You misunderstand me. I think a great deal about photography, including how to improve and develop my own work. What I try to avoid is approaching a consideration of photography (and art generally) with an inflexible set of preconceived notions.
Originally Posted by batwister
Have a read back through your last post. Pretty strident stuff, in places. I see in another thread that you are 24. With respect, you still have a bit of living ahead of you and, if you allow it to happen, you may find that some of your present intellectual convictions seem less obvious a bit further down the track. But I am certainly not trying to stifle you.
I won't respond to all your rhetorical questions. But I will just point out a couple of things...
You give the term 'emotional response' a very narrow meaning. There is a wide stretch of emotional landscape between cold objectivity and gushing sentimentality.
Your post seems to assume that the only reason anyone makes or shows prints is to appeal to buyers. That is plainly mistaken. In my experience, much can often be gained by looking at a photograph in the form that its maker wants you to see it. You might recognise a great image in a decent reproduction. But then again you might not. Go and sit in the Rothko Room at the Tate Modern, if you haven't already done so. There is simply no comparison between a coffee table book showing Rothko's paintings, and the real thing in full scale and true colour. The same can also be true of photographs.
By all means praise an image if it amazes you in the comfort of your living room. But you will sometimes miss out on some interesting and subtle stuff, and perhaps do some photographer an injustice, if you choose to deride or ignore work that doesn't immediately leap out at you in your armchair.