Wow, some great input here, it shows where I have made some (according to the thread) major errors in my photographic decision making. .
Not at all. In fact I sometimes feel embarrassed when the workingman chimes in. You've been in the trenches, bringing home the bacon. I'm a product of the sixties. Self expression etc. etc. you know, hippies, left over beats. What we've got here is purely generational. The 80's finally, after many many years of art talk by leading historical figures in photography, and of course some inroads, began to take photographs seriously as an art form. Most likely this was due to the likes of Getty out in California picking up collections and people got word of it. Prices started up. Now they're insane. Anyway, long story short, this art bug has really hit. People are taking masters degrees and discussing whether a pile of dust is significant. Some of it is nonsense, some of it is gold. Take for instance Ansel Adams. He had to be usurped by people you might think are demeaning his grand style, but Robert Adams took a look at Denver's sprawl in the 70's and thought the real west was not so grand. This is an art movement of significance. There are alot of them today, and the really interesting thing for you might be how in photography, unlike most arts before it, the line between art and commerce is often non-existent. Everything, even craft and quality are all in question today. And they are all seen as fair game material. Don't let the notion of art, or artist, who is or what is, trip you up. I only bother with it because it's my idea of the bacon even though I don't make a dime from it. Figure that one out.
