Quote Originally Posted by Will S
I wasn't meaning to imply that this idea was Newhall's view, just that in looking at the history of photography there always seem to be groups of people determined to define what photography is and willing to make distinctions which, to some of us, may seem rather silly or pendantic. Like, for instance, manipulating the negative means that it isn't "photographic art".

I'm trying to figure out why such distinctions continue to be made even today though they have never seemingly held up over time....

Thanks for all of the replies everyone!

Will
You are absolutely correct. I cannot figure out why people try and pigeon hole photography into the very narrow confines of a single exposure / single image paradigm. Total focus front-to-back, f/64, etc.

Beaumont was genuinely thrilled by the broad spectrum of what constitutes "photography." That was one of the joys of going to his lectures. He was as equally excited about the earliest work as the latest work.

He communicated the idea that there were no boundaries; only undiscovered "new" photography. He made you re-think YOUR preconceptions of what made a "good" photograph; and made you think what it could be.