This whole concept of an image having "a message" is not one I grasp. I really would like to see examples of images that have a message vs. images that have no message.
To research this concept today, I picked up a book of pictures from Life magazine, which by agreement are some of the finest pictures ever taken, and I've reviewed the pictures just to try to wrap my head around this idea. One of the pictures had no more of a message than, "Here is a mother hippopotamus with her baby." Is that sufficient to say the picture had a message? Nothing more profound than that? I've taken lots of pictures like that (with no more of a profound message than, "Here is a bird/car/tree/flower."). At that point it seems to me that the message is so trivial as to not even be worth mentioning or even thinking about.
The pictures from Life that really did communicate a non-trivial message were obviously one in a million, taken at unusual events during unusual times. If those are the only valuable pictures, we might as well leave our cameras in the bag 99.99% of the time. True?
On the other hand, is it even possible to take a picture that doesn't have a message? Who is to say what the message is? Once again, I'd like to see some examples of pictures with someone's exposition of what the message is. That would help me understand this better, I think.