Nice. You've picked up my reference to my son's organizational limitations and applied it to my photography.
When I take a picture I don't tend to think where it will fit in with all the other pictures I make nor am I concerned about it having deeper meaning--the thing itself is enough. But later on I do sort things out and I'll tell you why. Actually I don't have a clue. When I post pictures on my site I can either have one big pile of pictures that or a few piles of like minded pictures. No heavy lifting. I was thinking about labels for these begining with the word ediface. Buildings and things of that sort are what I had in mind. Shortly after I added artiface to include those pictures of things that suggested fantasy or the artificial world. Now that I had two rhyming words I needed a third to account for pictures with words, signs and the ways we communicate directly. After consulting a rhyming dictionary I came up with the word notice–as in posting a notice. Words that share a sound are used to make you think that I was clever enough to have these thoughts from the beginning.
So let's discuss why we organize.
Categorization allows us to understand smaller ideas. For the past couple of years I've shot almost exclusively with the Holga. Perviously I shot extensively with 35mm cameras and a macro lens. In other times I shot with cheap panorama cameras and, as well, I've shot with other 120 film cameras. When you consider the results as a whole it's easy to figure out what goes together in groups. And when you deal with just one of the groups my mind wants to further sort these into categories. Pattern recognition helps sort through competing impluses.
We struggle to explain what what we see. Photographers observe what other photographers do and we see that serious work tends to get high-minded analysis that seems to suggest events outside of the frame. Sometimes this is expressed as social criticism, psychoanalysis or revisiting some historical period of the medium with new eyes. It gets to the point where you begin wondering if any value exists without the aid of art critics. I'm a fan of Garry Winogrand's pictures, but I have no concern for what others think they mean, nor do I believe did he. Winogrand famously said that he took pictures "to see how things would look as photographs". It was a model of plain spoken. The pictures did the speaking and still we struggle to explain.
Words are the tool we use to clarify. Lawyers and legislators need a language that hopes to eliminate uncertainty. In doing so their language needs to be limiting. Words are how we deal with the discomfort of confusion. Because photographs serve different purposes we tend to associate them with their most familiar uses, such as in delivering the news or factual reference. Often captions are needed to further narrow the understanding. Forms of photography that want to present vision without justification has to deal with that tendency.
Author Tom Wolfe writing in The Painted Word; The Bauhaus to Our House claimed that a handful of powerful art critics created careers by concocting theories for the painters they favored. He went on to predict that one day their theories would become the art and the painters would merely serve as illustrators to those ideas.