Dismuke, that is my normal attire when taking photographs of buildings! Are you saying that I should wear a suit and tie when I'm doing this photography? 
No, of course not. When I took those photos, I was wearing old denim jeans and an old shirt and I didn't bother to shave on Saturday morning. I spent most of the day doing work around the house - so I certainly did not present the best appearance. I didn't exactly look like a park bum - but I wouldn't have felt comfortable going anywhere even semi-nice. But the point is that I didn't include myself in any of the photos.
I am not knocking casual dress - only suggesting that there are certain occasions where it is not appropriate. For example, I would suggest that it is not appropriate attire for going to an opera, symphony or ballet performance at Bass Hall. I don't especially think it is necessary for a person to dress up in a suit and tie for such a performance either. But one should at least try to look nice and well groomed.
As far as the photos are concerned, it really depends on what the subject matter of the photo is. If the point of the photo is to capture images of someone who happens to be dressed in a tee shirt and shorts - well, a grand, ornate early 20th century doorway can make one heck of a backdrop. But if the doorway itself is one's focus, well, to me, someone wearing commonplace, casual clothing undercuts what makes the doorway unique and worthy of photographing - the fact that it is NOT commonplace plus the level of detail, the concern for quality and the sense of style and grandeur that was a hallmark of the era.
For the same reason, I generally prefer to exclude modern automobiles when taking photos of vintage buildings. Unfortunately, that is not always possible as a practical matter.
From time to time, when I am taking nightlife shots of Sundance, I prefer lots of people.
Sure - because the subject matter calls for lots of people.
When it comes to "creative" photography (as opposed to snapshots or using photos to merely document how something looks) selectivity is highly important. And, of course, there is no reason why a person cannot attempt a certain amount of creativity when it comes to snapshots or documentation.
It is selectivity that gives creative photography common ground with art. Photography is not art due to the fact that art is a
re-creation of reality while photography merely documents it. Selectivity is absolutely crucial to art. What an artist chooses to include - and what he chooses to not include - when he goes about making his particular unique re-creation of reality has a powerful impact on the work's meaning. By a similar use of selectivity, a good photographer can produce photographs capable of conveying an emotional/philosophical statement as powerful as that of a work of art. Indeed, leaving issues of technical competence aside, the difference between a random snapshot and a great photograph is the use of selectivity. I don't pretend to be a great photographer - but I do attempt to use selectivity whenever appropriate and possible.
Of course, what one chooses to include and not include is going to vary from one photographer to another based on each photographer's aesthetic value judgments. It is possible for any technically competent person to click the shutter at just the right moment and end up with a great photograph. But a good photographer knows how to find and set such moments up so that they are more than just a random accident.
