I went through every last post on the thread before I posted. From what I've been reading, I think I can summarize it like this:
Originally Posted by jglass
1. David runs a gallery.
2. People come to David.
3. David tells them no.
4. David comes here to bemoan his fate.
I haven't read too much sympathy for David. There has been some, but not much.
Thing about "art history" is that we are post-Dada. Since most of it has come down to pretentious BS, I can really understand why people don't bother reading about every last photographer out there. When there is an admonishment to stand upon the shoulders of giants, how many giants are lauded? I have seen many people here castigate Adams and others. Why? So everyone gets reduced to the stature of a pygmy. Now, where are the giants whose shoulders will give us new sights?
Non-photographers might have heard of Ansel Adams, and they certainly haven't heard of anybody else. If a person fits the "I have an expensive camera and therefore I'm a photographer" category, of course they will go, photograph babies and brown dogs, and then go to a gallery and expect to be lauded.
Hmmm, come to think of it...
Hey, David, what's your take on William Wegmam and Anne Geddes?