Shawn and Jeremy, your conclusions have merit.
In discussing Brett, I have always considered our friendship first, and his stature as a photographer as a secondary component of that relationship. This most likely is the result of having known Brett from about the time of my eighth birthday.
However, without this early introduction to his passion for photography, I would most likely not have dedicated my life to photography. For this I am fortunate, and thank Brett.
When I speak and write about Brett, it is from the years of friendship and observation. There was never anything analytical about Brett's approach to his photography. Talk of photography bored him, and he had little use for those who would speak on the subject. The few workshops he lent his name to were devoid of detailed technical teaching or in depth critique, but were more an exercise of osmosis. He was in all honesty, more interested in his own work, the work ahead, and had little patience with the confines of teaching.
He was not a good candidate anyway, because he believed an artist was born with a special vision, something that could not be taught; his quote, "Artisits are born and they are not hatched out of art schools or photographic schools or schools for painting or sculpting", pretty much summed up his view of teaching.
It is with this impression of Brett that I sometimes find myself commenting on the analysis of his work. Such analysis is to be expected, and is in the tradition of artistic endeavors. Where I might disagree, is when an analysis attempts to interpret the motivations of the artist.