Loss of fine art photography tradition

[batwister]

I never said anything, from an artistic perspective, shouldn't be done.
But if you are going to cover your photograph in paint, call it what it is, a painting (or more precisely, paint by numbers), but don't call it a photograph.
Otherwise, if I were to glue one of my photographs to the front of a painting, why would I not be able to call myself a painter?

How long have you been in that bunker?

What you're describing is mixed media art, with some photographic element. This has been happening since the 60s at least. You're moving into a more general "all art is crap nowadays" topic.

For the exact same reason that a violinist should not try to make his instrument sound like a tuba.

You've gone mad. I think this is a good sonic arts idea.

I don't think YOU are paying attention.

I'm doing the best I can.

 

[davidkachel]

How are they separate? How are medium and imagery not tied together? Your original post was about your frustration that young photographers aren't aware of people that influenced the medium 70-100 years ago. I don't know what they have been showing you, and it may be Flickr type stuff, but maybe not. Are you aware of current trends in photography? Can you humor us and name three very influential photographers working within the past 10 years?

I really don't believe you are confused, but OK.

1. How you got there, platinum, silver, digital, does not matter. The final image is all that matters. I DID NOT say, anything goes under all circumstances.

2. You have a responsibility to your buyers not to use materials you know to be garbage. Knowingly selling trash is called swindling.


Where did I say "70-100 years ago"? You keep trying to put words in my mouth.

As for photographers working in the last ten years... I see new work constantly. I will not play your silly game.

Current trends in photography, now or at any time, cannot make the history of photography irrelevant.

 

[davidkachel]

What you're describing is mixed media art, with some photographic element. This has been happening since the 60s at least. You're moving into a more general "all art is crap nowadays" topic.

Nothing wrong with mixed media. Just don't call it photography. It doesn't matter how long it has been happening. A mistake made for centuries is still a mistake.

(Personally, I think mixed media is to art what the one man band is to music, but to each his own.)

 

[removed account4]

I am aware of those claims. I also remember all the other times they turned out not to be true, too.
I trust Kodak not at all. Their outrageous history in this area is available for everyone to read.
Wilhelm, I have a lot of confidence in. BUT, his tests are limited. They do not take everything into consideration. They can't.

RC papers are no good. Don't use them for serious work. They are also visually inferior, but most people can't see it.

i find it very odd you poo-poo what wilhelm says for rc prints, but you hold in high regard what he says for ink prints.
all sorts of claims were made just a few years ago about archival ink/pigment sets, and they were all wrong. i have no confidence in what the institute has to say.
its just said to sell media, nothing else, and to appease an industry in its infancy since the traditional industry was nearly dismantled.

I never said anything, from an artistic perspective, shouldn't be done.
But if you are going to cover your photograph in paint, call it what it is, a painting (or more precisely, paint by numbers), but don't call it a photograph.
Otherwise, if I were to glue one of my photographs to the front of a painting, why would I not be able to call myself a painter?

i can call my photographs anything i want.
if i want to call them hand painted photographs,
or bleached and tinted cyanotypes or hybrid prints
i can do that. i can and also call them photographs ...

so if you weren't talking about a photograph not being a painting from an artistic perspective
what were you talking about ? there is a whole history of photography + drawing + painting + engraving being in bed with eachother
are you suggesting these types of photographs have no "history" in photography ?


a literalist is the last thing i would ever want to be ...

 

[davidkachel]

So if someone is already doing a thing, no one else should try to do that thing using other equipment/techniques? Is this because it's automatically assumed to be inferior, or because you'd be stepping on someone else's toes, or some other reason?

I have an image of a sunflower on my wall that I shot slightly OOF to emphasize color and form over detail. It looks like a painting, and I like it quite a bit. Should I not have produced that image unless I painted it (i.e., I should deprive myself of it because I can't paint)?

This is beginning to get tedious.

Do you REALLY think a violinist trying to make his violin sound like a tuba is going to produce important music?

Great paintings are made by painters, NOT photographers trying to make their photographs LOOK like paintings.

Great photographs result from photographers wringing the very best out of the photographic medium, not by trying to make the photographic medium imitate some other art form.

If you think otherwise, then you won't mind your brain surgeon using a spoon instead of a scalpel.

I seriously doubt you shot that sunflower out of focus on purpose.

 

[jglass]

Wow. This sure degenerated. I skipped from page 1 to page 11 and, Jesus, did this ever go downhill. These are real and significant issues. Why not discuss them maturely, without this silly pissing match b.s.?

