No, I don't think all of it would be understood as not all of it is understandable. Saying that however, I don't think anything is beyond the extrapolated interpretation of art historians. If you do want to be understood then I maintain that the written word, one's philosophy, needs to accompany the work. Wether it's in the form of a diary, prose, poetry or essay we need to write about what we are doing. We need to write about us, how we're feeling, what we think we're doing. If the image is the effect, we need to document the cause (or vice versa).
The thought of being discovered and 'understood' is not really about our work as much as it is about a yearning for the self to be understood. Understanding, like charity, begins at home. I often look back at my own work, as I'm sure we all do, and think 'What was I thinking? What was I trying to do here?' - and I look at all my little notebooks which are empty and I think 'Why aren't you writing?'
I'm not much interested in recording what exposure I used or what the light meter was thinking (I get the best out of Sunny 16 anyway) but I am interested in what I was feeling at the time and I really ought to be documenting that. I could certainly benefit from an historical guide to the self.
You need to document your journey. Start creating dots that can be joined up to form a tapestry, comprised of both text and image.