No, I don't believe photographs can have "messages" without, for example, a headline to give them context. However, there is a semiotics of photography which we all draw upon. (And there is a big difference between the two.)(posted 8618 days ago)Analyzed as an editorial shot, this offers several obvious, almost cliched, elements: a young, moderately attractive woman (attractive enough to desire/identify with without obviously being a model and therefore artificial), a serious expression, and a partial masking of identity: the perfect combination to accompany a serious article on a senstive subject.
Analyzed as a portrait (without the added context of an accompanying article) the semiotic field becomes much larger and hence more problematic. Now we start to question why each of those elements is there and handled in that particular manner, and now we have multiple, often conflicting interpretations (messages), including the one that there is no message at all, only bad photography.
Analyzed as fashion (with the necessary adjunct of only a brand name - perhaps a Tommy Girl logo), the semiotic field diminishes again. We know the picture has been crafted with a great attention to detail and is directed at us explicitly. Her inscrutability is purposeful, as is her mundane attractiveness. Ironically, fashion photography, as all good advertising, is primarily about attitude and not product. How better to declare our individuality than to wear the logo that we identify with this girl's problematic attitude? (Regardless of the fact that thousands of others are doing exactly the same thing.)