Anyway, appropos of the original topic, here is a discussion between a couple of noted photography critics/curators about some of these issues, particularly the issue of what "matters" in a photograph. At one point in the discussion, Jorg Colberg says this:

JC:

That’s a very interesting point you’re making about photographers. I’ve long been baffled by so many photographers seemingly having no interest whatsoever to look into their own art form more deeply. How can this be? How can you not look at a lot of photographs, just like writers, let’s say, typically read a lot (to then spend most of their time being utterly devastated about the fact that so many other writers are so much better)? How is this possible? The often complete lack of knowledge of obvious references pains me! You’ve just got to know who and what came before you so you, too, can stand on the shoulders of giants!

I’ve often thought that this disconnect from the past is tied to the lack of imagination I see in so much photography: If you’re not curious enough about the world, you can still make plenty of photographs. Of course, you won’t bother to look at what came before you, and of course those photographs will then at best be one liners (that someone else might have done a whole lot better).

It’s a bit like trying to learn a language by learning parts of the grammar and some words, but never looking at how that all can be used before having a go at it. Sadly, our culture, at least out photographic culture, truly buys into that, in all kinds of ways. For example, there is that cult of the young photographer. I don’t mean to say that young photographers cannot produce wonderful photography. But just like in any art form, being able to say something is contingent on having lived a life, experienced things. None of that stuff comes easy!

Add to that the obsession that everything has been new, and you’re truly in trouble. I have had students who told me they didn’t want to photograph something any longer, because someone else had already done it. How can that be? Why are there so many people writing about love – now that has been done before as well, hasn’t it? The moment you’re in photoland, the absurd idea that something is done when someone else has done it before is widely accepted.

_______

Back to my view: this discussion seems to have degenerated into an argument over technique, as things so often do on these forums. I don't give a damn about your technique; show me something new in your photographs, something you are exploring, something that matters like hell to you and you can show it any way you damn well please, including paint on photo!

What often pains me is to see so much Ansel Adams-y pretty b&w landscape work here as if repeatedly making the same photograph can deliver interest to the viewer. There is a difference between pretty and beautiful, between truth and prettiness. That difference is found in art. Art does not care what your method is if it coalesces with your message and your matter.

 

[batwister]

Wow. This sure degenerated. I skipped from page 1 to page 11 and, Jesus, did this ever go downhill. These are real and significant issues. Why not discuss them maturely, without this silly pissing match b.s.?

Anyway, appropos of the original topic, here is a discussion between a couple of noted photography critics/curators about some of these issues, particularly the issue of what "matters" in a photograph. At one point in the discussion, Jorg Colberg says this:

JC:

That’s a very interesting point you’re making about photographers. I’ve long been baffled by so many photographers seemingly having no interest whatsoever to look into their own art form more deeply. How can this be? How can you not look at a lot of photographs, just like writers, let’s say, typically read a lot (to then spend most of their time being utterly devastated about the fact that so many other writers are so much better)? How is this possible? The often complete lack of knowledge of obvious references pains me! You’ve just got to know who and what came before you so you, too, can stand on the shoulders of giants!

I’ve often thought that this disconnect from the past is tied to the lack of imagination I see in so much photography: If you’re not curious enough about the world, you can still make plenty of photographs. Of course, you won’t bother to look at what came before you, and of course those photographs will then at best be one liners (that someone else might have done a whole lot better).

It’s a bit like trying to learn a language by learning parts of the grammar and some words, but never looking at how that all can be used before having a go at it. Sadly, our culture, at least out photographic culture, truly buys into that, in all kinds of ways. For example, there is that cult of the young photographer. I don’t mean to say that young photographers cannot produce wonderful photography. But just like in any art form, being able to say something is contingent on having lived a life, experienced things. None of that stuff comes easy!

Add to that the obsession that everything has been new, and you’re truly in trouble. I have had students who told me they didn’t want to photograph something any longer, because someone else had already done it. How can that be? Why are there so many people writing about love – now that has been done before as well, hasn’t it? The moment you’re in photoland, the absurd idea that something is done when someone else has done it before is widely accepted.

_______

Back to my view: this discussion seems to have degenerated into an argument over technique, as things so often do on these forums. I don't give a damn about your technique; show me something new in your photographs, something you are exploring, something that matters like hell to you and you can show it any way you damn well please, including paint on photo!

