Following up on an older post and some of the reactions it generated (I found this here): The main problem with many of these comments is not that people like macro photos of flowers or HDR photography.
It is many people’s focus on the choices of photos by the photographers quoted in the post. But the whole discussion is not about which photo is a great photo (because that discussion would be pointless), but, instead, what it is that makes whatever photo one decides to choose a great photo (even though, in the end, that’s also a pointless question - albeit one that is often being asked). So if you want to comment on what these 20+ photographers had to say, you’re missing the point if you say someone’s choice of a great photo is not a good photo. To be fair, it also needs to be said that you’re missing the point when you think that macro photos of flowers or HDR photography can’t possibly result in great photography.
I know there is a lot of mutual animosity between dedicated photo amateurs and what we might want to call the fine-art photography crowd. I really find this most unfortunate, because - ultimately - what we’re all after is to create images that touch us on a very basic level. And that’s it, not more and certainly not less.
Apparently, as Alec told me, a similar conflict in painting exists (see this page). And isn’t this actually just the age-old conflict between high-brow and low-brow art (with the terms coined by the former group, so that even the most commonly used terms are biased)? Just think about music, where most people either like The Fall or Dmitri Shostakovich’s string quartets, but not possibly both.