particular moment of observation than the perfunctory act of pressing a button to confirm the impression already digested via the eye. Winogrand may well have believed himself when he apparently told the world that he photographed things just to see how they would look photographed, a belief that in time made that only too obvious to him even before he raised his camera. What could that knowledge leave worth doing on top of the seeing?