What often pains me is to see so much Ansel Adams-y pretty b&w landscape work here as if repeatedly making the same photograph can deliver interest to the viewer. There is a difference between pretty and beautiful, between truth and prettiness. That difference is found in art. Art does not care what your method is if it coalesces with your message and your matter.

As someone else mentioned earlier, which was probably the most rational post in the thread; that everyone has a camera now doesn't make them a student of photography, and shouldn't have to.
Jorg Colberg, the astrophysicist, says a lot of things, but it seems to be the point he's missing in the above extract. I've read his blog quite a bit, as much as it infuriates me at times. Cameras are increasingly accessible, education isn't (even though information is) - which is hard to comprehend for academic photography commentators.

And the Ansel Adams lineage is what the OP is interested in, so tread carefully on that hallowed ground. His grasping to the past and the lightning speed everyone else is moving forward is the reason for his disquiet. That's the beginning and end of this thread.

 

[moose10101]

I seriously doubt you shot that sunflower out of focus on purpose.

I seriously did, with an old manual-focusing Nikon Micro-Nikkor on a Canon DSLR, at varying degrees of OOF, because I wasn't sure of the effect due to the small LCD display. If you'd rather believe that I accidentally mis-focused an MF lens a half dozen times and got lucky, knock yourself out.

If you think otherwise, then you won't mind your brain surgeon using a spoon instead of a scalpel.

Funny you should mention brain surgeons. If I ever had to pick one, his knowledge of mid-20th century techniques and medical history wouldn't be a factor in the selection process.

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

A few weeks ago, a member started a thread to talk about how someone had found a way to use a common device, already carried by millions of people, as an accurate incident light meter. I thought it was wonderful: carry one device instead of two, and take the money you would have used on a separate meter and spend it on a lens, or film, or to help pay the mortgage. Alas, the device in question was "digital", and was therefore anathema to any "real" photographer. The idea was ridiculed; apparently you're not a "real" photographer unless you carry a "real" light meter. I'm still trying to understand why a device that does exactly what a light meter does, with the same level of accuracy and ease of use, isn't a "real" light meter. Apparently there's some kind of "Turing test" for equipment that I'm not aware of. Maybe the digital-haters run in packs, and I've been unlucky enough to cross their path more often, but the pack seems to be growing in size.

That questioner was me. And that questioning had nothing to do with "digital" anything. Or pack animal behavior. Or what it takes to be a "real" photographer. Or even, at its root, photography at all.

It had to do with making a conscious decision to choose screwdrivers with which to pound nails when excellent hammers are readily available.

Why would someone do that? Just because they can?

If you were faced with major surgery would you prefer the surgeon use a chain saw or a scalpel? They can both cut, you know.

Sorry you missed the fundamental point...



Ken

(Apologies to David for this OT detour.)

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

I really don't believe you are confused, but OK.

1. How you got there, platinum, silver, digital, does not matter. The final image is all that matters. I DID NOT say, anything goes under all circumstances.

2. You have a responsibility to your buyers not to use materials you know to be garbage. Knowingly selling trash is called swindling.


Where did I say "70-100 years ago"? You keep trying to put words in my mouth.

As for photographers working in the last ten years... I see new work constantly. I will not play your silly game.

Current trends in photography, now or at any time, cannot make the history of photography irrelevant.

When you start trotting out Adams and Weston as examples of "fine art" photography, you're dating your standard to the first half of the 20th century, really the first quarter. They're about as artistically relevant (note I did not say MEANINGFUL - very different animal...) as the Pictorialists or the first wave photographers like Daguerre, Fox-Talbot, Morse, and Bayard are to modern photography as a movement. They may be relevant AND meaningful to a few individual artists working today, but they're outside the mainstream (and there's nothing wrong with that, but do acknowledge that they're outsiders). Today's art in general and photography in particular is all about the "conceptual", about mixed-media, and very much a reaction to the advent of the digital age. That can take the form of embracing the digital medium and using its strengths, weaknesses and characteristics to produce images that respond to and speak about the changes in society as a whole wrought by the digital age, or they can be constituted as a reaction against and a critique of that same phenomenon.

