to texture or not to texture? that is the question

ok, so i have an itsy bitsy tiny aversion to crafty-like attributes appied to photography. i'll admit that sometimes they can be fun (i emphasize the word "fun"), but in most cases, for me anyway, i find it can cheapen the look. it's like a cheap thrill. it's like a trendy logo. if it's a great logo, or design, then it can stand the test of time. that said, if the crafty-like application is the only merit the image has, then go for it. but my general thought is that photography, for photography sake, should stand on it's own.

so what made me want to explore this? the designer in me.

i guess that might be why my images seem so, well, graphic. not pretty, not soothing, not ansel adams-ish. they are bold, most often, simple, vibrant... things that i like graphically impact my images. and you know me, love the cheap thrills. that said, i went ahead and gave it a try.

so you can see the untextured version in my last post... and then there's this.

now, i know which i prefer. i do have to admit that i like the depth that adding texture can impart... but enough about me.

i'd like your opinion. do you have one?