[ChrisA]

Without a title, you have to expect that people will see the picture in terms that are fairly conventional, and it's not conventional to have the photographer and camera in shot. It's also not conventional to have what looks like something extraneous such as the ladder - it's not quite in focus, and it's not all there. So it appears as a distraction, hence people's comments.

With the title, the presence of the photographer, camera and ladder all make perfect sense, so the criteria by which the picture is assessed have to change.

Now of course, the distractions are different. The out-of-focus light unit, reflected in the mirror, and the vertical pole behind the step-ladder are now the distractions, as are the numerous curlicues surrounding the mirror.

The ladder, being key to the message, is out-of-focus, and therefore weak as a subject. The photographer and camera are similarly weak because of their small size relative to everything else.

The trick with composition, not that I've mastered it, is to ensure that the thing you want to really draw attention to is paramount, with enough other detail to maintain interest and draw you to the subject - but not so much that it takes over, or confuses the message you're attempting to communicate.

With this in mind, perhaps you can see that although the ideas you've expressed in the title are strong, the implementation here dilutes their effect, so that the overall effect is weak - the picture is neither one thing (conventional composition, easily understood without title) nor the other (the play on words you've picked with 'paint and shoot').

I think the idea is well worth exploring with an alternate, stronger composition that makes its point without the distractions. A picture of someone photographing a painter at work for example, might do that. Or a picture of someone painting an archer.