Wishing for a return to "archival" materials and f-64 aesthetics is trying to put the genie back in the bottle. The same issue has arisen in other media, and been dealt with by the art world, not always with success. David Hockney, when he was a young painter still struggling to make ends meet, did some large canvasses with house-paint because it was cheap. Some of them have faded and even flaked off the canvas because housepaint is not made to be durable the same way fine art oil paints are. If I recall correctly, Hockney was forced to reimburse a museum for one of his lost paintings to the tune of several million pounds (although he could afford to do it now, given what his work sells for today). But the paintings still hang in major museums. Robert Rauschenberg went out and made his pieces out of found objects. There's nothing per-se archival about rusty soda cans, broken doll heads and tattered flag fragments - if anything, their non-archival quality and therefore impermanence is a designed-in quality of the piece. The work is designed to change over time.

I think part of the problem you're experiencing is that young photographers/artists, if they have these notions in their head about their work (specifically related to permanence vs. impermanence, virtual vs. real, tangible vs. intangible, 'craftsmanship' vs. mass-production, quality vs. kitsch), either haven't or can't articulate them to you, and so you reject their work as being slip-shod. And in their ignorance, you may be correct in assuming that they're just slapping some crap together and don't know how to present it or why they're presenting it that way, and it is in fact 'bad' art. But as a gallerist who should know better than the artist, it's your job to see the kernel of genius hidden inside the popcorn fluff, nurture and cultivate that, and articulate to the buying audience those ideas the artist can't articulate (one reason why artists paint/photograph/draw/sculpt is that they can't articulate ideas well in words - otherwise they'd be writers).

 

[blansky]

I think this entire thread falls under the umbrella of being "well rounded" in your chosen hobby/profession. It isn't a prerequisite to learn the basics and learn from previous fellow travelers and masters to be competent, but it's probably helpful and knowing where you came from is usually some sort of a leg up.

Much like modern Navy officers learning how to sail tall ships as a part of their training. Certainly not necessary but it certainly rounds out their knowledge as well as their respect for their profession.

I agree with a previous poster that with the glut of "photographers" today, it's perhaps difficult to see the wheat through the chaff, but I'd bet that most "serious" photographers have a desire to learn where their craft evolved from.

Also as someone who moved to digital after 30 some years as analog, I don't find analog/digital to be two separate disciplines at all but merely an evolution of technology and a branching off of the main tree, which is using a camera to record or capture a subject and convert it to a visual medium.

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Great photographs result from photographers wringing the very best out of the photographic medium, not by trying to make the photographic medium imitate some other art form.
.

So you think that there were no great photographs made during the Pictorialist period? Get your hands on TruthBeauty - Pictorialism and the Photograph as Fine Art if you want to see a myriad of examples of the best of the genre. I could look for hours and hours on end at Steichen's Flatiron Building print and never get bored. But I can take in everything there is to see in Clearing Winter Storm in a single sitting. That's part of the message of the images though - one was designed to pull the viewer in - the other was designed to reach out to the viewer and smack them upside the head with a message. Both are highly successful at their goal, and as such they are acknowledged as masterpieces. Those pictorialist photos were every bit as much photographs as an Adams or Weston or Strand or even an Aaron Siskind. But they have their own aesthetic informed by painting, for a reason. I'll give you the argument that making a violin sound like a tuba for the sake of making a violin sound like a tuba will probably not yield the next Beethoven's 5th. But if you have a purpose for doing it, and can communicate that purpose, then maybe it will.

 

[jglass]

Mr. TheFlyingCamera, I agree with your comments. On Pictorialism, here is a video of a presentation by AD Coleman on the resurrection of pictorialist approaches to photography and the recent demise of the straight photograph. Very interesting that this new work is deeply rooted in history. To a great degree, this new work could not have been done without and is deeply informed by knowledge of what went before it. That knowledge led to rejection, in many ways, of Adams/Weston and their aesthetic, but ignorance of them is not an option, in my opinion.

 

[ntenny]

1. Da Vinci did not know his materials were impermanent. This knowledge was unavailable during that time. Even if he did know, so what? That doesn't make it OK to knowingly use garbage materials today.

I find this to be a weirdly prescriptive statement. I'm aware of at least one serious photographer in this thread who intentionally makes one-shot prints with a lifetime measured in hours; I wouldn't want to speak for them as to their motivations, but what I get from that work as a viewer is a combination of "the transitory is interesting" and "it's kinda cool that this technique works", with a side of "don't take art too seriously". You seem to be saying, not just that you don't like such a way of working, but that it's somehow *wrong* to do it that way...?

