I greatly admire the resolve expressed in Mr. Volquarz's post. I also think he's helping provide value. Those loud voices such as his will help keep diversity and keep eyes open. There are plenty of lay persons (perhaps the majority of all art buyers) to whom the distinction between photography and digital media is not clear; digital media were slowly set out to be considered 'the same thing as before, just more modern' rather than a fundamentally different medium. There is always the risk of newer media pushing the older completely out and that needs to be fought against. New media should add diversity and choices to the marketplace, not remove diversity and choice by crowding out the old technologies completely.

I disagree with the apparently conceptual framework behind his statement "I believe that digital imaging has not yet produced any unique master pieces." To me, that's an irrelevant judgment; I feel that the important part is that even if there were unique digital imaging masterpieces, they would by definition be masterpieces of digital imaging, and not necessarily masterpieces of (traditional) photography. To make the distinction between media is necessary and valuable; judgments about the relative merits of different media are worthless and hollow, although everyone is entitled to his opinion and I certainly have my own about digital media.