Actually, the problem with an exegetic aesthetic and exotericism in general, is that is also functions exactly like photography, which is more explicit in the forthcoming respect: All acts of communication are still exercises of expulsion, isolation, and rejection.
In short, you never hear the full story. A picture may be worth 1000 words—but those are 1000 chosen words, to the exclusion of potentially 10,000, with all the double-meanings and intrinsic potential of a multiplication of meanings inherent in such an act.
Explicit verbalization mitigates this somewhat, but it’s potentially more exclusive: it narrows down its meaning to literal, textually-supported content, reducing from (basically) 3 layers of interpretation, to 2, the potentials of meaning (providing, of course, we imbue “meaning” with a quasi-Cartesian conception of the signified “thing” as being respresented by some other concoction of signifiers to express such a meaning). The third layer is the non-textual one, which is translated into grammatological signifiers, which then render meaning(s).
The (s) renders forth a fourth layer.
So you see, even when I’m “explicit”, the act is merely one of translation, and gets us no further in “really understanding” (anything [I] talk about).