My comment earlier about "fine art" as a marketing category was only a little cynical; I think it's basically a circular category, in that "fine art" is whatever the "fine art" people say it is, and who those people are is defined by who those people accept as one of them. To my mind that's a sort of incestuous, sclerotic artistic hothouse (mix those metaphors!), and it's just the sort of thing that people build artistic movements *against*. So I tend to find my sympathies lying with the brash, self-important kid who doesn't care to learn about a canon of past masters but would rather be building their own aesthetic---and, yes, making a lot of the same old mistakes again. Some of those "mistakes" may turn out to have more promise in them than the canon would like to admit.

By the way, I hope we're not arguing at knifepoint here or anything. I think this is actually an interesting discussion, and I'm really disappointed to see branches of it devolving into the same old film-vs-digital crap (which you were at pains to avoid invoking, I realize, but it seems to show up habitually on APUG anyway).

-NT

 

[ntenny]

There's a bit of an unanswered question here: What is the *point* of fine art photography (whatever the term may encompass)? Consider your own answer before reading further.

I think the traditional answer is the gallery wall---a "fine art" photo in any other setting is kind of out of its habitat, and private displays thereof are sort of expected to conform to the gallery aesthetic. When a fine-art print REALLY makes the big time, it ends up in a museum. Hence the emphasis on archival materials: the intended audience is posterity, and as much of it as possible, with ideally no shift at all from the original state of the image.

But I'm not sure that model really resonates with as many people as it used to, especially young adults who are accustomed to the internet as a conduit of (largely undifferentiated) media. In that sense, maybe the aspirants you're seeing aren't "fine-art photographer wannabes" at all, but photographers who wannabe...what? Something different. It might be interesting to interrogate them about their ambitions, and see how much those ambitions really comport with the "fine art" model.

-NT

 

[cliveh]

If you really want an argument, I can refer you to one of my graduate students that very loudly states nobody should look at other photographs.

How stupid.

 

[PhotoJim]

I was recently at a museum in San Diego that had an exhibition of fine art black-and-white prints. Many were done with silver; many were done digitally.

I intentionally decided whether I liked the prints or not before I read the information card that discussed the image. In particular, I didn't want to know if the images were traditional or digital until I'd decided whether I thought they were good or not. Even though I now own a digital camera, I have a very strong pro-film bias.

Of the seven photos that I really enjoyed: four were silver prints from silver negatives; one was a palladium print from a silver negative; one was a digital print from a silver negative; and one was a fully digital image.

Frankly, I don't care how you do your capture - my capture is the only capture that really concerns me - but this validated, to me, that I prefer the character of film-based capture. The reasons for my preference might be interesting to learn, but I'll save that for another day. (I have theories, but really don't know for certain.)

 

[eddie]

Of the seven photos that I really enjoyed: four were silver prints from silver negatives; one was a palladium print from a silver negative; one was a digital print from a silver negative; and one was a fully digital image.

Interesting personal observation... And, it helps to point out why I think looking at excellent work (both technically and aesthetically) is important. While I have seen some superb digital BW prints (there are many taking the time to understand, study, use the proper tools, and master the technique), far more often I see digital BW prints which are lacking. When I've talked to the creators of the lacking work, it becomes quickly apparent that they've never seen well produced silver gelatin work (to say nothing of alternative processes). They have no framework to assess quality. They're creating work without a baseline standard- a superbly printed SG image.

 

[Brian C. Miller]

Wow. This sure degenerated. I skipped from page 1 to page 11 and, Jesus, did this ever go downhill. These are real and significant issues. Why not discuss them maturely, without this silly pissing match b.s.? ...

I went through every last post on the thread before I posted. From what I've been reading, I think I can summarize it like this:
1. David runs a gallery.
2. People come to David.
3. David tells them no.
4. David comes here to bemoan his fate.

I haven't read too much sympathy for David. There has been some, but not much.

Thing about "art history" is that we are post-Dada. Since most of it has come down to pretentious BS, I can really understand why people don't bother reading about every last photographer out there. When there is an admonishment to stand upon the shoulders of giants, how many giants are lauded? I have seen many people here castigate Adams and others. Why? So everyone gets reduced to the stature of a pygmy. Now, where are the giants whose shoulders will give us new sights?

Non-photographers might have heard of Ansel Adams, and they certainly haven't heard of anybody else. If a person fits the "I have an expensive camera and therefore I'm a photographer" category, of course they will go, photograph babies and brown dogs, and then go to a gallery and expect to be lauded.

Hmmm, come to think of it...

Hey, David, what's your take on William Wegmam and Anne Geddes?

