I believe it is near impossible to do so, especially so re: the discussion referenced in yesterday's entry, straight photography. It is pretty much a given that photographers toiling in the "straight" vernacular by and large make pictures in a straight-forward manner - pictures in which the photographer's hand is well hidden. They point their camera at the thing(s) they wish to denote and, in a sense, let "Kodak do the rest".
I have always operated on the assumption that the photographer pointed his camera at a thing(s) that he/she wanted me to "see". Whether he/she wanted me to see it for its own denoted values/properties, or, whether he/she presents it as a visual vehicle that may transport me to a thing(s) un-seen, - IMO, the best pictures function on both levels - I don't see how the observer can set subject aside.
Maybe in the hollowed halls of academia, where the fetish of 'concept' reigns, subject can be (and is) set aside but isn't that what leads to the making of pictures that are mostly self-referential academic crap?