 

[MattKing]

The very best way I know of helping people improve the technical quality of their prints is to give them an opportunity to actually see high quality work.

I don't think it is any different with artistic quality of photographs.

Photography is essentially a very unnatural two dimensional medium (mostly). While there are probably a few people out there who are born geniuses, the vast majority of talented people need to have some sort of reference before they can create something of high quality in photography.

So I will agree with the OP - a familiarity with some sort of body of photographic work is necessary in order to create something artistically valuable. An artist needs to say something with their work, and the language of expression depends on history.

Note however that I don't believe that a photograph need be artistically successful in order to have value - pretty pictures have value too.

 

[ROL]

When I talk about using archivally adequate materials or presentation appropriate to fine art photography... same thing. Even the most obvious basics appear to be missing.

I also have noticed that on discussion boards they talk at great length about using materials and methods that I, and most here, would consider anathema.

My concern is this: since new photographers have no need of seeking knowledge concerning analog materials and techniques from older photographers, they are therefore no longer immersed in an atmosphere conducive to acquiring knowledge of other aspects of photography from those same people. They do not learn the history, aesthetics, the various schools or even familiarize themselves with any of the work of the past. It is as if, for these new photographers, all the greats and what they had to teach us have simply vanished from the Earth.


I would like to hear the opinions of others on this. What have you seen?...

David, regrettably I have seen this very thing here on APUG over the last few months. I am attacked (frequently personally) for my "classical" technique views when I have offered them. It is the reason I rarely contribute here anymore. I presumed, now it seems with some evidence, that there was a new cadre of vocal contributors who don't share the same history as I, and simply aren't willing to tolerate old rules of commitment to once was a necessary state for the creation of fine art photographic prints.

 

[removed account4]

i think part of the problem is that there are purists
and people who want to not be so rigid with the "rules"
the purists insist they are right, and often times they are the only ones who are right
and the no-so purists say they want to play too,
but they are looked upon as being "hacks" or "wannabes"
they don't use a certain type of camera
or process the film in a certain magical concoction, or print
on a special paper, or tone with a special toner, or they don't use some
arcane process, or hold the same photographers in high regard &c ...
people fail to realize that its all photography. too many haters, too many snobs
not enough art ...

 

[markbarendt]

itoo many haters, too many snobs not enough art ...

Yep

 

[jglass]

I think the question of whether youngsters study art history enough or whether they study it more than their ancestors is ultimately a subjective one based on anecdotal evidence at best, for any one of us.

I feel the best approach to art is an openness to any vision, any process, any material, any subject matter that will give you what you're after. That openness sometimes looks like willful ignorance of history, but there's just so much time in a day and sometimes you spend it shooting crappy photos with your camera rather than read or look at art. As someone else said, the serious artist or student of art usually resorts to history at some point, when she has the time, especially when he runs out of material . . .

And I'm also getting a lot out of this discussion, at least about 80% of it.

The discussions here lean pretty heavily towards emphasizing process. Over content, form, art history, meaning. Which is to be expected at APUG, that's what it is.

I would love to find more discussion of aesthetic, art history, compositional, social engagement issues as they bear on photography, but have not found a website for that type of discussion , except occasionally here, on a few blogs (Conscientious is one) or in books. Any sites like that?

 

[TheFlyingCamera]

Thing about "art history" is that we are post-Dada. Since most of it has come down to pretentious BS, I can really understand why people don't bother reading about every last photographer out there. When there is an admonishment to stand upon the shoulders of giants, how many giants are lauded? I have seen many people here castigate Adams and others. Why? So everyone gets reduced to the stature of a pygmy. Now, where are the giants whose shoulders will give us new sights?

Non-photographers might have heard of Ansel Adams, and they certainly haven't heard of anybody else. If a person fits the "I have an expensive camera and therefore I'm a photographer" category, of course they will go, photograph babies and brown dogs, and then go to a gallery and expect to be lauded.

I can't speak for anyone else's motivations for critiquing the Adams fan base, but to me, it's not about tearing down a giant to a pygmy, but rather puncturing the shadow others have set him up to cast so that there is room for others to shine. The f64 school is NOT the only way to make a photograph. By all means learn the technique because it's good foundational technique - it gives you the baseline from which to make highly controlled photographs, and to deviate from that in a repeatable, predictable way. But it is tiresome to the nth degree to hear people shouting that if it doesn't look like St. Ansel shot and printed it between 1940 and 1970, then it isn't a valid photograph.